DOCSLIB.ORG

ANNUAL REPORT of the REGISTER of COPYRIGHTS for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS For the fiscal year ending June 30 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / WASHINGTON / 1971 L.C. Card No. 10-35017 This report is reprinted from the Annd Report of the Libmrirrn of Congress, for the f~calyear ending June 30, 1970 Contents The Copyright Office .......................................1 General Revision of the Copyright Law ..............................1 The Year's Copyright Business ...................................3 Official Publications ........................................4 Copyright Contributions to the Library Collections ........................4 Administrative Developments ...................................5 Legislative Developments .....................................5 Judicial Developments .......................................6 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection .......................7 Notice of Copyright ......................................8 Ownership and Transfer of Rights ...............................9 Infringement and Remedies .................................10 Unfair Competition and Other Theories of Protection ......................11 International Copyright Developments ..............................12 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United Statesas ofOctober 10. 1970 .........14 Total Registration. 1790-1970 ..................................16 Renewal Registrations by Subject Matter. Calendar Years 1909-1969 ..............19 Registrations by Subject Matter Classes. Fiscal Years 1966-70 .................20 Number of Articles Deposited. Fiscal Years 1966-70 ......................21 Number of Articles Transferred to Other Departments of the Iibrary of Congress .......21 Gross Cash Receipts. Fees. and Registrations. Fiscal Years 1966-70 ...............22 Summary of Copyright Business .................................22 Publications of the Copyright Office ..............................25 "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . ." Report to the Librarian of Congress THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE COPYRIGHT functions were cen- period have been made the repository of all American tered in the Library of Congress on July 8,1870, publications protected by the law of copyrmt, must by the "Act to revise, consolidate, and amend 'emain a sourcc of regret to the public. A part of the the Statutes relating to Patents and CopyA-@ts." resulting loss will be supplied by the incorporation with The centennial of this momentous action was the Library of the entire sene of copyright books under laws Department, formally observed at a reception on July 8,1970, deposited former at the State and aftcmmd at the Department of the Interior. These in the Great Hall of the Library. The reception publications arc now being removed to the Capitol, marked the opening of a special exhibit portray- under the law of the last session, aad may be expected ing significant events in the development of the to add fully twenty-five thousand volumes to this copyright system during the past hundred years. Library. Tables at the end of this chapter tell the story of the growth of the copyright system since the During the last fiscal year alone, 505,995 first Federal copyright law of 1790. That law items, including 174319 books, were deposited provided for copyright deposit in the district for copyright registration; 300,618 items wre courts, thus dispersing copyright records to 40 or made available to the Library for its.collectiom. 50 different locations. Later laws provided for deposit at the Smithsonian Institution, the Genaal Revision of the Copyright Law Department of State, and the Patent Office in the Department of the Interior. Gathering into In this 15th year since the inauguration of the the Library of Congress all the old records, from program for general revision of the copyright those sources and from the various State regis- law, hope sprang anew when, on December 10, tries, made possible a central bibliography of the 1969, the Subcommittee on Patents, Trade- Nation. The copyright deposit system, through marks, and Copyrights of the Senate Judiciary the ensuing years, not only has enhanced the col- Committee approved the comprehensive revision lections of the Library but has also ~crmitted bill, S. 543, with a number of amendments made greater access to timeless literary and artistic by the subcommittee. And on December 16, treasures and their better control. 