DOCSLIB.ORG

Employer's Copyright Vis-À-Vis Author's Right 113

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Employer's Copyright Vis-À-Vis Author's Right 113 Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 10, March 2005, pp 112-118 Employer’s Copyright vis-à-vis Author’s Right: An Unresolved Legal Dilemma Harsh Kumar The National University of Juridical Sciences, N U J S Bhawan, 12 L B Block, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 098 Received 11 August 2004, revised 7 February 2005 This article explores the protection to authors-employees and freelancers-in India in the light of the recent US decision in the Tasini case. Traversing the history and context of the Tasini case, particularly, explaining the court’s philosophy behind the recognition of a freelancers right over his employer/publisher, the paper highlights the concept of authorship in India and the significant differences in the manner employees and freelancers are treated under the Indian legal system. Keywords: Tasini, employees’ copyright, freelancer’s copyright The bundle of rights, which copyright professes to be, than an employer/publisher. This decision might has a profound impact in the determination of render security to freelancers against the exploitation authorship. With the theory of indivisibility of of their works by employers/publishers in the copyrights gaining redundancy,1 coupled with the American world. However, when viewed in the Indian increase in electronic publishing, complex issues arise context, the decision opens an arena of complex as regards authorship of a copyrightable work. issues as already aforesaid like the determination of Laws virtually vest authorship to the creator of an copyright ownership to the intricate issue of the original work2. This simplicity in the basic applicability of moral rights; the analysis of which understanding of copyright ownership, however, forms the crux of this paper. wanes fast in the context of works where there is a Within the Indian law, there exists little transfer in the medium of publication itself, like from background material as regards authorship of a work the print to an electronic set up. There thus arise converted from print to an electronic medium. An unresolved issues concerning the determination of the analytical approach has therefore been adopted to first author, and the balancing of distribution rights analyze the unresolved question of authorship in the between the first and the second author of a creation. context of works converted into electronic formats. The legal dilemmas are all the more pronounced in The first part of the paper traverses in brief the cases where electronic publishing is not conceived as history and context of the Tasini case, particularly a possibility. Further, there remain fundamental explaining the court’s philosophy behind the questions concerning the territoriality of electronic recognition of a freelancers right over his publications, the problem of manipulations affecting employer/publisher. The second part is an elaborate the moral rights of the authors, and questions discussion of the Indian scenario with respect to pertaining to the vesting of reproduction rights in authorship in the backdrop of the Tasini case. The electronic formats, i.e., whether reproduction rights legal provisions as existing in the United Kingdom vests with the original author or the have also been analysed. In the end, the paper employer/publisher3 concerned? 4 addresses the plausible conclusions and the complex The Tasini case,5 as decided upon by the American unresolved legal dilemmas spurred up in the course of Supreme Court, has centred attention towards the legal analysis. aspect of rights sharing within copyrights. Albeit in The Tasini Case the context of different legal provisions, the case The primary issue within copyrights concerns the reflects the existence of authorship rights to a rights of authors and freelancers to the ownership of freelancer (who is an independent contractor) rather their works, in particular, with aspects concerning the _____ rights to use and re-use individual contributions †Email: [email protected] across all media in various formats. With newspaper Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com HARSH KUMAR: EMPLOYER'S COPYRIGHT VIS-À-VIS AUTHOR'S RIGHT 113 publishers developing significant digital technologies, criterion of revision as postulated under the section9 the importance of settling the authorship issues across Further, by showing the relevant aspects of each all media has emerged as a fundamental concern.6 The article, viz. the authorial, the periodical details, and disputes for authorial rights have often been raised the particular issue of the print publication along with before the domestic courts of the EU member states, the relevant page number, the electronic format and were resolved in favour of the journalists with maintained its nexus with the print publication. any electronic exploitation without express consent of The Appellate Court granting summary judgement 7 the authors deemed a copyright infringement . to the freelancers overruled the legal justification for In the United States, this legal interpretation the exploitation by the employers as heralded by the towards the authorship rights of a freelancer vis-à-vis District Court. The key interpretation for veering his publisher took shape through the Tasini case. round for the freelancers are imbued in the application Focusing on the myriad interpretations of the rights of the following reasoning towards the deciphering of conferred under Section 201 (c) of the US Copyright the authorial rights. 