Chapter 1. Introduction 4 results
- The most recent comprehensive revision of the federal copyright laws culminated in the Copyright Act of 1976 (the “1976 Act”), which took effect on January 1, 1978, and which is codified, with amendments, in Title 17 of the United States Code. Perhaps the most significant change introduced by the 1976 Act was the elimination of common law copyright protection for fixed works of authorship. Under the Copyright Act of 1909 (the “1909 Act”) and earlier federal statutes, unpublished works of authorship enjoyed perpetual common law copyright protection, a doctrine carried over from English law. For most works, federal copyright law did not apply until publication. In contrast, under the 1976 Act, federal copyright attached to an original work of authorship from the moment it was fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Thus, as of January 1, 1978, common law copyright was virtually eliminated for such works. Moreover, any attempt by a state to provide its own equivalent of copyright...
- Because copyright in works created or published prior to January 1, 1978, is governed in many respects by the 1909 Copyright Act, a copyright lawyer must be familiar with both the 1976 Act and the 1909 Act in order to accurately assess the current copyright status and ownership of these pre-1978 works. For that reason, although this text focuses on the 1976 Act, it also addresses those provisions of the 1909 Act that are essential to modern copyright practice. Except where otherwise indicated, all statutory references in this text refer to Title 17.
- Essential to federal (as opposed to common law) copyright is the concept of the limited term, which is required by the “limited Times” language of the Patent and Copyright Clause. Any work published in the United States before 1923 has now entered the public domain due to expiration of its term of protection. Some works published in 1923 have already lost their copyright protection, while others are scheduled to enter the public domain in 2019. The last works published under the 1909 Act will not enter the public domain until 2073.
- The Patent and Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power “to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Preemption 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Federal copyright law preempts enforcement of state statutes or common law in a number of situations. There are two types of copyright preemption: (1)
- Even before enactment of statutory copyright preemption in 1976, it was well settled that, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, states could not enact laws which interfered with the purposes of federal copyright or patent laws. Such interference may occur, for example, where a state extends protection to a work that Congress intended to place in the public domain (as in
- If a work fits within one of the general copyrightable subject matter categories under § 102 and § 103, but is unprotected by federal copyright because it is unoriginal, then § 301 will preempt any state law that provides copyright-like protection to the work. For example, if a poem is ineligible for federal copyright because it was copied in its entirety, § 301 preemption will apply. Section 301 also preempts application of state misappropriation laws which prohibit the copying of uncopyrightable information from copyrighted works (such as information contained in a copyrighted biography, data reproduced from copyrightable software, or real-time scores and other information obtained from a copyrighted broadcast of a basketball game). Although in these cases the information itself is not copyrightable, this is because it lacks originality; therefore, state law protection is preempted by § 301. The same result applies to any copyrightable work that has entered the public domain.
- The origins of statutory preemption under § 301 lie in the 1976 Copyright Act, under which, for the first time, federal copyright protection was extended to all works of authorship beginning at the moment of tangible fixation, regardless of whether the work was published. The 1909 Act, in contrast, denied federal copyright protection to most unpublished works, relegating them to the protection of common law copyright under state law. When unpublished
- A shrinkwrap license is a non-negotiated agreement that accompanies the purchase of a copy of a copyrighted work—typically, computer software. The copyright owner purports to license (rather than sell) to the purchaser the copyrighted content embodied in the tangible good, and imposes a series of conditions and restrictions on the use of the copy and/or the copyrighted content. These conditions and restrictions typically purport to limit or negate the rights which copyright law ordinarily
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Copyrightable Subject Matter 164 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The existence and scope of common law copyright protection under New York law was addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in
- Under current law, compliance with formalities is not a prerequisite to copyright protection. Thus, a work that satisfies § 102 enjoys federal copyright protection from the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium of expression (
- For example, in 1973 Dolly Parton wrote the music and lyrics for the song “I Will Always Love You.” She is therefore the author of the musical work, and she either owns the copyright or has
- Because the list of categories is illustrative rather than comprehensive, a work that satisfies the general definition in section 102(a) will be copyrightable even if does not appear to fit into one of these categories. However, the list serves two purposes: (1) By including a particular type of work on the list, Congress eliminated any ambiguity about whether works of that type are eligible for copyright protection, and (2) by creating subject matter categories, Congress has been able, elsewhere in the copyright statutes, to assign different levels of copyright protection to different types of subject matter. In other words, in copyright law, one size does not fit all—the exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording, for example, are different from the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in a novel.
