The Copyrights Learn The Hard Way Zip 213

The copyright law of the United States is intended to encourage the creation of art and culture by rewarding authors and artists with a set of exclusive rights. Copyright law grants authors and artists the exclusive right to make and sell copies of their works, the right to create derivative works, and the right to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death. In the United States, any music composed before January 1, 1924, is generally considered public domain.United States law was last generally revised by the, codified in. The United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, known as the. Under the, has the power, 'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' The handles copyright registration, recording of, and other administrative aspects of copyright law.

Main article:US law traces its lineage back to the British, which influenced the first US federal copyright law, the. The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was short, 14 years, plus the ability to renew it one time, for 14 more. 50 years later, it was changed to 28 years.

It was not until a full 180 years after its establishment that it was significantly extended beyond that, in to 'Either 75 years or the life of the author plus 50 years'. Further information:Works created by the federal government are not copyrightable. This restriction on copyright applies to publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees within the scope of their employment. The specific language is as follows:Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.A 'work of the United States Government' is defined in as work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. Note that government contractors are generally not considered employees, and their works may be subject to copyright. Likewise, the US government can purchase and hold the copyright to works created by third parties.The government may restrict access to works it has produced through other mechanisms. For instance, confidential or secret materials are not protected by copyright, but are restricted by other applicable laws.

However, even in case of non-secret materials there are specific prohibitions against automatic access to work otherwise covered under for commercial purposes. Federal and state laws are not protected by copyright. Main article:Federal statutes are in the and no copyright attaches to them. The same is true of court decisions. It is not difficult to see the motivations behind this:The citizens are the authors of the law, and therefore its owners, regardless of who actually drafts the provisions, because the law derives its authority from the consent of the public, expressed through the democratic process.As a matter of longstanding public policy, the U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials. Likewise, the Office will not register a government edict issued by any foreign government or any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties.However, several states, such as Oregon and Georgia, have claimed that the annotated editions of their laws are copyrightable.

In July 2015, Georgia sued open information activist, founder of, in Federal court in Atlanta for. Malamud had posted the on his website. In the complaint and in press releases, the State of Georgia claimed that this constituted “piracy” and “terrorism.” Exclusive rights There are six basic rights protected by copyright. Late 19th-century newspaper advertisement for copyright registration servicesCopyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder's rights in a number of ways.

Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced 'statutory' damages.A copyright can be registered online at the US Copyright Office's website. The Copyright Office reviews applications for obvious errors or lack of copyrightable subject matter, and then issues a certificate of registration. The Copyright Office does not compare the authors new work against a collection of existing works or otherwise check for infringement.Deposit requirement The United States Copyright Office requires a deposit copy of the work for which copyright registration is sought. Deposits can be made through the Copyright Office's. This deposit requirement serves two purposes.

First, if a copyright infringement lawsuit arises, the owner may prove that the material that is infringed is exactly the same material for which the owner has secured a registration. Second, this requirement helps the Library of Congress build its collection of works.Failure to comply with the deposit requirement, as modified by Copyright Office regulations, is punishable by fine, but does not result in forfeiture of copyright.Copyright notices. Expansion of U.S. (assuming authors create their works at age 35 and live for seventy years)Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a 'work for hire', then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.

For works created before 1978, the copyright duration rules are complicated. However, works created before 1924 (other than sound recordings) have made their way into the public domain.Works created before 1978 For works published or registered before 1978, the maximum copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication, if copyright was renewed during the 28th year following publication. Has been automatic since the.For works created before 1978, but not published or registered before 1978, the standard §302 copyright duration of 70 years from the author's death also applies. Prior to 1978, works had to be published or registered to receive copyright protection. Upon the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act (which was January 1, 1978) this requirement was removed and these unpublished, unregistered works received protection. However, Congress intended to provide an incentive for these authors to publish their unpublished works. To provide that incentive, these works, if published before 2003, would not have their protection expire before 2048.All copyrightable works published in the United States before 1924 are in the; works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978 may be protected until 2047.

