Transfers and Recordation of Copyright Ownership: A Legal Perspective, Slides of Law

Download Transfers and Recordation of Copyright Ownership: A Legal Perspective and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity! WRAP UP POINTS: TRANSFERS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP • Copyright ownership may be transferred via exclusive licenses or assignments or by operation of law. Other copyright rights can be non-exclusively licensed. • Transfers of copyright ownership must be in writing and signed by copyright owner (or agent of owner). Nonexclusive licenses can be oral and/or implied from conduct. Docsity.com WRAP UP POINTS: TRANSFERS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP • The 1976 Act recognizes the divisibility of copyright ownership - rights can be separately owned. • Only a copyright owner (assignee, exclusive licensee) can sue for copyright infringement. Docsity.com TERMINATION OF TRANSFERS • 1976 Act has some provisions retaining 1909 Act power for authors and survivors to terminate transfers of copyright at a certain stage into the copyright term • These provisions are section 203 and section 304© • We will study them later in the semester Docsity.com Peregrine case (C.D. Cal. 1990) • What does this case hold? Docsity.com Peregrine case (C.D. Cal. 1990) • What does this case hold? Section 205, provision for recordation of transfers of copyright ownership in the Copyright Office, preempts state laws such as UCC providing for recording of security interests in various state offices • Thus, if a bank takes a security interest in copyrights in many works (like the 145 films at issue in Peregrine), it will have to record these in the Copyright Office Docsity.com The Securitization of IP? • Bowie bonds were a securitization of David Bowie’s royalties, the first securitization of IP assets • Some commentators have argued that, • despite media hype, there have not been many of these deals in practice and their proliferation is unlikely. Docsity.com SCOPE OF GRANT • You were asked to read a number of cases about the proper scope and interpretation of various license agreements (contracts!) • This is an important issue in practice. The question, arising from the general principle of divisibility, is: what copyright has the licensor licensed (or the assignor assigned). • We are going to compare the approaches of these cases broadly, but you should make sure you read them carefully. Docsity.com Comparing Cohen and Boosey • What was the difference in approach that the 9th Circuit in Cohen and the 2d Circuit in Boosey took to interpreting the scope of a license agreement? Was there a different policy rationale underlying these decisions? • Note that both cases involved both licenses and assignments - in Cohen, Paramount acquired H & J’s rights by assignment and in Boosey, Boosey acquired Stravinsky’s rights by assignment. Docsity.com COHEN V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES: holding • Ninth Circuit held that the scope of the license did not include the right to use the musical composition in a videocassette copy of the film. • Reverses summary judgment in favor of Paramount. Docsity.com COHEN V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES: reasoning • The language of the license was not broad and contained an express reservation to the licensor of rights not granted by the terms of the license. Moreover, most importantly, home VCRs were not invented at the time the license was executed. The 9th Circuit was concerned about an inappropriate windfall gain to the licensee, which it felt would violate the purpose of the Copyright Act to encourage authors to produce new works. Docsity.com COHEN V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES: reasoning • So to get around this case, you should word licenses as broadly as possible, e.g. the right to exhibit, distribute, exploit , market and perform perpetually throughout the world by any means or methods now or hereafter known. Docsity.com Boosey & Hawkes v. Disney: Holding • Second Circuit’s Holding: the scope of the license was theoretically broad enough to cover the video distribution of the “Rite of Spring” - remands for trial to determne whether it in fact violated the ASCAP condition (Case eventually settles) Docsity.com Boosey & Hawkes v. Disney:Reasoning • New use analysis should rest on “neutral principles of contract interpretation”, not “solicitude for either party” • Should not, as in Cohen, favor author • Language of license broad enough to include the new use and thus the burden of negotiating an exception should fall on the licensor (author) Docsity.com Boosey & Hawkes v. Disney:Reasoning • Of course author now deprived of profits from new use. • Not totally clear from Second Circuit’s opinion if foreseeability of new use required. They held that this new use was foreseeable. • Policy rationale: approach in new use cases that favors licensors actually “gives rise to antiprogressive incentives” Docsity.com ASCAP CONDITION • “The right to record the musical composition as covered by this agreement is conditioned upon the performance of the musical work in theatres having valid licenses from ASCAP or any other performing rights society having jurisdiction in the territory in which the said musical composition is performed.” Docsity.com Paragraph 7 • “the licensor reserves to himself all rights and uses in and to the said musical composition not herein specifically granted” Docsity.com Random House v. Rosetta Books: Which approach does the S.D.N.Y take? Docsity.com Is an e-book a book? • How did district court rule on RH motion for a preliminary injunction against Rosetta? The district court denied RH’s motion Docsity.com Is an e-book a book? • How did district court distinguish Boosey? Docsity.com Is an e-book a book? • How did district court distinguish Boosey? • 1. Language in Boosey was broader Was it? and • 2. new use in Boosey within same medium as original grant -here new use was a separate medium from original use • 3. Unlike movie cases, book publishers did not create a new derivative work • 4. Policy rationale of fears that licensees would not encourage innovative technological developments did not apply Docsity.com New York Times v. Tasini • Does s. 201(c ) protect publishers from infringing freelancers’ copyrights where publishers entered into agreements with database services (such as LEXIS/NEXIS to include freelancers’ articles in the databases without freelancers’ consent? Docsity.com SECTION 201(c) • Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series. Docsity.com A Revision? • Was the reproduction/distribution of the articles in the databases a “revision of the collective work”? • In the view of Justice Ginsburg, author of the majority opinion (and, perhaps notably for her decision, mother of Professor Jane Ginsburg, author of your casebook)? • In the view of Justice Stevens, author of the dissent? • What do you think? Docsity.com