- In the case of musical recordings, it is important to distinguish the copyright in the sound recording from the copyright in the underlying musical work. A sound recording captures a specific performance of a musical work. Typically, the copyright in the musical work and the copyright in a sound recording of that work are owned by separate persons. The copyright in a sound recording is normally owned by the record company that produced the recording. The copyright in the underlying musical composition may be owned by the author(s) of the music and lyrics, or by an assignee of the author(s)—typically a music publisher. A single copyrighted musical work may be recorded many times, resulting in many copyrighted sound recordings.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Formalities 47 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Under the 1909 Act, federal copyright ordinarily did not attach to any work until that work was publicly distributed with copyright notice affixed. However, unpublished works enjoyed perpetual protection under common law copyright. Once a work was published with a proper copyright notice,
- Three types of formalities are associated with federal copyright law: notice, deposit, and registration. For newly created works, none of these formalities is currently a prerequisite to owning a copyright. However, deposit and registration affect the copyright owner’s ability to enforce a copyright and to enjoy certain remedies against infringers. Even though copyright notice is no longer required for works first published on or after March 1, 1989, copyright notice still offers some practical benefits. Because many people still equate the absence of a copyright notice with a lack of copyright protection, a prominent copyright notice can deter potential infringers. Also, by identifying the copyright owner, the notice facilitates a potential user’s efforts to locate the copyright owner in order to secure the appropriate permissions. When infringement occurs, a defendant that had access to a copy or
- The notice requirement was significantly modified in the 1976 Act. Effective January 1, 1978, common law copyright was abolished for all fixed works. Instead, federal copyright attached from the moment an original work of authorship was fixed in tangible form. Thus, publication with notice no longer served as the dividing line between common law and federal copyright protection. However, copyright notice was still mandatory for all published works, and public distribution without notice could still cause a work to enter the public domain. Technically, this occurred through a
- Because the question whether a work was publicly distributed with or without copyright notice was of crucial importance prior to March 1, 1989, courts were often asked to determine whether a particular distribution was private or public. Where
- The role of formalities in federal copyright law has significantly decreased under the 1976 Act. In most cases, compliance with formalities is no longer essential to owning the copyright in a work. However, certain formalities are still essential to pursuing infringement claims, and others can enhance the remedies available to a successful infringement plaintiff. In addition, certain formalities that are no longer required for newly created works continue to play a significant role in determining the copyright status of works that were first published as late as February, 1989.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Assignments and Licenses 76 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A written instrument was also required for assignments of statutory copyrights under § 28 of the 1909 Act, although here, too, some courts allowed subsequent written ratifications of oral assignments. Unlike current law, however, § 28 did not require exclusive licenses of statutory copyrights
- A copyright transfer may also occur by operation of law. Thus, for example, an interest in a copyright may be transferred in a bankruptcy proceeding. Outside of the bankruptcy context, however, § 201(e) precludes the government from seizing or transferring any interest in an individual author’s copyright until it has been voluntarily transferred by the author.
- Although copyright law provides the default rules governing copyright assignments and licenses (such as the § 204 writing requirement for transfers of exclusive rights), the interpretation of assignment and licensing agreements is generally a matter of state law. However, if the application of state law would lead to a result that conflicts with federal copyright policy, the state law will be preempted. (See Chapter 13.)
