DOCSLIB.ORG

Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Illustrators' Partnership of America and Co-Chair of the American Society of Illustrators Partnership, Is One of Those Opponents I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P 8 4 5 M O R A I N E S T R E E T M A R S H F I E L D , M A S S A C H U S E T T S USA 0 2 0 5 0 t 7 8 1 - 8 3 7 - 9 1 5 2 w w w . i l l u s t r a t o r s p a r t n e r s h i p . o r g February 3, 2013 Maria Pallante Register of Copyrights US Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 RE: Notice of Inquiry, Copyright Office, Library of Congress Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (77 FR 64555) Comments of the Illustrators’ Partnership of America In its October 22, 2012 Notice of Inquiry, the Copyright Office has asked for comments from interested parties regarding “what has changed in the legal and business environments during the past four years that might be relevant to a resolution of the [orphan works] problem and what additional legislative, regulatory, or voluntary solutions deserve deliberation at this time.” As rightsholders, we welcome and appreciate the opportunity to comment. In the past, we have not opposed orphan works legislation in principle; but we have opposed legislation drafted so broadly that it would have permitted the widespread orphaning and infringement of copyright-protected art. In 2008, the Illustrators’ Partnership was joined by 84 other creators’ organizations in opposing that legislation; 167,000 letters were sent to members of Congress from our website. The artists behind those letters earn their living by licensing the work they create. That fact has not changed in the last four years. Therefore before addressing some of the factors that have changed, we think it’s important to examine some that have not. In Part I we’ll summarize several key factors that have remained constant: 1. The High Cost of Compliance The great expense (in both time and money) of digitizing and cataloging tens of thousands of copyrighted works in order to register them with commercial registries would make compliance impossible for all but the richest artists and would therefore make their ability to protect their rights a function of their ability to pay. 2. No Credible Evidence of “Market Failure” There has still been no credible evidence of a “market failure” in commercial markets to justify the expansive scope of legislation recommended by the 2006 Report on Orphan Works and drafted by the 109th and 110th Congresses. 3. Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works imposes specific constraints on the possible limitations and exceptions a Member Country may make to an author’s exclusive right of copyright; and we submit that the orphan works bills previously drafted by Congress would violate all three steps of its “three-step test.” 4. Artists’ Negative Experience With existing Commercial Databases The reluctance of artists to submit their work to unnamed for-profit databases “to be created in the private sector” is not grounded in abstract fears or reservations, but is based on actual business practices and negative experience with existing commercial databases. B R A D H O L L A N D, I L L U S T R A T O R C. F. P A Y N E, I L L U S T R A T O R B R U C E L E H M A N, A T T O R N E Y AT L A W E L E N A P A U L, A T T O R N E Y A T L A W D A V I D L E S H, I L L U S T R A T O R C Y N T H I A T U R N E R, I L L U S T R A T O R I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P O F A M E R I C A In Part II we’ll comment briefly on how the following developments will affect visual artists: 1.The US Small Business Administration Roundtable: “HoW Will the Orphan Works Bill Economically Impact Small Entities?” Although conducted in August 2008, this panel was the first, and to our knowledge, only forum ever conducted by a US government agency to assess the impact of previous orphan works legislation on creators and other small businesses. The papers submitted to that forum, which have never been previously considered, will be attached as Appendix A. 2. Orphan Works Developments in the European Union On October 25, 2012 the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union passed Directive 2012/28/EU on certain permitted uses of orphan works. This legislation is laudable and notable in many respects, one feature of which is its recognition that visual art presents unique problems for any orphan works regime, and has therefore exempted stand-alone visual art until such time as a just long-term solution can be formulated. The full text of the Directive will be attached as Appendix B. 3. Suggested Amendments In an effort to amend previous legislation, the Illustrators’ Partnership, Artists Rights Society and Advertising Photographers of America proposed amendments drafted by attorney Bruce Lehman, former Commissioner of the US Office of Patents and Trademarks, that would have granted libraries and museums the latitude they need to digitize and preserve their archives in the digital age, but would do so without opening the doors to the unjust commercial infringement of art by working artists, as the legislation drafted by the 109th and 110th Congresses would have done. We offer these amendments and Mr. Lehman’s commentary on them as a guide to any future legislation. 