1. Justifications for Copyright v Natural Rights Approach v
|
|  Yüklə 183 Kb.
|
| Copyright
1. Justifications for Copyright v 1.1. Natural Rights Approach v 1.2. Consequentialist Approach v 2. Public Domain v 2.1. What is in the Public Domain? v 2.2. What Does the Public Domain mean? v 3. Copyrightable Subject Matter vi 3.1. Idea/Expression Dichotomy vi Baker v. Selden (Supreme Court, 1879) p. 91 vi American Dental Association v. Delta (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 103 vi 3.2. Historical Theses and Historical Facts vi Hoehling v. Universal (Second Circuit, 1980) p. 98 vi 3.3. Idea/Expression in Fiction vi MGM v. Honda (CD Cal, 1995) p. 284 vi Titan Sports v. Turner Broadcasting (D Conn, 1997) p. 287 vi 3.4. Fixation vi Williams v. Artic (Third Circuit, 1982) p. 66 vi MAI v. Peak Computer (Ninth Circuit, 1993) p. 69 vi 3.5. Originality vi Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (Supreme Court, 1884) p. 76 vi Alfred Bell v. Catadalda Fine Arts (Second Circuit, 1951) p. 85 vi Bleistein v. Donaldson (Supreme Court, 1903) p. 79 vii Feist v. Rural (Supreme Court, 1991) p. 118 vii 4. Formalities vii 4.1. Virtues of Formalities vii 4.2. Ramifications of Abolishing Formalities vii 5. Derivative Works & Compilations vii 5.1. Derivative Works vii Batlin v. Snyder (Second Circuit, 1976) p. 109 vii Alva Studios v. Winninger (SDNY, 1959) p. 111 vii Pickett v. Prince (Seventh Circuit, 2000) p. 115 vii ERG v. Genesis (Ninth Circuit, 1997) p. 111 vii 5.2. Compilations viii Mason v. Montgomery (Fifth Circuit, 1992) p. 125 viii Feist v. Rural (Supreme Court, 1991) p. 118 viii Trebonik v. Grossman Music (ND Ohio, 1969) p. 123 viii Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card (Ninth Circuit, 1970) p. 124 viii 6.1. Facts and Databases viii BAPCO v. Donnelly (Eleventh Circuit, 1993) p. 295 viii CCC v. Maclean (Second Circuit, 1994) p. 299 viii CDN v. Kapes (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 303 viii Matthew Bender v. West (Second Circuit, 1998) p. 305 viii 6.2. Useful Articles viii Masquerade v. Unique (Third Circuit, 1990) p. 230 ix Mazer v. Stein (Supreme Court, 1954) p. 218 ix Kieselstein v. Accessories by Pearl (Second Circuit, 1980) p. 220 ix Carol Barnhart v. Economy Cover (Second Circuit, 1985) p. 223 ix Brandir v. Cascade (Second Circuit, 1987) p. 223 ix 6.3. Computer Programs ix Apple v. Franklin (Third Circuit, 1983) p. 243 ix Softel v. Dragon (Second Circuit, 1997) p. 256 ix Whelan v. Jaslow ix Computer Associates v. Altai (Second Circuit, 1992) ix 7. Elements of Infringment ix ABKCO Music v. Harrissongs (Second Circuit, 1983) p. 321 x Three Boys Music v. Bolton (Ninth Circuit, 2000) p. 319 x Selle v. Gibb (Seventh Circuit, 1984) p. 322 x Ty v. GMA (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 324 x 8. Exclusive Rights x 8.1. Reproduction Rights x Intellectual Reserve x Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539 x Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films (Sixth Circuit, 2004) Blackboard x 8.2. Distribution Rights x Hotaling v. Church of LDS (Fourth Circuit, 1997) p. 335 x Quality King v. L’anza (Supreme Court, 1998) p. 346 x 8.3. Derivative Works