- Under § 201(d) of the 1976 Act, copyright is infinitely divisible. In other words, copyright is considered a “bundle of rights,” and any portion of that bundle may be assigned through a conveyance or by operation of law, and may be inherited under a will or through intestate succession. Furthermore, any interest in a copyright may be the subject of an exclusive or non-exclusive license. In the case of a literary work, for example, one party may own (or hold a license for) the print publication rights, another may own or license the film adaptation rights, and yet another may own or license the electronic publication rights. Both owners and exclusive licensees (but not non-exclusive licensees) may register their interests in a copyright, and both have standing to sue infringers.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Remedies 90 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the counterfeit or illicit label is used in connection with a phonorecord of a copyrighted sound recording or copyrighted musical work, a copy of a copyrighted computer program, a copy of a copyrighted motion picture or other audiovisual work, a copy of a literary, pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, a work of visual art, or copyrighted documentation or packaging; or
- called the U.S. Customs Service). A copyright owner may obtain a remedy under § 602(b) against copies that were made unlawfully under the laws of another country, as well as copies that were lawfully made in their country of origin but which would have been infringing if Title 17 had applied in that jurisdiction. For example, if a particular country does not extend the protection of its copyright laws to works by United States authors, then copies made in that country are subject to exclusion under § 602(b). In contrast, if copies are made overseas under a license from the U.S. copyright owner, then § 602(b) does not apply, even if the U.S. copyright owner objects to the importation of those copies. This rule parallels that of § 602(a) (see §§ 7.4[A] and 8.2[C] above.)
- Although a copyright owner may not bring an action under federal copyright law for acts of infringement which take place overseas (because federal copyright laws have no extraterritorial effect), if a domestic act of infringement gives rise to foreign profits for the infringer, the copyright owner may recover those foreign profits. For example, if an infringing copy of a film is made in the United States and publicly performed abroad, the copyright owner may recover the infringer’s profits from the foreign performances, regardless of whether the foreign performances themselves would be considered infringing under the law of the country where they took place.
- Where a defendant’s actions have infringed the plaintiff’s rights under both copyright and trademark law, the plaintiff may recover both copyright and trademark damages.
- also provides penalties for certain actions not involving infringement. A fine of up to $2,500 applies to: (1) any person who fraudulently places a false copyright notice on any article or who
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. Exclusive Rights 149 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The exclusive rights are not affirmative rights to engage in the activities described in § 106. Rather, each of the exclusive rights is a right to
- The six exclusive rights of a copyright owner are set forth in § 106. Three of these exclusive rights apply to
- Under § 602, certain import and export activities can also constitute public distributions under § 106(3). § 602 addresses copies and phonorecords that are lawfully made as well as those which are “pirated”—that is, not lawfully made. Under § 602(a), an infringing public distribution under § 106(3) occurs when copies or phonorecords of a copyrighted work that were acquired overseas are imported into the United States without the consent of the U.S. copyright owner (subject to the first sale rule, see § 8.2 below). Although the language of § 602(a) suggests that the import restriction applies even if the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made in their country of manufacture (
- The reproduction right of § 106(1) gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords, and to authorize such reproductions. Reproduction, in this context, means copying, whether the copying is conscious or unconscious. Reproduction does not include parallel independent creation, in which a new work resembles a pre-existing work but was not copied from it either consciously or unconsciously. Instead, reproduction means producing a second copy of a work through conscious or unconscious imitation. Thus, if two artists paint the same landscape independently, neither of them imitating the other’s work, then even if the two works are virtually identical, neither artist has reproduced the other’s work within the meaning of § 106(1). In contrast, if one artist has been exposed to another artist’s landscape painting, and consciously or unconsciously imitates the other’s artistic choices in producing a similar painting, then the later artist may be...
- Despite the uncertainty in the courts, many authorities take the position that federal copyright law already incorporates the making available right. Congress has ratified two 1996 copyright treaties—the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty—that require the U.S. to recognize the making available right; many recent free trade agreements (FTAs) require this as well. In 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office released a lengthy report concluding unequivocally that the “making available” right is encompassed by § 106(3). U.S. Copyright Office,
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Limitations on Exclusive Rights 174 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording are subject to several significant limitations. This is because, when Congress extended copyright protection to sound recordings in the 1971 Sound Recording Act, its only concern was to prevent unauthorized copying and distribution. However, as discussed in § 2.2[G] above, because pre-1972 sound recordings created in the United States are not protected by federal copyright law, the scope of exclusive rights in those recordings is a matter of state law, and may in some states be broader than the rights that apply to sound recordings protected by federal law.