8 Act , the Tasini converged on the issue of copyright It was observed that the publishers dealing with the ownership of a newspaper article as contributed by public through the relevant databases indirectly freelancers to print periodicals, and subsequently infringed upon the authorial rights of licensed by the publishers to electronic databases. communication,10 the right, which subserved merely The litigation was initiated by a group of six to the freelancers. Though the databases were freelancers who had contributed 21 articles to three described as containing ‘new anthologies of print periodicals between 1990-93. While the authors innumerable’ editions or publications, the Appellate enjoyed copyright in each of their articles, the print Court disagreed with the District Court and held them publishers had registered collective work copyright in far from being revisions of the stated works. each of their periodical editions. Vide a licensing An important aspect, however, left untouched was agreement with two computer databases companies, - the concept of `transferability of the privilege' of the Lexis/Nexis and UMI, the print publishers Section 201(c), particularly concerning the wide allowed the copies of the articles of the freelancers to ramifications it has. Besides, there has been little be placed into three databases. Though the articles discussion as regards the ‘work for hire’ doctrine, and were placed along with all the other articles of the on its applicability with the realms of the US periodical, each article was retrievable by a user of Copyright Act11. This aspect unfortunately was not the database in isolation devoid of the context the the subject of discussion even in the US Supreme original print publication presented. It was in this Court, which later upheld the findings of the backdrop that an infringement of rights of authorship Appellate Court. through the inclusion of articles in the databases was The harmonization of the rights of the author of the alleged, particularly, as the freelancer’s contracts with collective work (i.e., the publisher/employer)with the print publishers in no instance secured any respect to the author of an article consent to publication. (freelancer/employee) formed the crux of the The publishers defence to infringement was based Supreme Court’s analysis, which rightly interpreted upon the privilege accorded under Section 201(c) of Section 201(c) without diminishing the author’s the Copyright Act, which allowed them reproduction exclusive right in the article. Unlike microfilms, the and distribution rights, including the right of revision database was held not to perceptibly reproduce of that collective work, and any later collective work articles as part of the collective work, or even qualify in the same series. as revision12. The publications’ contention of the The defence of the publishers was upheld by the manipulation of search result to produce entirety of District Court, which held the work published in the articles from a particular periodical edition was databases as a revision of the collective work by the brushed aside as no vouch for non-infringement of the print publishers. The fact that the databases authorial rights. The case has thus pervaded a scenario ‘preserved some significant original aspect of the where the proprietors are forced to knuckle down to a printed works’ namely, that they preserved the free settlement with the writers. Though the decision ‘selection of articles,’ by copying all the articles opens consideration of the extent of copyright originally assembled in the print periodical, met the protection to authors’ vis-à-vis the need for Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com 114 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, MARCH 2005 dissemination of information; it settles the proposition Act 1957, limits its application merely to the that copyright law cannot be subverted to protect determination of ownership rights of an employer vis- merely the interest of the corporations, but even à-vis an employee, or a freelancer as the case may be. creates
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1St Edition)
    Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) Ronan Deazley, Kerry Patterson & Paul Torremans COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES 1 COPYRIGHT IN THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLISHED 7 EDITIONS COPYRIGHT IN PSEUDONYMOUS AND ANONYMOUS WORKS 10 COPYRIGHT IN NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 13 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: DURATION 19 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: OWNERSHIP 26 USING INSUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A COPYRIGHT PROTECTED WORK 33 COPYRIGHT ACROSS BORDERS 38 MORAL RIGHTS: ATTRIBUTION 45 MORAL RIGHTS: FALSE ATTRIBUTION 52 MORAL RIGHTS: INTEGRITY 55 MORAL RIGHTS: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS AND 66 FILMS This is a compendium of the first version of the Guidance Notes on aspects of UK Copyright law that were created as part of Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks, through support by the RCUK funded Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe), AHRC Grant Number AH/K000179/1. The second edition, edited by K. Patterson, can be downloaded individually or as part of the CREATe Working Paper: Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (2nd Edition) available at www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources. Date Created: January 2017 Cite as: R. Deazley, K. Patterson and P. Torremans, Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) (2017), available at: www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES Ronan Deazley and Kerry Patterson 1. Introduction What are the implications of the law for digitisation projects involving newspaper headlines and other titles? This guidance explores the legal background to copyright protection in titles and newspaper headlines, with reference to relevant cases. 2. Legislative Context Literary works first received statutory protection in the UK under the Statute of Anne 1710.