4. Copyright Small Claims Court In theory, the concept of a short order court of law to settle copyright disputes would no doubt appeal to many artists. But creating a new form of legalized infringements, as past orphan works bills would have done, and offering a small claims court as a solution to the wave of infringements that will result is not a workable approach. 5. Court Rejects Google Book Search Settlement Like the Orphan Works Acts of 2008, the failure of the 2008 Google Book Rights Settlement has highlighted the age-old problem of separating individual rights from the collective. I. What Things Have Not Changed 1. The High Cost of Compliance The high cost of digitizing and registering works of art is a matter of fact. The costs (in both time and money) necessary to prepare work for archiving have not changed in the last four years and will not change for the better in the foreseeable future. We think it is impossible to overstress the importance of this factor. Indeed, we think the practical inability of artists to comply with the kind of orphan works legislation previously drafted by Congress outweighs decisively any possible arguments for its passage. Yet because the previous legislation was drafted behind closed doors without any responsible input from the working artists it would affect, this fundamental matter of expense appears never to have been taken into account. To understand why it is – or should be – the decisive factor in any orphan works legislation affecting visual artists, we need to break it down to its component parts. The High Cost of Registration The high cost of registering works of visual art was the most important theme to emerge from the 2008 Roundtable on Orphan Works conducted by the US Small Business Administration (SBA). While nearly all artists and photographers stressed it – and while the exact figures vary according to an artist’s age, productivity and the genre in which he or she works – the precise figures supplied by White House photographer John Harrington should suffice to make the point: Illustrators’ Partnership of America Page 2 – Orphan Works and Mass Digitization I L L U S T R A T O R S ‘ P A R T N E R S H I P O F A M E R I C A “Consider that I have submitted several-hundred-thousand of my images to the Copyright office for my registrations that date back to 1989, and I did so and paid fees for each registration, exactly because I wanted to protect my images. For example, in 2006, I registered 58,731 images, and in 2007, 71,919 images. If a [for-profit] registry charged $0.50 per image to submit and process, I would have to pay $29,365.50 to protect my 2006 images, and $35,959.50 to protect my 2007 images, for just those years. For the remaining 16 years of [past] registrations, those costs would increase at least ten-fold. Even if the cost were to drop to $0.01, just those two years [2006/2007] would incur a cost of $6,532.50.” (Emphasis added)1 And the proposed legislation would have required him to register his entire life’s work – past, present and future – with at least two registries. Most graphic artists would have fewer images than photographers, but still the cost of digitizing and registering any artist’s body of images– particularly those of older artists with decades of past work – could easily run into the high tens of thousands of dollars.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The American Abstract Artists and Their Appropriation of Prehistoric Rock Pictures in 1937
    “First Surrealists Were Cavemen”: The American Abstract Artists and Their Appropriation of Prehistoric Rock Pictures in 1937 Elke Seibert How electrifying it must be to discover a world of new, hitherto unseen pictures! Schol- ars and artists have described their awe at encountering the extraordinary paintings of Altamira and Lascaux in rich prose, instilling in us the desire to hunt for other such discoveries.1 But how does art affect art and how does one work of art influence another? In the following, I will argue for a causal relationship between the 1937 exhibition Prehis- toric Rock Pictures in Europe and Africa shown at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and the new artistic directions evident in the work of certain New York artists immediately thereafter.2 The title for one review of this exhibition, “First Surrealists Were Cavemen,” expressed the