1969, in anticipation of enactment of the revi- In his annual report for the year ending sion bill during 1970, Public Law 91-147 was December 1, 1870, Ainsworth R. Spofford, who enacted, extending until December 3 1,1970, all was then the Librarian of Congress and the prin- renewal copyrights that would otheiwise expire cipal advocate of centralization of copyright before that date. deposits, wrote: But once again, hope dissolved into disappoint- That the only library in the United States which ment during the second session of the 9 1st Con- possesses a national character should not at an earlier gress as it became evident that there would be no REPORT OF THE REGISlZR OF COPYRIGHTS, 1970 resolution of the tangled issue of cable television its desire that the copyright revision bill do noth- (CATV), which has recently been the main set- ing more than provide for a compulsory license back to general revision. On August 17, 1970, and fm the license fees including the method of after the close of the fiscal year, Senator John L. their collection and distniution, leaving to FCC McCleUan, chairman of the subcommittee, regulations the determination of which broadcast announced that no further action on the bill signals should be carried by cable systems under would be taken in the Senate during the current the compulsory license and the conditions and session. limitations on such carriage. At the same time, The revision bill as approved by the Senate the Commission proposed separate legislation, subcommittee on December 10, 1969, made a introduced by Senator John 0. Partore on number of amendments to S. 543 as it had been requat on March 23, 1970, as S. 3635, which introduced on January 22, 1969, in the early would authorize the Co- in broad terms days of the 91st Congress. Among the several to regulate cable (community antenna) system. major changes was a completely rewritten section On June 24, 1970, the FCC adopted a set of 111 dealing with secondary transmissions by proposed rule8 on the carriage of broadcast sig- cable television of broadcasts of copyright mate- nals by cable systems (35 Fed. Reg. 11045). Its rial. Some of the major changes were provisions proposals, which differ in several material re- requiring payment of royalty fees for uoe of spects from the provisions in section 111 of S. copyrighted sound recordiw in broadcasts and 543, were held open for comments until Novem- other public performances, the fees to be divided ber 23, 1970. The Commission stated that its between the record producers and the per- proposed rules would not become effective until formers; provisions for photocopying by Congress had enacted lefjlllation to provide for liirarim, supplementing the general stipulations payments to copyright owners. on fair use; a chapter providing for a tribunal, to Senator McClellan on August 17, 1970, be appointed as needed, for the two purposes of announced that the subcommittee would not reviewing periodically the various compulsory seek further action on S. 543 in the Senate dur- license rate8 fmed in the bill and of determining ing the current don. In the statement quoted the distribution of royalty fees paid for compul- in the Coqp?ssionalRecord, he said: sory licenses, when claims are in dispute; and the addition, as a separate title 111, of the text of the Acoo~y,it is anticipated that by the time the 926 conge^ convenm the FCCwill hr*c promubted the bill previously passed by the Senate for the pro- arriyofbradartsig- tection of ornamental designs of useful articles. mcaw8ry nrlesmhting totha nab by abb Iyrtrmc and 8suxbtsd mattar. Thh On the crucial hueof cable television, the new huld faditate duby the next Congsa on the section 111 provided basically for a compulsory clrn pravido- of the CO-t bill. license permitting cable television systems to carry the signals of all local broadcast stations He added that he intended to introduce a succes- and a specified number, varying in different cir- sor to the revision bill in the next Congress and cumstances, of distant broadcast stations. The hoped that its consideration could "resume in application of the license to distant stations the Committee on the Judiciary at the point would be subject to certain limitations, designed where proceedings are now being suspended." to preserve, to a stated extent, the exclusive On the same day, in conjunction with this rights of local broadcasters in particular prognuns statement, Senator McClellan introduced for and to maintain the blackouts imposed on local himself and the other four members of the sub- televising of professional sports event9. For the committee, S. J. Res. 230, extending until compulsory license, the cable system would pay a December 31, 1971, all renewal copy@& that total fee under a schedule of rates based on speci- would otherwire expire before that date. This fied percentages of its revenue from subscribers. joint resolution was passed immediately by the In commenting on the new section 1 11, the Senate. Its effect, together with the five earlier Federal Communications Commission expressed extensions of a similar character, would be to REPORT OF THE REGISTER
Recommended publications
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S

