In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.[69] in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the first-sale doctrine applies to products manufactured abroad with the permission of the copyright owner and then imported into the United States without that permission. The case concerned a plaintiff who imported Asian editions of textbooks produced abroad with the permission of the requesting publisher. The defendant imported the manuals without the publisher`s permission and resold them on eBay. Supreme Court jurisprudence severely restricts the ability of copyright owners to prevent such importation. Copyright is somewhat normalized by these international conventions such as the Berne Convention and the Global Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by almost all countries, and international organizations such as the European Union or the World Trade Organization require their member states to comply with them. In all countries where the standards of the Berne Convention apply, copyright is automatic and does not have to be obtained by official registration with a government agency. Large deviations or deviations from the copyrighted work would always constitute an infringement as long as the author`s expression and not just the author`s “ideas” are taken. An exception to this general principle, which applies to the reproduction of phonograms protected by copyright, is provided for in Article 114. Prior to 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright law, but copying was nevertheless regulated by various offenses and state laws, some of which had no execution limit. The Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 extended federal copyright to recordings made on or after February 15, 1972, stipulating that recordings made before that date would continue to be subject to state copyright or customary copyright.
Subsequent amendments had extended the latter provision until 2067. [48] As a result, older sound recordings were not subject to the rules of procedure that applied to contemporary visual works. Although these may have entered the public domain due to state authorship or formal grant by the owner, the practical effect was that public domain audio practically ceased to exist. [49] Moral rights concern the non-economic rights of an author. They protect the author`s connection to a work as well as the integrity of the work. Moral rights are granted only to individual authors and, in many national laws, they remain the property of the authors, even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. In some EU countries, such as France, moral rights apply indefinitely. In the UK, however, moral rights are limited.
That is, the right to attribution and the right to integrity exist only as long as the work is protected by copyright. When the copyright period ends, the moral rights in that work also end. This is just one of the reasons why the moral legal regime in the UK is often seen as weaker or inferior to the protection of moral rights in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world. [57] Article 6bis of the Berne Convention obliges its members to grant authors the following rights: Injunctions: Copyright Act § 502 allows courts to issue interim and permanent injunctions against copyright infringement. There are also provisions for the seizure and destruction of allegedly counterfeit copies and other documents used for counterfeiting purposes. Sound recordings as a thematic genre clearly fall within the constitutionally protectable constitutionally protectable scope of “author`s writings” (art. I, § 8, para. 8], and the extension of legal protection limited to them has been delayed for too long. Except in cases where sounds are fixed by purely mechanical means without originality of any kind, copyright protection, which would prevent the reproduction and distribution of unauthorized phonograms, is clearly justified.
Paragraph 102(b) does not in any way extend or affect the scope of copyright protection under this Act. Its purpose is to reiterate, in the context of the new unified federal copyright system, that the fundamental dichotomy between expression and idea remains unchanged. In the United States, all books and other works, with the exception of sound recordings published before 1925, are protected by copyright and in the public domain. The applicable date for sound recordings in the United States is before 1923. [65] In addition, works published before 1964 whose copyright has not been renewed 28 years after the first year of publication are in the public domain. Hirtle points out that the vast majority of these works (including 93% of the books) have not been renewed after 28 years and are in the public domain. [66] Books originally published outside the United States by non-Americans are exempt from this renewal requirement if they are still protected by copyright in their country of origin. Categories of works protected by copyright.
The second sentence of article 102 lists seven broad categories that the term “works of authorship” is intended to “include”. The use of the word “include,” as defined in section 101, makes it clear that the list is “illustrative and non-restrictive” and that the seven categories do not necessarily exhaust the scope of the “original works of authorship” that the bill seeks to protect. Rather, the list defines the general scope of copyrighted subject matter, but with sufficient flexibility to exempt courts from rigid or outdated concepts within the scope of certain categories. The elements also overlap in that a work that falls into one class may include works that fall into some or all of the other categories. Overall, the list includes all categories of works now listed in Section 5 of Title 17 [Section 5 of Former Title 17]; In addition, “pantomimes and choreographic works” are specifically listed. For example, an article describing a political theory is protected by copyright. The article is an expression of the author`s ideas about political theory. The theory itself is just an idea and is not protected by copyright. Another author is free to describe the same theory in his own words without infringing the copyright of the original author. [11] A copyrighted work may contain elements that are not protected by copyright, such as facts, ideas, topics, or content that is in the public domain. A plaintiff alleging misappropriation of funds must first prove that what the defendant appropriated from the copyrighted work was eligible for protection. Second, the applicant must demonstrate that the intended audience will recognize substantial similarities between the two works.
The target group can be the general public or a specialized field. The degree of similarity required for a court to find misappropriation of funds is not easy to define. In fact, “the test of copyright infringement is necessarily vague.” [68] A transfer or licence may have to meet certain formal requirements to be effective,[74] For example, under the Australian Copyright Act 1968, the copyright itself must be expressly transferred in writing. Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership of copyright must be recorded in a letter signed by the assignor. For this purpose, copyright ownership includes exclusive licenses of rights. Therefore, to be effective, exclusive licenses must be issued in a written document signed by the grantor. No special form of transfer or subsidy is required.
A simple document identifying the work and the rights granted is sufficient. Non-exclusive concessions (often referred to as non-exclusive licenses) are not required in writing under U.S. law. They can be oral or even implicit by the behavior of the parties. Copyright transfers, including exclusive licenses, can and should be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. (Information on the registration of transmissions can be found on the Agency`s website.) Although the file is not necessary to make the subsidy effective, it offers significant advantages, similar to those obtained by registering a deed in a real estate transaction. Title 17, United States Code, Section 108 restricts exclusive copyright for certain limited reproductions by a public library or archive. [38] [39] Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 107 also sets legal limits on copyright, commonly referred to as the fair dealing exception. [40] [41] According to this definition, “copies” and “phonograms” together include all tangible subject matter in which copyrighted works may be attached. The definitions of these terms in clause 101, as well as their use in clause 102 and throughout the bill, reflect a fundamental distinction between the “original work”, which is the product of “authorship”, and the multitude of material objects in which it can be incorporated.
Recent Comments