Rosen-Music and Copyright.Pdf

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Rosen-Music and Copyright.Pdf Music and Copyright This page intentionally left blank Music and Copyright Ronald S. Rosen 1 1 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offi ces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Th ailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2008 by Ronald S. Rosen Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press Oxford University Press is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Ronald S. Rosen. _____________________________________________ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rosen, Ronald S. Music and copyright / Ronald S. Rosen. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-533836-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Copyright—Music—United States. 2. Fair use (Copyright)—United States. 3. Copyright infringement—United States. I. Title. KF3035.R67 2008 346.7304’82—dc22 2008013929 _____________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Note to Readers Th is publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is based upon sources believed to be accurate and reliable and is intended to be cur- rent as of the time it was written. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Also, to confi rm that the information has not been aff ected or changed by recent developments, traditional legal research tech- niques should be used, including checking primary sources where appropriate. (Based on the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations.) You may order this or any other Oxford University Press publication by visiting the Oxford University Press website at www.oup.com To My Family Florence and Daniel Rosen Who Started All Th is Judith Spouse, Partner, and In-House Editor Matthew, Philip, and Galit Th e Generation in Whom We Take Great Pride and Chloe, Gilad, and Eitan Th e Generation in Whom We Place Our Faith and Hope for a Better World This page intentionally left blank Contents PREFACE PRELUDE 1 I. Music and Copyright: The Search to Separate Idea from Expression 2 A. Idea and Expression in Music 2 B. Vivaldi v. Bach: A Paradigm for the Ages 4 II. The Rise of Copyright: A Brief Review 5 CHAPTER 1 The Copyright Law: An Overview 9 I. The Lawyer’s Mission 11 II. Basic Principles: An Introduction 12 III. The Idea/Expression Dichotomy 14 A. Arnstein v. Porter and Its Legacy 15 B. The Reinterpretation of Arnstein v. Porter 17 1. Sid & Marty Kroff t Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald’s Corporation 17 2. Fine Tuning Kroff t: Litchfi eld, Berkic, Aliotti and Olson 19 3. Shaw v. Lindheim and Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. 21 4. An Interim Stopgap: Latman’s Probative Similarity 23 5. Expert Testimony and the Future of the Two-Prong Test 23 IV. Filtration 24 A. The Use of Filtration to Separate Unprotectable Elements from Protected Expression: Two Early Formulations 24 B. Filtration: Contemporary Formulations 25 V. Expert Testimony under the Two-Prong Test: Suggested Alternatives 27 A. Combine the Two Tests 27 1. To Eliminate the Inherent Confusion Regarding Use of Expert Testimony 27 2. The Necessity for Musicology Experts: Recognition of the Complexity of Musical Language and the Public’s Unfamiliarity with That Language 28 viii Contents B. Recognition of Current Practice 28 1. Burden of Proof: Components and Responsibilities 28 2. Ritualized Procedures 29 C. The Copyright Registration Certifi cate and the Rebuttable Presumption 30 D. Music’s Need for a Translator and Educator: Two Scenarios 30 1. Scenario Number One 31 2. Scenario Number Two 31 VI. Legal and Equitable Defenses 33 A. Statute of Limitations 33 1. Accrual 33 2. Tolling 36 B. Laches and Estoppel 38 1. The Two Defenses Compared 38 2. Laches 38 3. Estoppel 42 C. Other Defenses 44 1. Abandonment 45 2. Innocent Intent 45 3. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel 47 4. Unclean Hands and Misuse of Copyright 54 VII. Lack of Jurisdiction: Extraterritorial Acts 61 VIII. Conclusion: The Lawyer’s Mission Redux 61 CHAPTER 2 Remedies 63 I. Actual Damages and Profi ts 66 A. Actual Damages 68 1. Lost Sales 69 2. Value of Use of the Copyrighted Work (The Imputed License Fee) The Deltak/Business Trends/Davis Trilogy 72 B. Profi ts 76 1. Profi ts and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 77 2. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation: A Case Study 77 C. Indirect Profi ts 80 D. Apportionment of Profi ts 83 E. The Prohibition Against Double-Counting: The Courts Speak 83 F. Double-Counting and Statutory Damages 86 II. Statutory Damages: An Overview 88 A. Theory and Practice: The Need for Statutory Damages 88 B. Statutory Damages: Parsing the Statute 90 1. Section 504(c)(1) 90 Contents ix 2. “ . all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work” 91 3. “ . for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally” 92 III. Multiple Infringements and Statutory Damages: The Courts Construe the Statute 93 A. The Predecessor to Section 504(c): The Supreme Court and Section 101(b) of the 1909 Act 93 B. The Feltner/Columbia Trilogy 94 1. Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc. 95 2. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.: Feltner Seeks a Jury Trial 96 3. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc.: Feltner Gets His Jury Trial 97 4. Post-Feltner and Summary Judgments 98 C. Compilations and Their Constituent Elements 99 1. The Defi nition and Nature of Compilations 99 D. Derivative Works 102 1. The Statutes: Sections 504(c)(1), 101, 102 and 103 102 2. A Case in Point: Gamma Audio & Video, Inc. v. Ean-Chea 102 IV. Statutory Damages: Willful and Innocent Infringement 103 A. Section 504(c)(2): Enhanced and Remitted Statutory Damages 103 B. A Sampling of Statutory and Case Authorities 104 1. Willfulness 104 2. Innocence 108 V. Coda to Statutory Damages: Five Scenarios 109 1. Scenario No. 1 109 2. Scenario No. 2 110 3. Scenario No. 3 110 4. Scenario No. 4 110 5. Scenario No. 5 110 VI. Attorney’s Fees 111 A. The Landscape Pre-Fogerty v. Fantasy 111 1. The Confl ict Among the Circuits 111 2. A Sampling of Case Authorities on Opposite Sides of the “Dual” and “Evenhanded” Approaches 112 B. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.: The Evenhanded Rule Prevails 114 1. The Supreme Court Speaks 114 2. The Ninth Circuit Converts 115 3. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty 116 x Contents C. The “Prevailing Party” 117 1. Who Is the Prevailing Party? 117 2. A Sampling of Judicially Created Guidelines 118 VII. Costs 121 VIII. Arbitration 123 A. The Availability of Arbitration to Resolve Infringement Claims 123 B. Kamakazi Music Corporation v. Robbins Music Corporation 123 C. The Federal Court v. The Arbitration Tribunal: Advantages and Disadvantages 125 D. Practice Point: Whether to Choose Arbitration as a Remedy 126 IX. Injunctive Relief 129 A. General Principles 129 B. Temporary Restraining Orders 133 C. Preliminary Injunctions 134 1. General Considerations and Procedure 134 2. Elements for Obtaining Preliminary Injunction 135 D. Permanent Injunctions 140 X. Impoundment 141 A. Requirements and Court Discretion 141 B. Constitutionality of the Impoundment Procedure 143 C. Practical Considerations of an Impoundment Order 146 CHAPTER 3 The Basic Elements of Musical Language and Ideas: The Copyright Perspective 149 I. Music as Language 151 II. Copyright and the Components of Musical Language and Ideas 152 A. The Trinity: Melody, Harmony and Rhythm 152 1. Melody 153 2. Harmony 153 3. Rhythm 153 B. Supplementing the Trinity 154 C. The Building Blocks of Music 157 1. The Phrase 157 2. Motive (Motif) 157 3. Counterpoint 158 4. Tempo and Expression Marks 158 5. Meter 158 6. Two Basic Forms: Binary and Ternary Form 159 III. Musical Ideas and Expression: A Sampling 159 A. Bach v. Mozart and Chicago, Their Contemporary Colleagues: Using and Exploiting the Triad 159 Contents xi B. Equal Temperament and Scènes à Faire: The Harmonic Imperative 162 1. Equal Temperament 162 2. Scènes à Faire 163 C. Musical Scènes à Faire: Two Examples 164 1. Progressions 164 2. Cadences: Two Examples 166 D. Comment: Harmony and Scènes à Faire 167 IV. Form/Structure and “Forms” 168 A. The Issue: A Question of Terminology and Context 168 B. § 102(b) of the Copyright Act: “Procedures, Processes, Systems” 169 C. Musical Form/Structure and “Procedures, Processes, Systems” 170 D. Conclusion: Original Musical Works and the Vast Storehouse of Musical Ideas and Building Blocks 171 CHAPTER 4 Infringement and the Commencement of Litigation 173 I. Pragmatism and Ethics: Initial Considerations 174 II. Pre-Meeting Tasks for the Parties 175 A. The Plaintiff 175 B. The Lawyer for the Plaintiff 175 C.