unsettling, alien, mysterious, and provocative quality of these prehistoric paintings waiting to be discovered by American audiences (fig. ).1 3 The title moreover illustrates the extent to which American art criticism continued to misunderstand sur- realist artists and used the term surrealism in a pejorative manner. This essay traces how the group known as the American Abstract Artists (AAA) appropriated prehistoric paintings in the late 1930s. The term employed in the discourse on archaic artists and artistic concepts prior to 1937 was primitivism, a term due not least to John Graham’s System and Dialectics of Art as well as his influential essay “Primitive Art and Picasso,” both published in 1937.4 Within this discourse the art of the Ice Age was conspicuous not only on account of the previously unimagined timespan it traversed but also because of the magical discovery of incipient human creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Copyright Act of 1976 (As Amended and Codified)
    The Copyright Act of 1976 (as amended and codified) The Act of October 19, 1976 , Public Law Number 94-553 , 90 Stat. 2598, effective January 1, 1978. Chronology of Amendments Public Law No. 95-94 , 91 Stat. 653, 682 (Aug. 5, 1977) amended Sections 203 and 708. Public Law No. 95-598 , 92 Stat. 2676 (Nov. 6, 1978) amended Section 201. Public Law No. 96-517 , 94 Stat. 3028 (Dec. 12, 1980) amended Sections 101 and 117. Public Law No. 97-180 , 96 Stat. 93 (May 24, 1982) amended Section 506. Public Law No. 97-215 , 96 Stat. 178 (July 13, 1982) amended Section 601. Public Law No. 97-366 , 96 Stat. 1759 (Oct. 25, 1982) amended Section 110, 708. Public Law No. 98-450 , 98 Stat. 1727 (Oct. 4, 1984) amended Sections 109 and 115. Public Law No. 98-620 , 98 Stat. 3347 (Nov. 8, 1984) added Chapter 9 (§ § 901 et seq. ). Public Law No. 99-397 , 100 Stat. 848 (Aug. 27, 1986) amended Sections 111 and 801. Public Law No. 100-159 , 101 Stat. 900 (Nov. 9, 1987) amended Sections 902 and 914. Public Law No. 100-568 , 102 Stat. 2853 (Oct. 31, 1988) added Section 116A and amended Sections 101, 116, 205, 301, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 411, 501, 504, 801, and 804. Public Law No. 100-617 , 102 Stat. 3194 (Nov. 5, 1988) amended Section 109 and 17 U.S.C. § 109 note. Public Law No. 100-667 , 102 Stat. 3949 (Nov. 16, 1988) added Section 119 and amended Sections 111, 501, 801, and 804.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ELDRED ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 01–618. Argued October 9, 2002—Decided January 15, 2003 The Copyright and Patent Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8, provides as to copyrights: “Congress shall have Power . [t]o promote the Progress of Science . by securing [to Authors] for limited Times . the exclusive Right to their . Writings.” In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copy- rights by 20 years: Under the 1976 Copyright Act (1976 Act), copy- right protection generally lasted from a work’s creation until 50 years after the author’s death; under the CTEA, most copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author’s death, 17 U. S. C. §302(a). As in the case of prior copyright extensions, principally in 1831, 1909, and 1976, Congress provided for application of the en- larged terms to existing and future copyrights alike. Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain, brought this suit seeking a de- termination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” prescription and the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creative Employee and the Copyright Act of 1976 Rochelle Cooper Dreyfusst
    The Creative Employee and the Copyright Act of 1976 Rochelle Cooper Dreyfusst Debates on issues in copyright law have long exhibited a clash between alternative visions of the goal that copyright seeks to achieve. One group sees copyright as a means for enhancing the creative environment and so tends to suggest resolutions of open issues that are highly attuned to the interests of authors.' Another camp takes an economic approach centered on questions of public welfare. Under this view, public access emerges as a central con- cern, and the rights of authors are thought protectable only insofar as they are necessary to stimulate the optimal level of innovative production. 2 Ralph Brown has recently suggested that neither ap- proach fully captures the social interests that are at stake, and that greater insights might be obtained if the two views were somehow melded.3 This paper is an attempt to carry out Professor Brown's proposal. In merging the author-based and economic approaches, I con- t Associate Professor of Law, New York University School of Law. B.A., Wellesley Col- lege, 1968; M.S., University of California at Berkeley, 1970; J.D., Columbia University, 1981. I note with sadness the passing of my friend and colleague, Kate McKay. As copyright librarian, Kate was enormously helpful to everyone involved with intellectual property at New York University. The unaffected competence with which she carried out her many pub- lic and private roles inspired us all. I also wish to thank Harry First, Jane Ginsburg, Robert Gorman, and Diane Zimmerman for their thoughtful comments, and New York University law students Howard August and Michele Cotton for their research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Golan V. Holder