    [Show full text]
  • The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law
    Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 20 Volume XX Number 1 Volume XX Book 1 Article 2 2009 Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Michael D. Birnhack Tel-Aviv University Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael D. Birnhack, Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law, 20 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 95 (2009). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Who Owns Bratz? The Integration of Copyright and Employment Law Cover Page Footnote Thanks to Maurizio Borghi, Hanoch Dagan, Guy Davidov, Niva Elkin-Koren, Edo Eshet, Orit Fischman Afori, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Assaf Jacob, Ariel Katz, Wen Li, Orly Lobel, Guy Mundlak, Karl-Nikolaus Peifer, Guy Pessach, Alessandra Rossi, and participants at the Third Workshop on the Law and Economics of Intellectual Property at Queen Mary University of London (July 2007), the annual congress of the Society for Economic Research on Copyright Issues (SERCI) in Berlin (July 2007), the 4-Sided Workshop on Law & Economics (Rome, 2009) and the 9th Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School (August 2009), especially Pamela Samuelson and Rebecca Tushnet, for helpful comments and to Dorit Garfunkel, Nir Servatka and Barak Tevet for able research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Work for Hire: Revision on the Horizon
    *21 Copyright 1989 by the PTC Research Foundation of the Franklin Pierce Law Center IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 1989 WORK FOR HIRE: REVISION ON THE HORIZON Michael Carter Smith [n.a] INTRODUCTION The Copyright Act of 1976 ('76 Act) [n.1] became effective a decade ago. [n.2] The '76 Act contained new and controversial "work for hire" provisions. [n.3] As thousands of employment agreements involve work for hire, [n.4] the ramifications of this perplexing doctrine are worthy of consideration. The work for hire provisions of the '76 Act [n.5] represent a deliberate attempt by Congress to apportion copyright entitlements in such a way as to appease both ''employers/buyers" and "employees/sellers" of copyrightable works. [n.6] The compromise embodied in the doctrine has proven to be highly problematic: "employers/buyers," "employees/sellers" and the courts have been vexed by the doctrine's vague language. [n.7] The confusion generated by the work for hire provisions of the '76 Act has gone largely unheeded by Congress. However, Senator Cochran (R-Miss.), the Ralph Nader of the work for hire doctrine, has proposed numerous work for hire amendments. [n.8] Despite the support of the 100,000 member *22 Copyright Justice Coalition, Mr. Cochran's proposed amendments have failed to garner allies in the Senate. Whatever the reason for his lack of success, the contradictory judicial interpretations of the doctrine necessitate a congressional remedy. In this paper I will attempt to provoke congressional reconsideration of the work for hire doctrine. First, I will present the doctrine and its underlying policy considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 1: Copyright Basics
    w 1 Copyright Basics What Is Copyright? Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords • prepare derivative works based upon the work • distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending • perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audio­ visual works • display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work • perform the work publicly (in the case of sound recordings*) by means of a digital audio transmission In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribu­ tion and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, see Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts. It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in Circular Circular scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: a TRIPS-Compatible
    Vanderbilt University Law School Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2005 Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach Daniel J. Gervais Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications Part of the Contracts Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel J. Gervais, Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible Approach, 2005 Michigan State Law Review. 137 (2005) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/830 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,1 2 1/,1( Citation: 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Jun 4 15:16:16 2012 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Retrieved from DiscoverArchive, Vanderbilt University’s Institutional Repository This work was originally published in 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 2005 TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A TRIPS-COMPATIBLE APPROACH Daniel Gervais" 2005 MICH. ST. L. REV. 137 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 137 I. TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ...... 140 II. COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ................................ 149 A. Nature of the Owner ................................ 149 B. Nature of the Object ................................ 151 C. Nature of the Right(s) ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • US Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law