Recommended publications
  • Lyrics and the Law : the Constitution of Law in Music
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2006 Lyrics and the law : the constitution of law in music. Aaron R. S., Lorenz University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Lorenz, Aaron R. S.,, "Lyrics and the law : the constitution of law in music." (2006). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2399. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2399 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LYRICS AND THE LAW: THE CONSTITUTION OF LAW IN MUSIC A Dissertation Presented by AARON R.S. LORENZ Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY February 2006 Department of Political Science © Copyright by Aaron R.S. Lorenz 2006 All Rights Reserved LYRICS AND THE LAW: THE CONSTITUTION OF LAW IN MUSIC A Dissertation Presented by AARON R.S. LORENZ Approved as to style and content by: Sheldon Goldman, Member DEDICATION To Martin and Malcolm, Bob and Peter. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project has been a culmination of many years of guidance and assistance by friends, family, and colleagues. I owe great thanks to many academics in both the Political Science and Legal Studies fields. Graduate students in Political Science have helped me develop a deeper understanding of public law and made valuable comments on various parts of this work.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Law and Business: a Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991 Gail I
    Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 13 | Number 4 Article 5 1-1-1991 Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991 Gail I. Winson Janine S. Natter Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_comm_ent_law_journal Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Gail I. Winson and Janine S. Natter, Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991, 13 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 811 (1991). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol13/iss4/5 This Special Feature is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Music Law and Business: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1982-1991* By GAIL I. WINSON** AND JANINE S. NArrER*** Table of Contents I. Law Review and Journal Articles ......................... 818 A . A ntitrust ............................................ 818 B. Bankruptcy .......................................... 819 C. Bibliographies ....................................... 819 D . Contracts ........................................... 819 1. M anagem ent ..................................... 821 2. Personal Service ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monetizing Infringement
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia García, Monetizing Infringement, 54 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 265 (2020), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1308. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García* The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it.
    [Show full text]
  • Entertainment and Sports Law University of Memphis Law School Career Services Office
    Entertainment and Sports Law University of Memphis Law School Career Services Office What is entertainment and sports law? Entertainment and sports law is civil law of a specific character that relates to the fields of entertainment and athletics. The practice involves contracts, labor law, corporate finance, intellectual property, and antitrust. Lawyers practicing in the field of entertainment and sports law specialize in knowing and understanding their clients’ industry and are able to advocate for their clients’ interests. In the major professional sports leagues of the National Football League (“NFL”), Major League Baseball (“MLB”), Na- tional Basketball Association (“NBA”), and National Hockey League (“NHL”), players’ associations act much like unions, regulating fees and salaries for sports professionals, coaches, and agents. For the lawyer specializing in entertainment law, intellectual property law takes center stage. Copyright law concerns the rights of creators of artistic works in the music, entertainment, publishing, and fine arts industries. Where do entertainment and Where do sports and entertainment lawyers do? sports lawyers work? Negotiating: Sports and entertainment lawyers negotiate contracts with spon- Private law firms: Some large firms sorships, television syndicators, and other representatives that interact with have departments specializing in the sports and entertainment industry. A lawyer working for a band might help to negotiate contracts with particular venues at a particular rate. entertainment and sports law, es- pecially in large cities where record Transactional work: Entertainment lawyers frequently contract for one-time labels house their headquarters or events that may never reoccur. Thus, entertainment and sports lawyers must in cities with professional sports be able to draft contracts that advance and protect their clients’ interests under a variety of circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Synthesis