    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
  • Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law

    Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law

    EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PATENT AND COPYRIGHT LAW Thesis submitted to Cochiin Uniiversiity of Sciience and Technollogy for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Faculty of Law By SALEENA K. B Under the guidance of Prof. Dr. N. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN (Director, IUCIPRS, CUSAT) SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COCHIN-682 022 2011 School of Legal Studies Cochin University of Science and Technology Kochi – 682 022, Kerala, India Ph: 91-484-2862487 (O), 2577542 (R) Prof. Dr. N. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN Fax: 91-484-2575463(Direct), 2577595 Professor HRD Chair on IPR E-mail:[email protected] ; [email protected] This is to certify that this thesis entitled “Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law” submitted by Ms. Saleena K.B for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, is to the best of my knowledge, the record of bonafide research carried out under my guidance and supervision from 13.09.2006 at School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and Technology. This thesis or any part thereof has not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree. Cochin Dr. N. S. Gopalakrishnan 19/10/2011 (Research Guide) This is to certify that the important research findings included in the thesis entitled “Exceptions and Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent and Copyright Law” have been presented in a research seminar at School of legal Studies, Cochin University of Science and technology on 2nd May 2011.
  • Register of Copyrights

    Register of Copyrights

    SIXTY-EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1965 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON: 1966 This report is ,mprintd from the Ann& Report of tbLibr& of Uunqnwu for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT Om ........................................................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ............................................ ; ..... 2 Official Publications ........................................; .................. 3 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congrrss ................................ 3 Administrative Developments ................................................... 4 Probkxm Arising From Computer Technology ................................... 4 Nature of Copyrighted Material Renewed ....................................... 5 Mexican Search Project ...................................................... 6 Visitors and Exhibits ......................................................... 6 Storage of Deposit Copies .......................................... ......... 7 Legislative Developments ....................................................... 7 Judicial Developments ......................................................... 8 Actions Pending Against the Register of Copyrights ............................... 8 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection ............................... 9 Publication .................................................. : .............. 12 NoticeofCopyright .........................................................
  • Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization

    Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization

    Copyright and Cultural Institutions Copyright and Cultural Institutions Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums Peter B. Hirtle, emily Hudson, & Andrew t. Kenyon Cornell university liBrAry ithaca, new yorK © 2009 Peter B. Hirtle, Emily Hudson, and Andrew T. Kenyon Published by Cornell University Library Ithaca, New York 14853 ISBn-13: 978-0-935995-10-7 Design and composition by India Amos Attribution-Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Contents Preface • ix 1 Introduction • 1 1.1 What is copyright? • 2 1.2 The framework of copyright law • 6 1.3 Principles of copyright law • 9 1.4 Common law copyright • 11 1.5 Copyright timeline • 11 2 Copyright Fundamentals • 15 2.1 Introduction • 15 2.2 Types of work protected by copyright • 15 2.3 What are the prerequisites for an item to be protected by copyright? • 29 2.4 Works made prior to 1978 • 36 3 Duration and Ownership of Copyright • 39 3.1 Introduction • 39 3.2 What is the duration of copyright? • 40 3.2.1 unPuBlisHed worKs • 41 3.2.2 worKs first PuBlisHed in tHe united stAtes • 45 3.2.3 PuBlisHed foreign worKs • 49 3.2.4 sound reCordings • 53 3.2.5 ArchiteCturAl worKs • 54 3.3 Who is the owner of copyright? • 55 3.4 How is copyright transferred to others? • 63 3.5 Conclusion • 65 4 Exclusive Rights and Infringement • 67 4.1 Introduction • 67 4.2 Exclusive rights • 68 4.3 Moral rights • 74 4.4 The right to control access to digital works • 76 v Contents 4.5 Infringement • 78 4.6 Remedies for Infringement • 83 4.7 Conclusion • 86 5 Fair Use and
  • A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: a Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age

    A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: a Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age

    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series 4-2012 A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age Rami Olwan Queensland University of Technology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Olwan, Rami. 2012. A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age. PIJIP Research Paper No. 2012-07. American University Washington College of Law, Washington DC. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Technology, Law, & Security Program at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY OF THE JORDANIAN COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE INTERNET AGE Rami Olwan1 ABSTRACT On October 4, 2004, Brazil and Argentina requested that WIPO adopt a development-oriented approach to IP and to reconsider its work in relation to developing countries. In October, 2007, WIPO member States adopted a historic decision for the benefit of developing countries, to establish a WIPO Development Agenda. Although there have been several studies related to IP and development that call for IP laws in developing countries to be development-friendly, there is little research that attempts to provide developing countries with practical measures to achieve that goal.