xi Mirage Editions v. ART (Ninth Circuit, 1988) p. 383 xi Lee v. ART (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 384 xi Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo (Ninth Circuit, 1992) p. 388 xi Micro Star v. FormGen (Ninth Circuit, 1998) p. 391 xi Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539 xi Castle Rock v. Carol (Second Circuit, 1998) p. 377 xi Steinberg v. Columbia (SDNY, 1987) p. 363 xi 8.4. Moral Rights xi Gilliam v. ABC (Second Circuit, 1976) p. 396 xi Dastar v. Fox (Supreme Court, 2003) S p. 374 xii 8.5. Public Performance xii Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken (Supreme Court, 1975) p. 411 xii Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne (Third Circuit, 1984) p. 412 xii Armco? xii On Command? xii 8.6. Public Display xii Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539 xii 9. Fair Use xii 9.1. What is Fair Use? xii 9.3. Four Factor Analysis - § 107 xii Harper & Row v. Nation (Supreme Court, 1985) xiii Sony v. Universal (Supreme Court, 1984) p. 541 xiii New Era v. Carol Publishing (Second Circuit, 1990) p. 514 xiii Campell v. Acuff-Rose (Supreme Court, 1994) xiii American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (Second Circuit, 1995) p. 551 xiii Sega v. Accolade (Ninth Circuit, 1993) p. 527 xiii Sony v. Connectix (Ninth Circuit, 2000) p. 532 xiii 10. Contributory and Vicarious Liability xiii 10.1. Vicarious Liability xiii 10.2. Contributory Liability xiii Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom (ND Cal, 1995) p. 453 xiii Sony v. Universal (Supreme Court, 1984) p. 541 xiv Playboy v. Frena (MD Fla, 1993) p. 455 xiv Sega v. MAPHIA (ND Cal, 1994) p. 456 xiv Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom (ND Cal, 1995) p. 462 xiv A & M v. Napster (ND Cal, 2000) p. 469 xiv RIAA v. Aimster xiv MGM v. Grokster (Ninth Circuit, 2004) Blackboard xiv 11. Technological Protection xiv Lexmark v. Static Control (Sixth Circuit, 2004) Blackboard xiv Universal v. Reimerdes (SDNY, 2000) p. 581 xiv 11.1. Ramifications xiv 12. Authorship and Ownership xv CCNV v. Reid (Supreme Court, 1989) p. 136 xv Avtec Systems v. Peiffer (Fourth Circuit, 1994) p. 144 xv 13. Contracts and Copyright xv Softman v. Adobe (CD Cal, 2001) p. 665 xv Adobe v. Stargate xv ProCD v. Zeidenberg (Seventh Circuit, 1996) p. 658 xv 14. Preemption xv 14.1. Preemption Doctrine in Intellectual Property xv Goldstein v. California (Supreme Court, 1972) p. 609 xv Kewanee Oil v. Bicron (Supreme Court, 1974) p. 613 xv 14.2. Express Preemption under § 301 xv Harper & Row v. The Nation (Second Circuit, 1983) p. 625 xvi Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista (DNJ, 2002) S p. 407 xvi 14.3. The Right of Publicity xvi Midler v. Ford (Ninth Circuit, 1988) p. 629 xvi Baltimore Orioles v. Major League (Seventh Circuit, 1986) p. 630 xvi Brown v. Ames (Fifth Circuit, 2000) p. 633 xvi 14.4. Misappropriation xvi INS v. Associated Press (Supreme Court, 1918) p. 640 xvi NBA v. Motorola (Second Circuit, 1997) p. 643 xvi 1.Justifications for Copyright1.1.Natural Rights Approach
1.2.Consequentialist Approach
2.Public Domain2.1.What is in the Public Domain?
2.2.What Does the Public Domain mean?