- Section 113(b) provides that ownership of copyright in a work that depicts a useful article does not give the copyright owner any rights with respect to the useful article so depicted, except to the extent that such rights would have been recognized under pre-1978 law. Thus, the owner of the copyright in a technical drawing of a machine cannot prevent others from constructing the machine from the drawing.
- Unlike the owner of a copyright in a musical work, the owner of the copyright in a sound recording does not enjoy an exclusive public performance right under § 106(4). When a copyrighted sound recording is publicly performed—for example, in a club or on the radio—the record company that owns the copyright in that sound recording is not entitled to collect any public performance royalties. In contrast, the owners of copyright in any of the musical compositions embodied in that sound recording will receive performance royalties collected by their representative organizations (usually ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC). The only public performance right
- The second difference between the mechanical compulsory license and the digital compulsory license is that the latter can be applied to digital deliveries of sound recordings by a party other than the owner of the copyright in the sound recording. A party other than the copyright owner of a sound recording may provide digital deliveries of phonorecords of that sound recording only if (1) the copyright owner of the sound recording authorizes the digital deliveries and (2) either the copyright owner of the sound recording, or the party making
- A person seeking to duplicate a copyrighted sound recording (rather than independently re-creating the sounds of the recording) may use a compulsory license to reproduce and distribute the copyrighted musical compositions included in that recording only if (1) the existing sound recording was fixed lawfully, and (2) the duplication of the sound recording is authorized by its copyright owner or, if the sound recording was fixed before February 15, 1972 (the date on which sound recordings first became eligible for federal copyright protection), by a person who made that recording either under an express license from the owner of the copyright in the musical work or pursuant to a compulsory license to record that composition.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. Copyright Ownership 78 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Section 202 provides that ownership of the copyright in a work is separate from ownership of a physical embodiment of a work. Thus, when an art collector purchases a painting, the collector owns the physical object but, absent a separate conveyance of the copyright, acquires no interest in the copyright. Conversely, a party may own the copyright in a work, or an interest in the copyright, without owning the original embodiment or any other copy of the work.
- The author of a work initially owns the entire copyright in the work. The simplest scenario is where an individual acts alone in creating a work, and the work is not a work made for hire. As the sole author and copyright owner, the creator is free to license or assign any or all of the copyright, or retain full ownership.
- The concept of a work made for hire is unique in copyright law, in three respects. First, it represents the only situation in which a work may have an
- According to the legislative history, joint works are subject to the common law presumption that, in the absence of a contract, each owner (that is, each author) is a tenant in common with an equal and undivided ownership share; this rule applies even if the authors’ creative contributions were not equal. Thus, when a joint work is created, each author owns an equal share of the copyright in that work, unless they have agreed to a different arrangement. (Because such an agreement would amount to an assignment of a copyright interest, it would have to be in writing to be enforceable.) Such an assignment would affect only the relative ownership interests of the authors; it would not change the fact that the work is a joint work, nor would it eradicate any of the inalienable rights of authorship, such as moral rights under § 106A or the right to terminate the assignment under § 203.
- Copyright ownership arises initially through authorship, and may be transferred by assignment, inheritance, or any other means by which property may be conveyed. Copyright interests may also be licensed, on either an exclusive or non-exclusive basis. Thus, copyright ownership issues involve matters of authorship, assignments, and licensing. Ownership issues may also involve determining the respective rights of persons who own copyrights in collective or derivative works, on the one hand, and the persons who own copyrights in the underlying works that are included in those collective or derivative works.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Copyright Duration 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Because federal copyright does not extend to sound recordings fixed in the United States before February 15, 1972 (see § 2.2[G] above), the existence, scope, and duration of copyright protection for such recordings is a matter of state law. Under § 301(c), federal copyright law will not preempt this state law protection until February 15, 2067. (In contrast, pre-1972 sound recordings created outside the United States are subject to a different rule, as discussed in § 5.9 below.)
