Download Copyright Law: Infringement of Reproduction and Publication under 1976 Act and more Slides Law in PDF only on Docsity! GOALS FOR THIS CLASS • To learn about infringement of the right of reproduction Docsity.com WRAP-UP POINT: PUBLICATION UNDER ‘76 ACT • Publication does not have an investive/divestive effect under the 1976 Copyright Act, but is still important in a number of ways, e.g. computing copyright term for works for hire (s. 302(c)), whether defense of fair use applies (s. 107), applicability of library exemptions (s. 108) etc.. Docsity.com WRAP-UP POINT:DEPOSIT • Under 1909 Act and under 1976 Act up to Berne, compliance with deposit requirements was a prerequisite for suit • This is no longer the case, but you can still be fined for failure to deposit copies with the Library of Congress under s. 407 Docsity.com WRAP-UP POINT: REGISTRATION • 2-tier registration system • Registration is still a prerequisite for copyright suit for U.S. works (either first published in U.S. or, if unpublished, by U.S. author) • Not a prerequisite for works that are non U.S. Berne works • Incentives for timely registration: s. 412. No statutory damages/attorneys fees for infringement prior to registration Docsity.com WRAP-UP POINT:RIGHT OF REPRODUCTION • Right of reproduction is one of the exclusive bundle of rights of the copyright owner set out in section 106 of the Copyright Act of 1976 • There are 2 ways a work can be reproduced: in COPIES or PHONORECORDS • Both are defined in section 101 • Works can be copied digitally Docsity.com COPYING • Copying may be (rarely) proved by D’s admission that she copied • Or by circumstantial evidence from which copying can be inferred (access) AND sufficient similarity between the works to prove copying • If no similarity exists between the works, no evidence of access will prove copying • If access/similarity, court can use expert evidence/dissection to determine copying • If no evidence of access, need STRIKING SIMILARITY to prove copying Docsity.com UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION • Only arises if copying has been proved • Question - has defendant taken so much from P’s work that he wrongfully appropriated? • Test is that of the ordinary observer • Dissection and expert evidence not admissible (irrelevant) Docsity.com AUDIENCE DETERMINING SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY • Can this be a specialized audience (such as children) where the work is intended by the author for a particular market? See Lyons Partnership L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc. (4th Cir. 2001). Docsity.com BRIGHT TUNES V. HARRISONGS • Subconscious copying • Is that infringement? • What if Harrison played the notes of the motifs A and B in “He’s so Fine” backwards and published the song? Does this infringe Bright Tunes’ copyright in “He’s So Fine”? • SEE ALSO Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton (9th Cir. 2000) Docsity.com STRIKING SIMILARITY • Is there a split in the circuits on this issue? Docsity.com SELLE V. GIBB (7th Cir. 1984) • http://www2.bonet.co. id/cpr/MIDI/POP/beeg ees/00index.html • What is the issue? • What is the court’s holding? Why? Docsity.com DE MINIMIS COPYING • Ringgold v. BET (2d Cir. 1997) Docsity.com PETER PAN FABRICS, INC. (2d Cir. 1960) • What does Learned Hand say about the test for substantial similarity? Docsity.com