Commons in the legal sense: use or access cannot be prevented. 3.Copyrightable Subject Matter3.1.Idea/Expression DichotomyAn idea may never be copyrighted but its expression may be. § 102 (b) Exception: merger – when there is only one or very few ways to express an idea. Baker v. Selden (Supreme Court, 1879) p. 91Copyright on the expression of a system does not extend to forms that are essential to using the system. American Dental Association v. Delta (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 103A taxonomy is protected as an expression of a particular idea. 3.2.Historical Theses and Historical FactsHoehling v. Universal (Second Circuit, 1980) p. 98Historical facts cannot be copyrighted. 3.3.Idea/Expression in FictionMGM v. Honda (CD Cal, 1995) p. 284Movie characters may be copyrightable where they have specific characteristics. Titan Sports v. Turner Broadcasting (D Conn, 1997) p. 287A character can be copyrighted if specifically delineated and sufficiently unique. 3.4.FixationWork must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression to be protected. § 102 (a) Williams v. Artic (Third Circuit, 1982) p. 66Fixation requirement is met where work is of sufficiently permanent nature to be reproduced or communicated for more than a transitory period. MAI v. Peak Computer (Ninth Circuit, 1993) p. 69A copy in computer RAM is ‘fixed’ for the purposes of the Act. 3.5.OriginalityBurrow-Giles v. Sarony (Supreme Court, 1884) p. 76A photograph can be an original writing, as “original intellectual conception”. Alfred Bell v. Catadalda Fine Arts (Second Circuit, 1951) p. 85Distinguishable variation, even if advertent, is enough to constitute originality. Bleistein v. Donaldson (Supreme Court, 1903) p. 79Images created for commercial, rather than artistic, purposes are protected. Feist v. Rural (Supreme Court, 1991) p. 118For protection, a work must be original to the author and possess at least some minimal degree of creativity. 4.FormalitiesNo longer required, but registration and deposit are. 4.1.Virtues of Formalities
4.2.Ramifications of Abolishing Formalities
5.Derivative Works & CompilationsProtected § 103. Restricted to lawful use § 103 (a) and new material § 103 (b). 5.1.Derivative WorksBatlin v. Snyder (Second Circuit, 1976) p. 109Something more than trivial variation is necessary for copyrightability. Alva Studios v. Winninger (SDNY, 1959) p. 111Great skill can substitute for trivial variation, particularly in copying rare work. Pickett v. Prince (Seventh Circuit, 2000) p. 115The copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. All derivative rights rest with the first copyright holder. § 106 (2) ERG v. Genesis (Ninth Circuit, 1997) p. 111Differences based on functionality or mechanics should not be considered. Original aspects of a derivative work should be more than trivial and must not affect the scope of any copyright protection in the existing material. 5.2.CompilationsMason v. Montgomery (Fifth Circuit, 1992) p. 125Selection, coordination and arrangement of factual information can be sufficiently creative to qualify as original. Feist v. Rural (Supreme Court, 1991) p. 118Facts are not copyrightable and the mere expenditure of labor to compile them will not make them so. Trebonik v. Grossman Music (ND Ohio, 1969) p. 123An arrangement of material in the public domain may be copyrighted if the arrangement is not in the public domain. Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card (Ninth Circuit, 1970) p. 124Works should be considered as a whole when considering copyrightability. 6.Protected Works6.1.Facts and DatabasesFacts are uncopyrightable. § 102 (b) Databases are protected as compilations if they pass the compilations tests:
BAPCO v. Donnelly (Eleventh Circuit, 1993) p. 295Listings of names and addresses in a directory are not protected. CCC v. Maclean (Second Circuit, 1994) p. 299Selection and arrangement of data can be protected, even where it is a logical response to the market, where originality is expressed therein. All compilations can be seen as an expression of an idea but, on balance, merger does not apply. CDN v. Kapes (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 303A process of creating a price by applying judgment creates original expression. Matthew Bender v. West (Second Circuit, 1998) p. 305Automatic pagination by computer does not create an original work. 6.2.Useful ArticlesProtected under § 102 (5) & § 101, not including mechanical or utilitarian aspects. Masquerade v. Unique (Third Circuit, 1990) p. 230Masks are not a useful article. Mazer v. Stein (Supreme Court, 1954) p. 218The mass reproduction of an work, even as part of a useful article, does not make it solely utilitarian. Kieselstein v. Accessories by Pearl (Second Circuit, 1980) p. 220Articles may contain conceptually separable elements, which may be protectable. Carol Barnhart v. Economy Cover (Second Circuit, 1985) p. 223Aesthetic features that are dictated by functionality are not protectable. Brandir v. Cascade (Second Circuit, 1987) p. 223If design elements are primarily functional, the work may become unprotectable. 6.3.Computer ProgramsApple v. Franklin (Third Circuit, 1983) p. 243Operating system software is protectable on the same basis as applications. Softel v. Dragon (Second Circuit, 1997) p. 256Non-literal similarity of computer programs can constitute infringement. Whelan v. JaslowSoftware which is identical in structure to existing work is infringing. Computer Associates v. Altai (Second Circuit, 1992)To determine non-literal infringement of software, the court should examine the plaintiff’s software in three stages:
7.Elements of InfringmentExclusive rights are set down in § 106. Proving copying requires
ABKCO Music v. Harrissongs (Second Circuit, 1983) p. 321If the similarity is so striking, this will provide evidence of access. Three Boys Music v. Bolton (Ninth Circuit, 2000) p. 319Proof of access requires a reasonable opportunity or a reasonable possibility. Circumstantial evidence requires either a particular chain of events or wide dissemination. Selle v. Gibb (Seventh Circuit, 1984) p. 322Even with similarity, there must be proof of some access. Ty v. GMA (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 324If works are so similar that access is highly probable, that is evidence of access. 8.Exclusive Rights8.1.Reproduction Rights§ 117 provides that temporary copies for computer maintenance do not infringe. Intellectual ReserveA website which links to infringing works may materially assist infringement. Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539Displaying thumbnail images from another website is not infringing but displaying full size images may be. Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films (Sixth Circuit, 2004) BlackboardAny sampling from a recording is infringement. 8.2.Distribution RightsThe owner has the exclusive right to distribute. § 106 (3) Hotaling v. Church of LDS (Fourth Circuit, 1997) p. 335A library ‘distributes’ a work when it places an unauthorized copy in its collection, includes it in its catalogue, and makes it available to the public. The owner of a copy of a work has the right to sell or transfer it. § 109 (a) There are limitations to this right for phonorecords and software. § 109 (b) Importation of copies from outside the US is an infringement. § 602 (a) Quality King v. L’anza (Supreme Court, 1998) p. 346Copies made in the US and sold abroad can be imported without infringement. 8.3.Derivative WorksThe right to create derivatives is the property of the copyright holder. § 106 (2) Mirage Editions v. ART (Ninth Circuit, 1988) p. 383Placing a print on a ceramic tile creates a derivative. First sale does not apply. Lee v. ART (Seventh Circuit, 1997) p. 384Placing a print on a ceramic tile does not create a derivative. Otherwise, any alteration creates a derivative and gives moral rights. It consumes the original. Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo (Ninth Circuit, 1992) p. 388An infringing derivative work does not have to be fixed but must exist in some concrete or permanent form. Micro Star v. FormGen (Ninth Circuit, 1998) p. 391For a work to be derivative, it must exist in concrete and permanent form and substantially incorporate protected material from the original work. Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539Displaying thumbnail images from another website is not infringing but displaying full size images may be. Derivative works can infringe without literal copying. Tests for substantial similarity:
Castle Rock v. Carol (Second Circuit, 1998) p. 377Substantial similarity requires copying to be quantitatively and qualitatively sufficient to support the conclusion that infringement has occurred. Steinberg v. Columbia (SDNY, 1987) p. 363The definition of substantial similarity is “whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.” 8.4.Moral RightsGilliam v. ABC (Second Circuit, 1976) p. 396Unauthorized editing for broadcast constitutes copyright infringement. Dastar v. Fox (Supreme Court, 2003) S p. 374Trademark law cannot be used to create copyright-like protection. VARA inserts § 106A, which gives limited moral rights to artists. 8.5.Public Performance§ 106 (4). § 101 gives a broad definition of public. Twentieth Century Music v. Aiken (Supreme Court, 1975) p. 411Listening to a radio in a public place is not a performance. Overturned 1976. Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne (Third Circuit, 1984) p. 412A video display booth is a public place. Armco?Watching videos in a hotel room is not public performance On Command?Pay-per-view TV is a form of transmission and so infringes. 8.6.Public Display§ 106 (5). Exemption for owner of copy in § 109 (c), teaching in § 110 (1), 112. Kelly v. Arriba (Ninth Circuit, 1999) p. 539Displaying thumbnail images from another website is not infringing but displaying full size images may be. 9.Fair Use9.1.What is Fair Use?