- Once copyright is restored to a work, § 104A(b) provides that the copyright vests initially in the author or initial rightholder of the work as determined by the law of the source country. Subject to a statutory exception for certain “reliance
- Yet another set of rules governs works created prior to January 1, 1978 which were neither in the public domain nor protected by federal copyright as of that date. Most, though not all, of the works in this category would have been unpublished works. Under the 1909 Act, unpublished works were protected by common law copyright, which was perpetual until publication, at which point the work either entered the public domain or began its limited term of statutory copyright, depending on whether it was published with notice. (For details and exceptions, see §§ 4.1–4.2 above.) Under § 102 and § 301 of the 1976 Act, however, common law copyright in fixed works was abolished, and all fixed works became subject to the limited term of statutory copyright under § 302. Accordingly, works created but uncopyrighted (and not in the public domain) as of January 1, 1978 lost their perpetual copyright on that date. Under § 303(a), their perpetual copyright was replaced by statutory copyright, which...
- In response to this concern, the Copyright Office has recommended legislation that would permit the use of a work whose copyright owner cannot be identified or located, subject to an obligation to pay a reasonable license fee to the copyright owner if and when that person comes forward. In addition, the copyright owner would be foreclosed from obtaining injunctive relief against the continued use of a derivative work which the user created after being unable to identify or locate the copyright owner of the underlying work. These limitations on remedies would be available only if the user performed a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, and gave attribution to the author and copyright owner if their identities could be ascertained with reasonable certainty.
- If a work qualified as a restored work under § 104A, then its federal copyright has now been restored. In other words, even though that work was previously in the public domain in the United States, it is once again under copyright. The date on which the copyright was restored depends on the date on which the source country became an eligible country. Copyright was restored as of January 1, 1996, with respect to any work whose source country already adhered to the Berne Convention or was already a WTO member as of that date. For all other works, copyright was restored on the date that the source country became an eligible country (
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 5 results
- Nutshell Series, In a Nutshell
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- Printed in the United States of America
- © West, a Thomson business, 2008
- © 2017 LEG, Inc. d/b/a West Academic
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Defenses 88 results (showing 5 best matches)
- A narrow defense of innocent intent is recognized under § 406(a). The defense applies only with respect to copies or phonorecords that were publicly distributed by or under the authority of the copyright owner
- Because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over federal copyright claims (although not over common law copyright claims), the Eleventh Amendment effectively precludes a claim for damages arising from federal copyright infringement if the infringer is a state, a state agency, or a state actor, unless the state expressly and unequivocally waives its immunity. Accordingly, arguments based on “implied waiver” are unlikely to succeed. A waiver will not be inferred, for example, by a state’s registration of copyrighted works. However, analogous case law concerning patent infringement suggests that, where a state invokes federal court jurisdiction as a plaintiff, it waives its immunity with respect to compulsory counterclaims.
- However, when an infringement claim is based on a dispute over copyright ownership, most circuits have held that the separate accrual rule does not apply, and the limitations period starts when the claimant has express notice of a competing ownership claim. Because most of these cases were decided before
- A different type of estoppel, sometimes called
- Under § 507, a civil action for copyright infringement must be commenced within three years from the date on which the claim
- Open Chapter
Preface 4 results
- Because federal copyright law is a creature of statute, every aspect of copyright law addressed in the book is accompanied by references to the pertinent statutes and, where appropriate, their legislative histories. The most important aspects of each statute are discussed in the text, so that the reader can derive a good understanding of the material from the text alone. However, all of the relevant statutory citations are included in the text for those who wish to develop their understanding further.
- Copyright law has grown increasingly complex over the years. Also, there are many misconceptions that are surprisingly persistent, and new misconceptions arising all the time. A better understanding of copyright law will prevent costly mistakes, avoid unnecessary litigation, encourage consumers to take an active interest in legislative proposals, and enable authors and artists to focus on their creative work without the distraction of legal entanglements.