For works that received their copyright before 1978, a renewal had to be filed in the work's 28th year with the Copyright Office for its term of protection to be extended. The need for renewal was eliminated by the, but works that had already entered the public domain by non-renewal did not regain copyright protection. Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain.Before 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright, but copying was nonetheless regulated under various state and statutes, some of which had no duration limit. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 extended federal copyright to recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, and declared that recordings fixed before that date would remain subject to state or copyright. Subsequent amendments had extended this latter provision until 2067.

As a result, older sound recordings were not subject to the expiration rules that applied to contemporary visual works. Although these could have entered the public domain as a result of government authorship or formal grant by the owner, the practical effect has been to render public domain audio virtually nonexistent.This situation has changed with the 2018 enactment of the, which extended federal copyright protection to all sound recordings, regardless of their date of creation, and preempted state copyright laws on those works.

Under the Act, the first sound recordings to enter the public domain will be those fixed before 1923, which will enter the public domain on January 1, 2022. Recordings fixed between 1923 and February 14, 1972 will be phased into the public domain in the following decades. Specifically, works fixed 1923–1946 are public after 100 years and works fixed 1947–1956 after 110 years of fixation. Works fixed 1 Jan 1957 – 14 Feb 1972 are all public 15 Feb, 2067In May 2016, ruled in a lawsuit between ABS Entertainment and that 'remastered' versions of pre-1972 recordings can receive a federal copyright as a distinct work due to the amount of creative effort expressed in the process. The Ninth Circuit appeals court reversed the decision in favor of ABS Entertainment.

Copyright limitations, exceptions, and defenses United States copyright law includes numerous defenses, exceptions, and limitations. Some of the most important include:. Copyright applies only to certain copyrightable subject matter, codified within. Works that are not 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression' are not subject to copyright.

Codifies that copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, etc. Facts may not be copyrighted. 'Useful articles' may not be copyrighted.

Useful articles includes typeface designs ( ), fashion designs, blank forms, titles, names, short phrases, slogans, lists of ingredients and contents, domain names and band names. As animal-made art, this is ineligible for copyright in the United States. The, limits the rights of copyright holders to control the further distribution and display of copies of their works after the first sale by the copyright owner.

The owner of a particular copy is entitled to 'sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy' and to 'display the copy publicly. To viewers present at the place where the copy is located.' .

The 'good faith' defense (Section 504(c)(2)) reduces the statutory damages where the infringer was an educational institution, library, archive, or public broadcaster and reasonably believed that the infringing use was 'fair use.' . The Copyright Act includes specific exemptions for types of works and particular entities, such as libraries , public broadcasters ( and ), braille , software backup copies , 'cover license' permitting sound recording covers , and jukebox compulsory licenses. Provisions for the Blind and Disabled. The Copyright Act, in 17 USC 121 and 17 USC 110(8), includes specific statutory exceptions for reproduction of material for the blind or other persons with disabilities. Permits the reproduction of copyright works in, audio, electronic, or other necessary formats. For instance, the (NLS) administers a program under Section 121, and the also relies on Section 121 in providing access to disabled users.

Online Service Provider 'Safe Harbor.' ('OCILLA', passed as part of the DMCA in 1998) provides a contingent 'safe harbor' for online service providers from secondary liability for their users' copy infringements.

US copyright law doesn’t allow animals to file copyright infringement lawsuits such as. A 'photograph taken by a monkey'.Fair use.

Main article:Fair use is the use of limited amounts of copyrighted material in such a way as to not be an infringement. It is codified at, and states that 'the fair use of a copyrighted work. Is not an infringement of copyright.' The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair. There are no regarding fair use and each determination is made on an individualized case-by-case basis.

Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are more likely to be fair use. This does not mean that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair use or that all commercial uses are not fair. Instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “ transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work. Nature of the copyrighted work: Using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item).

In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used.

Using a large portion of the copyrighted work is less likely to be fair use. However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use, and in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair use because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.In addition to these four factors, the statute also allows courts to consider any other factors that may be relevant to the fair use analysis.

Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on the specific facts of that case. There is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.The justification of the fair use doctrine turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. 'The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test. If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original-if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.' The Copyright Office provides a searchable list of fair use case law. Parodies Although a can be considered a derivative work, and thus within the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, it may qualify as 'fair use.'

Parodies are not automatically fair use. The stated that parody (transformative) 'is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works.' That commentary function provides some justification for use of the older work; in contrast, a satire (exaggerated) (which is not targeted at the work borrowed from) does not require use of the original work to make its point. Infringement Copyright infringement occurs when someone violates one of the exclusive rights listed in 17 USC 106. Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing a 'copy' of a protected work that is 'substantially similar' to the original version.Infringement requires copying. If two people happen to write exactly the same story, without knowledge of the other, there is no infringement.Copyright infringement litigation A copyright owner may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court.

Federal courts have exclusive over copyright infringement cases. That is, an infringement case may not be brought in state courts. (With an exception for works not protected under Federal law, but are protected under state law, e.g. State laws prohibiting copying of sound recordings made before February 15, 1972.) Note that the Copyright Office handles copyright registrations, but it does not adjudicate copyright infringement disputes.Ownership of valid copyright To bring a copyright infringement lawsuit, a copyright holder must establish ownership of a valid copyright and the copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. The copyright owner must also establish both (a) actual copying and (b) improper appropriation of the work. The copyright owner, as plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing these three elements of the case for infringement.A establishes ownership by authorship (by the plaintiff itself or by someone who assigned rights to the plaintiff) of (1) an original work of authorship that is (2) fixed in a tangible medium (e.g. A book, musical recording, etc.).Registration is not required to establish copyright protection, but registration is necessary before bringing a lawsuit.

Registration is also useful because it creates a presumption of a valid copyright, it allows the plaintiff to collect enhanced 'statutory damages', and to be eligible for an award of attorney fees.A plaintiff establishes 'actual copying' with direct or indirect evidence. Direct evidence is satisfied either by a defendant's admission to copying or the testimony of witnesses who observed the defendant in the act. More commonly, a plaintiff relies on circumstantial or indirect evidence. A court will infer copying by a showing of a ' striking similarity' between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy, along with a showing of both access and use of that access. A plaintiff may establish 'access' by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work. Access alone is not sufficient to establish infringement.

The plaintiff must show a similarity between the two works, and the degree of similarity will affect the probability that illicit copying in fact occurred in the court's eyes. Even then, the plaintiff must show that the copying amounted to improper appropriation. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that not all copying constitutes infringement and a showing of misappropriation is necessary. Misappropriation A copyrighted work may contain elements which are not copyrightable, such as facts, ideas, themes, or content in the.

A plaintiff alleging misappropriation must first demonstrate that what the defendant appropriated from the copyrighted work was protectible. Second, a plaintiff must show that the intended audience will recognize between the two works.

The intended audience may be the general public, or a specialized field. The degree of similarity necessary for a court to find misappropriation is not easily defined. Indeed, 'the test for infringement of a copyright is of necessity vague.'

Two methods are used to determine if unlawful appropriation has occurred: the 'subtractive method' and the 'totality method'.The subtractive method, also known as the 'abstraction/subtraction approach' seeks to analyze what parts of a copyrighted work are protectible and which are not. The unprotected elements are subtracted and the fact finder then determines whether substantial similarities exist in the protectible expression which remains.

Main article:In addition to the civil remedies, the Copyright Act provides for criminal prosecution in some cases of willful copyright infringement. There are also criminal sanctions for fraudulent copyright notice, fraudulent removal of copyright notice, and false representations in applications for copyright registration. The imposes criminal sanctions for certain acts of circumvention and interference with copyright management information. There are not criminal sanctions for violating the rights of attribution and integrity held by the author of a work of visual art.Criminal penalties for copyright infringement include:. A of not more than $500,000 or for not more than five years, or both, for the first. A fine of not more than $1 million or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for repeated offenses.libraries, archives, and entities are exempt from criminal prosecution.Felony penalties for first offenses begin at seven copies for audiovisual works, and one hundred copies for sound recordings.