    7 | SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 1. SYNTHESIS This chapter provides the rationale and context for Enquiries into Intellectual Property’s Economic Impact and highlights its most significant findings. In doing so, the chapter presents the major themes of the overall report, which are 1) the importance of various types of intellectual property as sources of growth and innovation in today’s economies; and 2) the effects on IP systems and stakeholders of major developments such as content digitisation, the growth of the Internet, and globalisation. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities or third party. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. It should be noted that statistical data on Israeli patents and trademarks are supplied by the patent and trademark offices of the relevant countries. ENQUIRIES INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S ECONOMIC IMPACT © OECD 2015 8 | SYNTHESIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key challenges • Copyright appears to be the type of IP that has been attracting business investment at the highest growth rate and it is undergoing statutory review in many countries, yet there are fewer empirical studies about copyright than about patents. Encouraging and enabling the collection and availability of more data on copyright would facilitate data-driven copyright policy. In fact, robust evidence on the use of IP rights generally and on their economic and social impacts is essential for sound IP systems. Presently, however, relatively little concrete evidence is available to support the common assumption that IP rights encourage greater innovation and creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Music Law 102
    Music Law 102 2019 Edition LawPracticeCLE Unlimited All Courses. All Formats. All Year. ABOUT US LawPracticeCLE is a national continuing legal education company designed to provide education on current, trending issues in the legal world to judges, attorneys, paralegals, and other interested business professionals. New to the playing eld, LawPracticeCLE is a major contender with its oerings of Live Webinars, On-Demand Videos, and In-per- son Seminars. LawPracticeCLE believes in quality education, exceptional customer service, long-lasting relationships, and networking beyond the classroom. We cater to the needs of three divisions within the legal realm: pre-law and law students, paralegals and other support sta, and attorneys. WHY WORK WITH US? At LawPracticeCLE, we partner with experienced attorneys and legal professionals from all over the country to bring hot topics and current content that are relevant in legal practice. We are always looking to welcome dynamic and accomplished lawyers to share their knowledge! As a LawPracticeCLE speaker, you receive a variety of benets. In addition to CLE teaching credit attorneys earn for presenting, our presenters also receive complimentary tuition on LawPracticeCLE’s entire library of webinars and self-study courses. LawPracticeCLE also aords expert professors unparalleled exposure on a national stage in addition to being featured in our Speakers catalog with your name, headshot, biography, and link back to your personal website. Many of our courses accrue thousands of views, giving our speakers the chance to network with attorneys across the country. We also oer a host of ways for our team of speakers to promote their programs, including highlight clips, emails, and much more! If you are interested in teaching for LawPracticeCLE, we want to hear from you! Please email our Directior of Operations at [email protected] with your information.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Edition 1
    WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW VOLUME 14 NUMBER 1 FALL 2013 AN EXAMINATION OF BASEL III AND THE NEW U.S. BANKING REGULATIONS Andrew L. McElroy .................................................................. 5 HOW TO KILL COPYRIGHT: A BRUTE-FORCE APPROACH TO CONTENT CREATION Kirk Sigmon ........................................................................... 26 THE MIXED USE OF A PERSONAL RESIDENCE: INTEGRATION OF CONFLICTING HOLDING PURPOSES UNDER I.R.C. SECTIONS 121, 280A, AND 1031 Christine Manolakas ............................................................... 62 OPEN SOURCE MODELS IN BIOMEDICINE: WORKABLE COMPLEMENTARY FLEXIBILITIES WITHIN THE PATENT SYSTEM? Aura Bertoni ......................................................................... 126 PRIVATE FAIR USE: STRENGTHENING POLISH COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF ONLINE WORKS BY LOOKING TO U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW Michał Pękała ....................................................................... 166 THE DMCA’S SAFE HARBOR PROVISION: IS IT REALLY KEEPING THE PIRATES AT BAY? Charles K. Lane .................................................................... 192 PERMISSIBLE ERROR?: WHY THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE DMCA IN MDY INDUSTRIES, LLC V. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. REACHES THE CORRECT RESULT James Harrell ........................................................................ 211 ABOUT THE JOURNAL The WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW is a student organization sponsored by Wake Forest University