- This book is for anyone who needs a concise but thorough introduction to copyright law. It is aimed at lawyers, students, artists, authors, and businesspersons, as well as intelligent consumers who just want to know more about the copyright issues reported by the media.
- The book assumes that the reader has no prior knowledge of copyright law, but it does not shy away from addressing aspects of the law which are ambiguous, in a state of flux, or the subject of conflicting opinions from courts and commentators. Where the law is still evolving, the text identifies the areas of uncertainty and the most recent authorities that have attempted a resolution. The text also notes areas where further legislation is needed or is currently under consideration.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Digital Millennium Copyright Act 136 results (showing 5 best matches)
- might be used to limit the rights which copyright law gives to consumers who purchase electronic goods containing copyrighted material. For example, in
- The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”) revised the 1976 Act by adding three sets of complex rules, accompanied by civil remedies and criminal penalties, designed to address concerns of copyright owners and Internet service providers arising from the growth of the Internet and the resulting increase in unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works. The rules codified in § 512 define a set of safe harbors which enable Internet service providers (ISPs) to limit their liability for the infringing activities of their users. The rules codified at § 1201 prohibit the circumvention of technological devices that copyright owners use to protect their digitized works from unauthorized access and copying. The rules codified at § 1202 prohibit the falsifying or unauthorized alteration or removal of certain copyright information attached to or accompanying a copyrighted work.
- the name of, and other identifying information about, the work’s copyright owner, including the information contained in a notice of copyright;
- § 1201(a)(1)(A)
- . Here, the plaintiff failed to make the necessary showing under elements (4) and (5), because its sale of garage door openers carried with it an implied license permitting its customers to use the openers, and because copyright law did not give the plaintiff a right to prevent its customers from using their openers in conjunction with competing products.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Infringement 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Generally speaking, the more creative a work is, the more likely it is that its copyright owner will succeed in an infringement claim based on nonliteral similarity. If a work is only minimally creative—such as a database—the plaintiff will typically need to demonstrate near-verbatim copying (also called “bodily appropriation”) in order to establish improper appropriation. This is one consequence of the difference between a strong copyright and a “thin” copyright.
- Subject to three exceptions, a civil action for infringement of a copyright may not be instituted until the copyright has been registered or preregistered under § 411. (See § 4.2 above.) If the copyright owner has submitted a properly executed application to the register the work, but registration has been refused, the plaintiff may still file an infringement action if notice thereof is served on the Register of Copyrights. The latter has the option to become a party to the action with respect to the
- Actions under § 106A(a) are one exception to the general rule of § 411 that a work must be registered as a prerequisite to an infringement action. An author seeking to bring suit for violation of his or her right of attribution or integrity in a work of visual art need not register the copyright in that work in order to enforce these rights, because authors may enforce these rights even if they no longer own an interest in the copyright.
- Concepts of secondary liability for copyright infringement are well-established in the case law, even though they are not expressly recognized in the copyright statutes. Two types of secondary liability have been recognized—contributory and vicarious. Both doctrines permit a defendant to be found liable for infringement even though the defendant did not personally engage in one of the infringing activities described in §§ 106 and 602. To date, courts have
- Open Chapter
Title Page 4 results
Index 38 results (showing 5 best matches)
Outline 43 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Cases 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
West Academic Publishing’s Law School Advisory Board 11 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Distinguished University Professor, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Robert A. Sullivan Professor of Law Emeritus,
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: January 13th, 2017
- ISBN: 9781634603041
- Subject: Intellectual Property
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This product offers a compact yet comprehensive and up-to-date overview of U.S. copyright law in an uncluttered and readable format. Coverage ranges from the fundamental concepts of originality, authorship, and infringement to the highly technical rules governing digital phonorecord deliveries and digital public performance rights in sound recordings, the safe harbor provisions that limit the liability of Internet service providers, and the anti-circumvention and copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The evolving doctrines of fair use and contributory liability are also given thorough attention.