Copyright 4 Copyright 5 A Subject Maer ........................ 5 Copyright Act § 102(a) .............. 5 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. ........................ 6 1 Creativity: How Much Is a Modicum? . 6 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) ................ 6 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. ........................ 7 Arrows Problem .................. 11 Baseball Card Price Report Problem ...... 11 2 Aesthetic Nondiscrimination . 11 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. ..... 11 Copyright Compendium § 310 ......... 13 Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater 14 Belcher v. Tarbox .................. 15 3 Idea and Expression . 15 Copyright Act § 102(b) .............. 15 Blehm v. Jacobs ................... 15 Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc. ........... 22 Hula Problem ................... 22 Baker v. Selden ................... 23 Bikram’s Yoga College of India v. Evolation Yoga . 25 Concrete Machinery Co. v. Classic Lawn Orna- ments ...................... 29 Cooking for Kids Problem ............ 29 B Ownership .......................... 30 Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. ..... 30 1 Authorship ....................... 30 Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony ..... 30 Monkey Selfie Problem .............. 32 Copyright Act § 105 ................ 32 2 Collaborations ..................... 32 Copyright Act §§ 201, 202 ............ 32 Thomson v. Larson ................. 33 Greene v. Ablon ................... 38 COPYRIGHT 2 Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid .. 39 Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc. ....... 43 Garcia v. Google, Inc. ................ 44 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co. .................. 46 3 Derivative Works ................... 47 Copyright Act § 103 ................ 47 DC Comics v. Towle ................ 47 Picke v. Prince ................... 48 Keeling v. Hars ................... 50 C Procedures .......................... 51 1 Formalities Then .................... 51 Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright 51 Estate of Martin Luther King v. CBS, Inc. ..... 52 Estate of Martin Luther King v. CBS, Inc. ..... 54 Wildman v. New York Times Co. .......... 54 2 Formalities Now .................... 55 a Fixation ....................... 55 Copyright Compendium § 305 ......... 55 Stern Electronics, Inc. v. Kaufman ......... 57 Questions ...................... 58 Photoshoot Problem ............... 59 b Registration .................... 60 Copyright Compendium § 202 ......... 60 c Deposit ....................... 61 Copyright Compendium §§ 1502, 1511 ..... 61 d Notice ........................ 62 Copyright Compendium §§ 2202, 2204 ..... 62 3 Term ........................... 63 Copyright Act §§ 302, 305 ............ 63 Eldred v. Ashcroft .................. 64 Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate ........... 66 D Infringement: Similarity . 68 Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. ..... 68 Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation ..... 68 Arnstein v. Porter ................. 71 Children’s Book Problem ............. 72 Golieb Development LLC v. Paramount Pictures . 72 Boisson v. Banian, Ltd. ............... 75 New Yorker Problem ............... 79 E Infringement: Prohibited Conduct . 79 1 Proof of Copying .................... 79 Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton ......... 80 Bee Gees Problem ................. 85 2 Direct Infringement . 87 COPYRIGHT 3 Copyright Act § 106 ................ 87 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. ........ 87 CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc. ........ 89 American Broadcasting v. Aereo, Inc. ....... 90 Copyright Act § 110 ................ 95 3 Secondary Liability . 96 Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc. ....... 96 Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ....................... 100 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ....................... 101 Exclusive Rights Problem ............ 101 4 Paracopyright . 102 Copyright Act § 1201 ............... 102 MDY Industries, LLC. v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. ....................... 102 Copyright Act § 1202 ............... 107 Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC ..... 108 F Defenses . 109 1 First Sale . 109 Copyright Act § 109 ................ 109 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto ......... 110 Lee v. A.R.T. Co. .................. 113 Doan v. American Book Co. ............ 115 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. ........ 115 2 Fair Use . 116 Copyright Act § 107 ................ 116 Fair Use Checklist ................. 116 Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter- prises ...................... 117 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ........ 124 City of Inglewood v. Teixeira ............ 127 Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network LLC . 132 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. ........ 135 Chicago HOPE Problem ............. 136 3 Section 512 . 137 Copyright Act § 512 ................ 137 UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners 138 4 Statutory Licenses . 144 WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc. ............... 144 Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. AereoKiller .... 146 5 Miscellaneous . 147 Copyright Act §§ 108, 121 ............ 147 COPYRIGHT 4 4 Copyright Copyright protects creative expression. In some respects it is struc- The standard copyright treatises are turally analogous to patent law: both reward someone who creates Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, valuable information with exclusive rights over it. But in many other Nimmer on Copyright (Matthew Ben- der, on Lexis); William F. Patry, Pa- respects – including subject maer, novelty, registration, term, and try on Copyright (Thomson Reuters, on similarity – copyright is almost completely the opposite of patent. Westlaw); Paul Goldstein, Goldstein on The standard justification for copyright law is a familiar and util- Copyright (Wolters Kluwer); Howard B. itarian: to maximize public access to the fruits of human creativity. Abrams, The Law of Copyright (Thom- Thus, copyright law provides an economic incentive to create new son Reuters, on Westlaw); and Bruce P. Keller & Jeffrey P. Cunard, Copyright expressive works, and provides protections to encourage the distri- Law: A Practitioner's Guide (PLI). bution of those works. Another rationale, with more of a natural-law flavor, is to protect authors’ non-economic interests by giving them creative control over their work. One sometimes also sees arguments The strongest expression of the idea that link copyright and freedom of speech in a shared goal of creating that authors' personality gives them a diverse society with a healthy culture and healthy democracy. unique non-economic interests, moral rights, is discussed in more detail in the Rights in People chapter. A Subject Matter Copyright Act Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in origi- 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) nal works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, Subject matter of copyright: In general now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the follow- ing categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; CHAPTER 4. COPYRIGHT 6 (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991) The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was indepen- dently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no maer how crude, humble or obvious it might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To il- lustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. Elsewhere, Feist helpfully expresses the elements of originality as ”in- dependent creation plus a modicum of creativity.” The second prong We will return to independent creation is the subject (pun intended) of this section. First, we look at it as in the Ownership section. a threshold test: when are works uncopyrightable because they are uncreative? Then, we ask whether it expresses any exclusions from copyrightability. In one sense, no: courts are not to inquire into a work’s quality or morality. In another sense, yes: ”ideas” are re- garded as uncopyrightable, even if they are original. 1 Creativity: How Much Is a Modicum? Code of Federal Regulations 37 C.F.R. § 202.1 The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and Material not subject to copyright applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained: "The chief similarity between the two (a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; fa- works is identity of title [We Who Are Young], but it is well settled that the miliar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic orna- copyright of a book or play does not mentation, leering or coloring;