Government infringement The U.S. Government, its agencies and officials, and corporations owned or controlled by it, are subject to suit for copyright infringement. All infringement claims against the U.S.

That did not arise in a foreign country must be filed with the within three years of the infringing action. Claims filed in the wrong court are dismissed for lack of.

The government and its agencies are also authorized to settle the infringement claims out of court.The states have provided by the, which bars most forms of lawsuits against states in federal courts, but can be abrogated in certain circumstances by Congress. Main article:Works in the are free for anyone to copy and use. Strictly speaking, the term 'public domain' means that the work is not covered by any rights at all (copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise). However, this article discusses public domain with respect to copyright only.A work may enter the public domain in a number of different ways. For example, (a) the copyright protecting the work may have expired, or (b) the owner may have explicitly donated the work to the public, or (c) the work is not the type of work that copyright can protect.Orphan works.

Main article:The ' problem arose in the United States with the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1976, which eliminated the need to register copyrighted works, instead declaring that all 'original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression' fall into copyright status. The elimination of registration also eliminated a central recording location to track and identify copyright-holders.

Consequently, potential users of copyrighted works, e.g., filmmakers or biographers, must assume that many works they might use are copyrighted. Where the planned use would not be otherwise permitted by law (for example, by ), they must themselves individually investigate the copyright status of each work they plan to use. With no central database of copyright-holders, identifying and contacting copyright-holders can sometimes be difficult; those works that fall into this category may be considered 'orphaned'.See also. Stanford Fair Use and Copyright Center. Retrieved December 3, 2015.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8,. Retrieved December 2, 2015.,. Retrieved December 2, 2015.

Way

U.S. Constitution, Article 1 section 8. SPIEGEL ONLINE (August 18, 2010).

SPIEGEL ONLINE. Electronic Freedom Foundation. Teaching copyright. Archived from on December 4, 2015. Retrieved December 2, 2015.

Retrieved December 2, 2015., 101 U.S. 99 (1879); see also CDN Inc. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1261–62 (9th Cir. 1999).

Richard H. The Myth of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law. 10 Pace Law Review 551 (1990). Retrieved December 2, 2015., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960).

^ Bryan M. Legally Speaking - The Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of the Past 25 Years. Against the Grain 17.2 (April 2005). Retrieved December 2, 2015. Copyright.gov.

Tracy P. Copyright of Engineering Drawings, Plans and Designs. Rochester, NY: Tracy Jong Law Firm./CopyrightEDPD.htm. Retrieved December 2, 2015., No. 15-866, 580 U.S. (2017), slip op.

At 1-2 (quoting )., No. 15-866, 580 U.S. (2017), slip op. 15-866, 580 U.S.

(2017), slip op. At 2-3., No. 15-866, 580 U.S.

(2017), slip op. At 10 (quoting )(some internal citations omitted). Mann, Ronald (March 22, 2017).

Retrieved April 16, 2017. For example, the current is in public domain as a government work, but its commercial use is limited by. State of Georgia v. Harrison Co, 114 (N.D.

Ga 1982). (PDF).

December 22, 2014. Archived from (PDF) on December 23, 2014. Retrieved December 22, 2014. Hiltzik, Michael (July 27, 2015). Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved December 2, 2015. Brumback, Kate (September 14, 2015). The Augusta Chronicle. Retrieved December 22, 2015. Bryan M. The Law of Libraries and Archives.

Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2007. Bryan M. Basic Copyright Exceptions for Educators. Bowling Green, Kentucky: Faculty Center for Excellence in Teaching, Western Kentucky University, 2013. Retrieved December 2, 2015. ^. Bryan M.