    THE JOHNIMARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GOLAN v HOLDER: COPYRIGHT IN THE IMAGE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DAVID L. LANGE, RISA J. WEAVER & SHIVEH ROXANA REED ABSTRACT Does copyright violate the First Amendment? Professor Melville Nimmer asked this question forty years ago, and then answered it by concluding that copyright itself is affirmatively speech protective. Despite ample reason to doubt Nimmer's response, the Supreme Court has avoided an independent, thoughtful, plenary review of the question. Copyright has come to enjoy an all-but-categorical immunity to First Amendment constraints. Now, however, the Court faces a new challenge to its back-of-the-hand treatment of this vital conflict. In Golan v. Holder the Tenth Circuit considered legislation (enacted pursuant to the Berne Convention and TRIPS) "restoring" copyright protection to millions of foreign works previously thought to belong to the public domain. The Tenth Circuit upheld the legislation, but not without noting that it appeared to raise important First Amendment concerns. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. This article addresses the issues in the Golan case, literally on the eve of oral argument before the Court. This article first considers the Copyright and Treaty Clauses, and then addresses the relationship between copyright and the First Amendment. The discussion endorses an understanding of that relationship in which the Amendment is newly seen as paramount, and copyright is newly seen in the image of the Amendment. Copyright C 2011 The John Marshall Law School Cite as David L. Lange, Risa J. Weaver & Shiveh Roxana Reed, Golan v. Holder: Copyright in the Image of the First Amendment, 11 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/34s442ws Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 6(2) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Appel, Sharon Publication Date 1999 DOI 10.5070/LR862026984 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Copyright, Digitization of Images, and Art Museums: Cyberspace and Other New Frontiers Sharon Appel* "[W]hile I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copy-right, one must not put manacles upon science." Lord Ellenborough, Carey v. Kearsley, 4 Esp. 168, 170, 170 Eng.Rep. 679, 681 (K.B.1803) I. IN TR O DU CTIO N .......................................................................... 151 II.THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT ......................................................... 154 A. Historical Origins of Copyright Law ................................. 154 B. Constitutional and Philosophical Underpinnings of C opyright Law ................................................................... 157 C. The Copyright Act of 1790 ................................................. 158 D. The Copyright Act of 1909 ................................................ 159 E. The Copyright Act of 1976 ................................................. 161 1. Threshold Requirements for Copyright Protection. 162 B.A. University of Wisconsin-Madison; J.D. Brooklyn Law School; Certificate, Graduate Program in Museum Studies, George Washington University. Former staff attorney and hearing officer, Telecommunications, Vermont Public Service Board. E-mail: [email protected]. Many thanks to Ralph Oman for his encouragement, enthusiasm, and advice. Thanks also to Jeffrey Hannigan, Ildiko P. DeAngelis, and Ellen Zavian for their comments upon earlier drafts, and to Craig Rutenberg for his flexibility and humor. I dedicate this article to my parents, Rose and Carl Appel. UCLA ENTERTAINMENT LAW REVIEW [Vol 6:2 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws for Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
