V. Copyright’s Exclusive Rights To mount a successful claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to establish (1) the plaintiff’s ownership of a valid copyright in a work and (2) the defendant’s infringement of the copyright. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); see 17 U.S.C. §§ 501(a)-(b). In Chapters II through IV, you learned about the first element of an infringement claim: the plaintiff’s ownership of copyright in a fixed, original work of authorship, wherein the copyright remains in effect pursuant to the requisite formalities and duration rules. Starting in this chapter and continuing through Chapter VIII, we turn to the second element of the infringement inquiry. In this chapter, you will study the exclusive rights that copyright law provides to copyright holders. A defendant infringes by violating any of these exclusive rights without a defense (such as a limitation on infringement or exclusion of certain actions from infringement). We study some of these limitations and exclusions in this chapter, while deferring the most important infringement defense—fair use—to Chapter VI. In Chapter VII, we will turn to direct and secondary liability, and in Chapter VIII, to copyright litigation and remedies. Specifically, in this chapter, after setting out the infringement elements that must be established to prove that any of the exclusive rights has been violated, we study each of the exclusive rights set out in 17 U.S.C. § 106. Section 106 provides: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) 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, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. Note that all of these exclusive rights are expressly subject to limitations or exclusions set out in 17 U.S.C. §§ 107-122, some of which we explore in this chapter and Chapter VI. In this chapter, we also address the exclusive rights that copyright owners might have in the characters that appear in their works by virtue of §§ 106(1)-(2), the moral rights that copyright owners might hold by virtue of §§ 106 and 106A (and other laws), and the exclusive right to import copies of a copyrighted work that is corollary to § 106(3) and is found in 17 U.S.C. § 602. 213 Chapter V – Exclusive Rights A. Infringement Elements Before delving into each of the exclusive rights that copyright law confers, it is helpful to identify and distinguish the two constituent elements of infringement of any of the exclusive rights conferred by copyright law: (1) copying in fact, and (2) copying in law. The element of “copying in fact” is established by showing that the defendant actually used some elements of the plaintiff’s work (potentially including use of unprotected elements such as ideas) to make the defendant’s allegedly infringing work. That is, the first part of the infringement tests asks whether, as a factual matter, the defendant copied from the plaintiff’s work. Assuming the answer to the copying-in-fact inquiry is yes, the copying is nonetheless only actionable if there is also copying in law. “Copying in law” is established when the defendant’s copying is sufficient—both quantitatively and qualitatively—to provoke legal liability for infringement. Courts frequently use other terms to refer to each of these elements. For example, sometimes they call copying in fact “actual copying.” Sometimes, they call copying in law “substantial similarity.” Sometimes, they don’t distinguish between these two copying elements at all. And sometimes, they simply refer to one of the two elements as “copying.” These differing labels and lack of distinction between the two inquiries can make it hard to know which element of the infringement analysis a court is referencing, unless the surrounding context is helpful to disambiguate the two elements. Be attentive to disambiguating the two copying elements in your analysis. Although copying in fact and copying in law must both be shown to establish a defendant’s infringement of any of the copyright holder’s exclusive rights, we will explore these two elements separately only in the following section, in the context of the reproduction right. Make sure to include both copying elements in your analysis regardless of which exclusive right is at issue. With that said, we now turn to look at each of the exclusive rights in turn. B. Reproduction Right The copyright holder’s right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords,” set out in § 106(1), is a central right, and the right most commonly asserted in infringement actions. A defendant’s work cannot infringe the plaintiff’s reproduction right unless the work is fixed, because the plaintiff’s reproduction right is infringed only if plaintiff’s work is reproduced “in copies or phonorecords.” (Recall this fixation requirement discussed in Chapter II.) As you shall see, the reproduction right is not just the right to make exact copies of a copyrighted work; it also covers partial copying of a plaintiff’s work sufficient to make the defendant’s work “substantially similar” to the protected elements in the plaintiff’s work. In addition, the reproduction right has been typically understood to include copies in a different medium than that of the underlying copyrighted work. Note also that there need not be any distribution to violate the reproduction right. If you make a copy of someone’s copyrighted work and lock it up in a desk drawer to gather dust, you will be infringing that person’s right of reproduction (absent a valid defense). In this section, we will at the outset explore the first infringement element—copying in fact—through the lens of the reproduction right. We then turn to the second infringement requirement of copying in law, which we explore in three contexts: de minimis copies, substantially similar copies, and exact copies. 214 Chapter V – Exclusive Rights 1. Copying in Fact As you read the following case, take note of how a plaintiff can establish that a defendant copied in fact. Do you find the plaintiff’s evidence convincing? Or the defendant’s attempts to rebut that evidence? Consider what this opinion suggests about the mens rea required for copyright infringement. Three Boys Music Corporation v. Michael Bolton 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) NELSON, J.: [1] In 1994, a jury found that Michael Bolton’s 1991 pop hit, “Love Is a Wonderful Thing,” infringed on the copyright of a 1964 Isley Brothers’ song of the same name. The district court denied Bolton’s motion for a new trial and affirmed the jury’s award of $5.4 million…. [2] We affirm…. [3] The Isley Brothers, one of this country’s most well-known rhythm and blues groups, have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They helped define the soul sound of the 1960s with songs such as “Shout,” “Twist and Shout,” and “This Old Heart of Mine,” and they mastered the funky beats of the 1970s with songs such as “Who’s That Lady,” “Fight the Power,” and “It’s Your Thing.” In 1964, the Isley Brothers wrote and recorded “Love is a Wonderful Thing” for United Artists. The Isley Brothers received a copyright for “Love is a Wonderful Thing” from the Register of Copyrights on February 6, 1964. The following year, they switched to the famous Motown label and had three top-100 hits including “This Old Heart of Mine.” [4] Hoping to benefit from the Isley Brothers’ Motown success, United Artists released “Love is a Wonderful Thing” in 1966. The song was not released on an album, only on a 45-record as a single. Several industry publications predicted that “Love is a Wonderful Thing” would be a hit—“Cash Box” on August 27, 1966, “Gavin Report” on August 26, 1966, and “Billboard” on September 10, 1966. On September 17, 1966, Billboard listed “Love is a Wonderful Thing” at number 110 in a chart titled “Bubbling Under the Hot 100.” The song was never listed on any other Top 100 charts. In 1991, the Isley Brothers’ “Love is a Wonderful Thing” was released on compact disc. [5] Michael Bolton is a singer/songwriter who gained popularity in the late 1980s and early 1990s by reviving the soul sound of the 1960s. Bolton has orchestrated this soul-music revival in part by covering old songs such as Percy Sledge’s “When a Man Love a Woman” and Otis Redding’s “(Sittin’ on the) Dock of the Bay.” Bolton also has written his own hit songs. In early 1990, Bolton and [co-author Andrew] Goldmark wrote a song called “Love Is a Wonderful Thing.” Bolton released it as a single in April 1991, and as part of Bolton’s album, “Time, Love and Tenderness.” Bolton’s “Love Is a Wonderful Thing” finished 1991 at number 49 on Billboard’s year-end pop chart.