9.2.Purpose of Fair Use
9.3.Four Factor Analysis - § 107
Harper & Row v. Nation (Supreme Court, 1985)Publication of portions of a work soon to be published is not fair use. Sony v. Universal (Supreme Court, 1984) p. 541Time-shifting home recording is fair use. If a technology has commercially significant non-infringing uses, it may be legally sold. New Era v. Carol Publishing (Second Circuit, 1990) p. 514Critical biographies fall within fair use. Campell v. Acuff-Rose (Supreme Court, 1994)The commercial purpose of a work is only one element in the fair use enquiry. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco (Second Circuit, 1995) p. 551There may be no fair use even where there is no direct market for the works. Sega v. Accolade (Ninth Circuit, 1993) p. 527When it is the only way to gain access to ideas and functional elements in software, disassembly is fair use. Sony v. Connectix (Ninth Circuit, 2000) p. 532Fair use will prevent copyright being used to confer a monopoly on technology. 10.Contributory and Vicarious Liability10.1.Vicarious Liability
10.2.Contributory Liability
Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom (ND Cal, 1995) p. 453Infringement by users of an OSP does not lead to direct liability for the OSP. Sony v. Universal (Supreme Court, 1984) p. 541If your product has commercially significant non-infringing uses, you cannot be constructively aware of the infringing uses. Playboy v. Frena (MD Fla, 1993) p. 455Making images available online on a server makes the OSP liable for distribution. Sega v. MAPHIA (ND Cal, 1994) p. 456Charging access fee for online materials is direct and contributory infringement. Religious Technology Centre v. Netcom (ND Cal, 1995) p. 462OSPs facilitate distribution and so may be contributorily liable. A & M v. Napster (ND Cal, 2000) p. 469Peer-to-peer system with centralized control and advertising is vicariously liable. RIAA v. AimsterWhere there is no central control, there is no vicarious liability. MGM v. Grokster (Ninth Circuit, 2004) BlackboardWhere there is no central control or indexing, there is no liability. Safe harbor for OSPs § 512 11.Technological ProtectionDMCA – circumvention and distribution of devices prohibited § 1201 Lexmark v. Static Control (Sixth Circuit, 2004) BlackboardDMCA cannot be used to control after-sales market. The access control measure must prevent access to content, not the device itself. Universal v. Reimerdes (SDNY, 2000) p. 581The access control measure must be effective, not perfect. Linking to websites is distribution of device. Fair use defenses do not apply to § 1201. 11.1.Ramifications
12.Authorship and OwnershipInitial ownership is the property of the author. § 201 (a) For joint authorship:
Works made for hire § 101 are property of the employer. § 201 (b) CCNV v. Reid (Supreme Court, 1989) p. 136Who is an employee is determined by applying the law of agency. Avtec Systems v. Peiffer (Fourth Circuit, 1994) p. 144Work must be done in “scope of employment”, according to the law of agency. Collective works are separately owned. § 201 (c) Ownership can be transferred. § 101 13.Contracts and CopyrightContracts give copyright holders an opportunity to exclude e.g. fair use. Softman v. Adobe (CD Cal, 2001) p. 665A software reseller is not bound by a EULA as it does not assent to it. Adobe v. StargateWhat are being sold are licenses and the reseller is also bound by it. ProCD v. Zeidenberg (Seventh Circuit, 1996) p. 658Provided there is assent under the UCC, the contract binds the user. 14.Preemption14.1.Preemption Doctrine in Intellectual PropertyGoldstein v. California (Supreme Court, 1972) p. 609States can create copyrights where Congress has “drawn no balance”. Kewanee Oil v. Bicron (Supreme Court, 1974) p. 613States can create trade secret protections as there is no conflict with patent law. 14.2.Express Preemption under § 301To determine if there is a conflict:
Harper & Row v. The Nation (Second Circuit, 1983) p. 625There must be a qualitative difference between the state law claim and the Act. Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista (DNJ, 2002) S p. 407The court will look beyond the claim itself, to see what the plaintiff seeks. 14.3.The Right of PublicityMidler v. Ford (Ninth Circuit, 1988) p. 629Publicity is a property right. Baltimore Orioles v. Major League (Seventh Circuit, 1986) p. 630The performance of baseball players is fixed in broadcast and thus preempted. Brown v. Ames (Fifth Circuit, 2000) p. 633A claim for misappropriation is not preempted. 14.4.MisappropriationINS v. Associated Press (Supreme Court, 1918) p. 640Taking another’s reporting is misappropriation and unfair competition. NBA v. Motorola (Second Circuit, 1997) p. 643Copyright law preempts the misappropriation claim. Only a narrow “hot news” claim survives. |