  • A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: a Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age

    Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review Volume 35 Number 2 Spring 2013 Article 2 Spring 2013 A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age Rami Olwan LLB, Yarmouk University, Jordan; LLM, Buckingham University, United Kingdom; LLM, Columbia University, New York, United States; PhD, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rami Olwan, A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age, 35 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 209 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol35/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Pragmatic Approach to Intellectual Property and Development: A Case Study of the Jordanian Copyright Law in the Internet Age * RAMI OLWAN “For too long IPRs have been regarded as food for the rich countries and poison for poor countries . [I]t is not as simple as that. Poor countries may find them useful provided they are accommodated
  • The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: a Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks

    The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: a Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks

    Title and Declaration The Author-Performer Divide in Intellectual Property Law: A Comparative Analysis of the American, Australian, British and French Legal Frameworks Volume I of II Submitted by Mathilde Goizane Alice Pavis, to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Law, March 2016. This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Acknowledgements I am grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding my docoral research, and to the InVisible Difference project; the Sciences, Culture and the Law Research Centre (University of Exeter) as well as the John W. Kluge Center (US Library of Congress) for offering a supportive environment in which to grow as a scholar. I must thank my colleagues and friends who have contributed to this thesis with their feedback, encouragement and the many cups of tea we have shared – all were equally useful. I am particularly thankful to my supervisor Professor Charlotte Waelde for her unfailing support and mentorship. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for keeping me away from my books when I most needed it but could not bring myself to leaving the library. Last but not least, to Clément, for always leading by example… 2 Thesis Abstract Western intellectual property frameworks have at least one feature in common: performers are less protected than authors.
  • Copyright in Literary Works: a Study on Its Relationship with Authorship and Book Publishing with Reference to Nepal

    Copyright in Literary Works: a Study on Its Relationship with Authorship and Book Publishing with Reference to Nepal

    Copyright In Literary Works: A Study On Its Relationship With Authorship And Book Publishing With Reference To Nepal A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Tribhuvan University in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In ENGLISH By Pustun Pradhan Tribhuvan University Kathmandu September, 2008 LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION We hereby recommend that this dissertation entitled “COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY WORKS: A STUDY ON ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH AUTHORSHIP AND BOOK PUBLISHING WITH REFERENCE TO NEPAL” prepared by Pustun Pradhan under our supervision be accepted by the Research Committee for the final examination in the fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in ENGLISH. Dissertation Committee ------------------------------------------ Prof. Dr. Abhi Narayan Subedi Supervisor ---------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Sangita Rayamajhi Expert Date: June, 2009 ii APPROVAL LETTER This dissertation entitled COPYRIGHT IN LITERARY WORKS: A STUDY ON ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH AUTHORSHIP AND BOOK PUBLISHING WITH REFERENCE TO NEPAL was submitted by PUSTUN PRADHAN for final evaluation by the Research Committee of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tribhuvan University, in fulfillments of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in ENGLISH. I hereby certify that the research committee of the Faculty has found the dissertation satisfactory in scope and quality and has therefore accepted in for the sought degree. Prof.Nav Raj Kanel, Ph.D Dean Chairman, Research Committee Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Tribhuvan University, Nepal Date: iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT I consider myself fortunate to work under the guidance of a person who is no other than himself a prolific writer and a distinguished literary figure – Prof.
  • Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright

    Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright

    American University Washington College of Law Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series 4-2012 Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright Alberto Cerda Silva Universidad de Chile, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation Cerda Silva, Alberto, 2012. Beyond the Unrealistic Solution for Development Provided by the Appendix of the Berne Convention on Copyright. PIJIP Research Paper no. 2012-08 American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Technology, Law, & Security Program at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND THE UNREALISTIC SOLUTION FOR DEVELOPMENT PROVIDED BY THE APPENDIX OF THE BERNE CONVENTION ON COPYRIGHT Alberto J. Cerda Silva ABSTRACT The standards of copyright protection promoted by the Berne Convention are highly problematic for developing countries because these countries need to ensure a wide dissemination of works for teaching, scholarship, and research purposes. In order to accommodate these needs and to promote accession to this Convention, the 1971 Paris Act of the Berne Convention, included an Appendix that allowed developing countries to issue compulsory licenses for translating and/or reproducing foreign works into languages of general use in their territories.