    An Outline of US Copyright, Patent and Trademark Law Edition 1.0 5th March 2006 From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection ''Note: current parts of this book can be found at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ US_Copyright_Law http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ US_Patent_Law http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_Trademark_Law '' AUTHORS ...................................................................................................................................................................2 US COPYRIGHT LAW..................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................3 Copyrightable works..............................................................................................................................................3 Formalities.............................................................................................................................................................5 Rights.....................................................................................................................................................................6 Infringement and other offenses ............................................................................................................................7 US PATENT LAW......................................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • D4.1 Analysis of Available Resources in the AV Sector
    Project Number: 325135 Project Acronym: FORW AR D Project Title: Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry Instrument: Pilot B Thematic Priority: CIP-ICT-PSP-2012-6 D4.1 Analysis of available resources in the AV sector Due Date: 30/06/2014 Submission Date: 12/07/2014 Start Date of Project: 01/07/2013 Duration of Project: 36 months Partner in Charge of Deliverable EYE Film Institute Version Status Final Dissemination Level PU File Name: FORWARD D4.1.docx FORWARD Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry CIP ICT-PSP 325135 Revision History Revision Date Author Organisation Description 1 27/06/2014 EYE Team EYE Draft 2 02/07/2014 GScipione CINECA Revision 3 10/07/2014 NMazznti CRB Final revision D4.1 – Analysis of available resources in the AV sector 2 / 156 EYE Film Institute FORWARD Framework for a EU-wide Audiovisual Orphan Works Registry CIP ICT-PSP 325135 Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Legal environment................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1.1 Protection term.......................................................................................................................................................3 1.1.2 Rightsholders .........................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right Patrick R
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 92 | Issue 4 Article 5 2014 Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right Patrick R. Goold University of California, Berkeley, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Patrick R. Goold, Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right, 92 Neb. L. Rev. (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol92/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Patrick R. Goold* Why the U.K. Adaptation Right Is Superior to the U.S. Derivative Work Right TABLE OF CONTENTS I. History of the Derivative Work Right in Anglo- American Copyright ................................... 849 A. Anglo-American Copyright During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries ......................... 850 B. Derivative Works in Twentieth Century U.S. Copyright ......................................... 856 1. The 1909 Copyright Act........................ 856 2. From 1909 to 1976 ............................ 858 a. Motion Pictures ............................ 860 b. Radio Broadcasting ........................ 862 c. Cable Television ........................... 865 3. The Copyright Act 1976........................ 866 C. Derivative Works in Twentieth Century U.K. Copyright ......................................... 868 1. The 1911 Act and the Gramophone Case ....... 869 2. The Copyright Act 1956 and the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 ................. 871 D. Summary ......................................... 874 II. Modern Doctrine of the Derivative Work Right in Anglo- American Copyright ................................... 874 A. The Right of Reproduction ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Book XVII License and the Law Editor: Ramon F
    8 88 8 8nd 8 8888on.com 8888 Basic Photography in 180 Days Book XVII License and the Law Editor: Ramon F. aeroramon.com Contents 1 Day 1 1 1.1 Photography and the law ....................................... 1 1.1.1 United Kingdom ....................................... 2 1.1.2 United States ......................................... 6 1.1.3 Hong Kong .......................................... 8 1.1.4 Hungary ............................................ 8 1.1.5 Macau ............................................. 8 1.1.6 South Africa ......................................... 8 1.1.7 Sudan and South Sudan .................................... 9 1.1.8 India .............................................. 10 1.1.9 Iceland ............................................ 10 1.1.10 Spain ............................................. 10 1.1.11 Mexico ............................................ 10 1.1.12 See also ............................................ 10 1.1.13 Notes ............................................. 10 1.1.14 References .......................................... 10 1.1.15 External links ......................................... 12 2 Day 2 13 2.1 Observation .............................................. 13 2.1.1 Observation in science .................................... 14 2.1.2 Observational paradoxes ................................... 14 2.1.3 Biases ............................................. 15 2.1.4 Observations in philosophy .................................. 16 2.1.5 See also ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Not a Spike Lee Joint? Issues in the Authorship of Motion Pictures Under U.S