Legally Speaking - Independent Contractors, Work For Hire Agreements and The Way To Avoid A Sticky Mess. Against the Grain 16.6 (December 2005/January 2006). Retrieved December 2, 2015. Carson,. Margoni & Perry (2012). 'Ownership in Complex Authorship: A Comparative Study of Joint Works'. Cite journal requires journal=.

Kunvay Copyright & IP Assignment Explained: What Copyright Transfer and Assignment of Rights Really Means. Retrieved December 2, 2015.

Kevin Smith. Contract preemption: an issue to watch. February 8, 2011.

Scholarly Communications @ Duke. Retrieved December 2, 2015. (a)(5); (c)(5) ('Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.' Retrieved May 30, 2019. Jaszi, Peter; Lewis, Nick (September 2009). Library of Congress.

Council on Library and Information Resources and Library of Congress. Retrieved October 4, 2017.

Deahl, Dani (October 11, 2018). Retrieved October 11, 2018.

Stolz, Mitch (September 19, 2018). Retrieved October 14, 2018. The Hollywood Reporter.

Retrieved June 2, 2016. Justia US Law. October 31, 2018. From the original on September 8, 2019. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Copyright.gov.

See, 902 F.Supp.2d 445 (SDNY 2012). Axelrad, Jacob (August 22, 2014). Retrieved August 23, 2014. (PDF). December 22, 2014. Retrieved April 27, 2015.

To qualify as a work of 'authorship' a work must be created by a human being. Works that do not satisfy this requirement are not copyrightable. The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants.

The Compendium lists several examples of such ineligible works, including 'a photograph taken by a monkey' and 'a mural painted by an elephant'. Zhang, Michael (April 24, 2018). Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved March 15, 2017. Retrieved April 29, 2015. Leval, Pierre (1990). Harvard Law Review.

Retrieved May 5, 2015. Retrieved April 16, 2018. see 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).

see Ty, Inc. GMA Accessories, Inc. 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 132 F.3d 1167. see Feist at 361. Judge, Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2nd Cir.

Way

1960). see Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1930). Lehman, Bruce A. (October 1, 1995).

DIANE Publishing. Retrieved June 23, 2012.

see, 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that a series of commercials portraying 'McDonaldland' had used as its basis the 'H.R. Pufnstuf' television show.

Corresponding characters to each, while displaying marked differences, taken altogether demonstrated that McDonald's had captured the total concept and feel of the show and had thus infringed). see, 150 F.3d 132, 140 (2nd Cir. 1998). see Computer Associates International, Inc. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, (2nd Cir. 1992) (where court chose the subtraction method for two computer programs whose total concept were the same.

Individual copied elements of the program were non-protectible material because they constituted a process or idea in the program, their utilitarian aspects barring copyright protection; no infringement found). Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. Wall-Street.com LLC et al.

2d 147; 129 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1453 (2019). ^ Litman, Jessica (March 4, 2019).

The Copyrights Learn The Hard Way Zip 2139

Retrieved March 5, 2019., No.(March 4, 2019). ^. Gordon V. Smith & Russel L. Parr, 'Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation, and Infringement Damages,' John Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp 617–630. R. Troxel and W.O.

Kerr, 'Assets and Finance: Calculating Intellectual Property Damages', West, 2014, pp 462-472. ^. See, inter alia,. Lowry's Reports, Inc. Legg Mason Inc., 271 F. 2003). Fogerty v.

Fantasy, (1994). Justice.gov.

Congressional Research Service. Cornell University Legal Information Institute. Government Printing Office.

The Copyrights Learn The Hard Way Zip 213 1

Feller, Mitchell (February 1, 2018). Retrieved March 5, 2019. Peters, Marybeth (July 27, 2000). Copyright Office.

Retrieved March 5, 2019. ^, Allen v. Ct.). Boyle, James (2008). P. 38.Further reading.

The Copyrights Learn The Hard Way Zip 213 Online

(US Copyright Office, 2011)., Prof. Robert Gorman (Federal Judicial Center, 2006). (First Edition, 2014) James Boyle and Jennifer Jenkin. Leval (103 Harvard Law Review 1105 (1990)).External links has original text related to this article.