    [Show full text]
  • Neutral Is the New Blind
    Neutral is the New Blind: Calling for Gender Segregated Evidence in UK Legislative Inquiries regarding the Music Industries Dr Metka Potočnik* Abstract In late 2020, the Government responded to the enormous crisis in the UK music industries, caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, by initiating several legislative inquiries, aimed at reviewing the rules regulating the industry, including rules on commercialisation of intellectual property (IP). The aim of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) inquiries is purportedly to improve the fairness and viability of the sector, which was devastated by the pandemic. At the same time, the Covid-19 crisis served as a catalyst to expose the pre-existing inequalities and unfairness in the UK music industries. This article explores the path of the UK DCMS 2020-21 legislative inquiry into the Economics of Music Streaming as a case study to the current approach in UK regulation of the music industries. Informed by the feminist theory of relational legal feminism and embedded in the broader framework of IP Social Justice theory, the author argues that the current approach to legislative inquiries is incomplete, because it fails to take into account the systemic barriers faced by women (i.e., all who identify as women), including gender minority musicians in the sector. The evidence collected fails to investigate the lived experience of women, to the detriment of fairness of the overall proposal of future reform. Keywords Feminist scholarship, IP Social Justice, Intellectual Property Law, the music industries, streaming, communication to the public, Brexit, EU-derived domestic legislation, retained EU case law, evidence-led policy, legislative inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE: Copyright, Common Law, and The
    INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good TOM W. BELL Arlington, Virginia Founders’ Copyright 2014 by Tom Bell. (See opposite for more information.) Second printing, April 2018 Printed in the United States of America Mercatus Center at George Mason University 3434 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 www.mercatus.org 703-993-4930 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bell, Tom W. Intellectual privilege : copyright, common law, and the common good / Tom W. Bell. pages cm ISBN 978-0-9892193-8-9 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-0-9892193-9-6 (e-book (kindle)) 1. Copyright--United States. I. Title. KF2994.B45 2014 346.7304’82--dc23 2014005816 COPYRIGHT NOTE Not long ago, in “Five Reforms for Copyright” (chapter 7 of Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2012), I suggested that the United States should return to the kind of copyright the Founders supported: the one they created in their 1790 Copyright Act. The Founders’ copyright had a term of only fourteen years with the option to renew for another fourteen. It conditioned copyright on the satisfaction of strict statutory formali- ties and covered only maps, charts, and books. The Founders’ copyright protected only against unauthorized reproductions and offered only com- paratively limited remedies. This book follows through on that policy advice. The Mercatus Center and I agreed to publish it under terms chosen to recreate the legal effect of the Founders’ 1790 Copyright Act. For example, the book’s copy- right will expire in 2042 (if not before), and you should feel free to make a movie or other derivative work at any time.
    [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]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some Progress, a Few Bad Choices, and an Overall Failed Ambition Séverine Dusollier
    The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some progress, a few bad choices, and an overall failed ambition Séverine Dusollier To cite this version: Séverine Dusollier. The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some progress, a few bad choices, and an overall failed ambition. Common Market Law Review, Kluwer Law International, 2020, 57 (4), pp.979 - 1030. hal-03230170 HAL Id: hal-03230170 https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03230170 Submitted on 19 May 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. COMMON MARKET LAW REVIEW CONTENTS Vol. 57 No. 4 August 2020 Editorial comments: Not mastering the Treaties: The German Federal Constitutional Court’s PSPP judgment 965-978 Articles S. Dusollier, The 2019 Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Some progress, a few bad choices, and an overall failed ambition 979-1030 G. Marín Durán, Sustainable development chapters in EU free trade agreements: Emerging compliance issues 1031-1068 M. Penades Fons, The effectiveness of EU law and private arbitration 1069-1106 Case law A. Court of Justice EU judicial independence decentralized: A.K., M.
    [Show full text]