    NOT A SPIKE LEE JOINT? ISSUES IN THE AUTHORSHIP OF MOTION PICTURES UNDER U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW F. Jay Dougherty Motion pictures are generally highly collaborative works, containing many different creative contributions. In the United States motion picture industry, most of those contributions are created as works made for hire for an employer or commissioning party, simplifying potential questions as to rights and obligations among the contributors under copyright law. Occasionally, contributions are created without documentation and outside of a potential work made for hire relationship, giving rise to issues as to ownership of copyright. In one recent case, involving the motion picture Malcolm X, such a situationarose. The court in that case addressed those issues by creating special requirements for motion picture joint works. This Article reviews fundamental copyright law concepts of authorship both as to individual author works and as to works having multiple authors. It reviews existing law concerning the role of creative control and fixation in relation to authorship determinations and concludes that an individual who contributes or who actually controls the creation of minimally creative expression is an author under U.S. copyright law. Copyright law addressing various types of multiple author works, such as derivative works and collective works, may apply to certain contributions to a motion picture, but Congress and commentators have assumed that a motion picture is primarily a joint work among its primary creative contributors. Professor Dougherty criticizes recent judicially created limitations on joint work determination and suggests that courts or the legislature should reconsider the consequences of such a determination in the context of highly collaborative, multiauthor works such as motion pictures.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Owns the Movies? Joint Authorship Under the Copyright Act of 1976 After Childress V
    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title Who Owns The Movies? Joint Authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976 after Childress v. Taylor and Thomson v. Larson Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6720n1r2 Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 7(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Gorman, Seth F. Publication Date 1999 DOI 10.5070/LR871026990 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Who Owns The Movies? Joint Authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976 after Childress v. Taylor and Thomson v. Larson Seth F. Gorman* I. INTRODUCTION A substantial split between the courts of appeals of the United States and substantial confusion among the district courts has devel- oped with respect to the test for determining "joint works" or "co- authorship" under the Copyright Act of 1976.1 The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question of the appropriate test for joint authorship. The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that "a work pre- pared by two or more authors with the intention that their contribu- tions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a 2unitary whole" are deemed "joint works" and the authors "co-authors." Although the statutory language appears straightforward and lit- eral, courts are concerned about affording co-authorship rights in film productions to each and every collaborator who did not assign his or her rights to the film or who is not a formal employee of the studio. The implications of co-authorship are profound. A co-author cannot . Seth Gorman is a litigator with the intellectual property and entertainment law firm of Flynn, Sheridan, Tabb & Stillman with offices in San Diego and Boston.
    [Show full text]
  • 1962 No 33 Copyright
    274 Copyright .1962, No. 33 ANALYSIS Title PART In I. Short Title and commencement 2. Interpretation FAIR DEALING WITH COPYRIGHT 3. Supplementary provisions as to MATERIAL interpretation 19. General exceptions f!om protec~ion 4. Act to bind the Crown of literary, dramatic, and mUSIcal 5. No copyright except by virtue of works and other subject-matter this Act 20. General exceptions from protection of artistic works 21. Special exceptions for libraries, Universities, and schools PART I 22. Special exception for records of musical works COPYRIGHT IN ORIGINAL WORKS 23. Revision of royalty rate 6. Nature of copyright under this Act 7. Copyright in literary, dramatic, PART IV musical, and artistic works B. Term of copyright REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF 9. Ownership of copyright in literary, COPYRIGHT dramatic, musical, and artistic 24. Action by owner of copyright for works infringement 10. Infringements by importation, sale, 25. Rights of owner of copyright in and other dealings respect of infringing copies, etc. 11. Provisions as to anonymous and 26. Proceedings in case of copyright pseudonymous works subject to exclusive licence 12. Provisions as to works of joint 27. Proof of facts in copyright actions authorship 2B. Penalties and summary proceedings in respect of dealings which infringe copyright 29. Provisions for restricting importa­ PART II tion of printed copies COPYRIGHT IN OTHER SUBJECT-MATTER PART V 13. Copyright in sound recordings 14. Copyright in cinematograph films COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL 15. Copyright in televi,ion broadcasts Constitution and sound broadcasts 30. Establishment of Tribunal 16. Extended application of provisions 31. Removal of members from office rela ting to broadcasts 32.
    [Show full text]