    1 Conflict of Laws for Intellectual Property in Cyberspace François Dessemontet* INTRODUCTION * Professor, Universities of Lausanne and Fribourg. 2 The rules of conflict of laws are aimed at resolving conflicts between territorial laws, otherwise known as municipal laws. Although there are no separate national territories in cyberspace,1 territoriality remains in the 1 See Cass. com., March 7, 2000, D.2000 (No 20), 251-252; CA Paris, March 1, 2000, D.2000 (No 20), 251-252. For French private international law, see Chambre Nationale des Commissaires-priseurs c/ Nart SAS & Nart Inc., TGI Paris, May 3, 2000, available at http://www.legalis.net; UEJF & LICRA c/ Yahoo ! Inc & Yahoo France, Ordonnances de référé, TGI Paris, May 22, 2000 and November 20, 2000. See also M. R. Burnstein, Conflicts on the Net: Choice of Law in Transnational Cyberspace, 29 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 82 (1996); P.E. Geller, International Intellectual Property, Conflicts of Laws and Internet Remedies, EIPR 2000.125; L. LESSIG, CODE AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE 42-60 (Cambridge 1999). 3 organization of the courts (with a few exceptions, such as the Panels adjudicating domain name disputes under the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) Policy or the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Resolution Body).2 Therefore, in most areas of intellectual property, conflict of jurisdiction remains a significant issue. This has prompted efforts towards the creation of a single patent court for all of Europe. However, beyond jurisdictional questions, the harmonization of intellectual property law is not a current endeavor. The Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS Agreement”)3 embodies only a minimum of 2 With regards to ICANN, see the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, available at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm; the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, available at http://www.arbiter.wipo.int/domains/rules/supplemental.html.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S
    SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYR1GHT.S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1966 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IL.C. Card No. 10-36017 This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Libdnof Congreee for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT OFFICE ............................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ......................... 2 Official publications .............................. 4 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ................ 4 Administrative Developments ........................... 4 Problems of Registrability ........................... 5 Organizational Problems ............................ 5 Notices of Intention To Use ...................... : ... 5 Legislative Developments ............................ 6 Judicial Developments ..............................8 Performing Rights and Community Antenna Systems ............... 8 Rights of Exhibition and Copying ....................... 10 Author's "Moral Right" ........................... 11 Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 13 Publication ................................. 16 Notice of Copyright ............................. 17 Copyright Registration ............................ 19 Ownership. Assignment. and Renewal of Copyright ............... 21 Infringement and Remedies .........................23 Other Judicial Developments .........................26 International Developments .......................... 28 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United States as of December
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Syndicate Directory
    2013 Syndicate Directory NEW FEATURES CUSTOM SERVICES EDITORIAL COMICS POLITICAL CARTOONS What’s New in 2013 by Norman Feuti Meet Gil. He’s a bit of an underdog. He’s a little on the chubby side. He doesn’t have the newest toys or live in a fancy house. His parents are split up – his single mother supports them with her factory job income and his father isn’t around as often as a father ought to be. Gil is a realistic and funny look at life through the eyes of a young boy growing up under circumstances that are familiar to millions of American families. And cartoonist Norm Feuti expertly crafts Gil’s world in a way that gives us all a good chuckle. D&S From the masterminds behind Mobilewalla, the search, discovery and analytics engine for mobile apps, comes a syndicated weekly column offering readers both ratings and descriptions of highly ranked, similarly themed apps. Each week, news subscribers receive a column titled “Fastest Moving Apps of the Week,” which is the weekly hot list of the apps experiencing the most dramatic increases in popularity. Two additional “Weekly Category” features, pegged to relevant news, events, holidays and calendars, are also available. 3TW Drs. Oz and Roizen give readers quick access to practical advice on how to prevent and combat conditions that affect overall wellness and quality of life. Their robust editorial pack- age, which includes Daily Tips, a Weekly Feature and a Q & A column, covers a wide variety of topics, such as diet, exercise, weight loss, sleep and much more.
    [Show full text]