COPYRIGHT BARTHOLOMEW FALL 2015
A phonorecord is defined by the United States Copyright Act of 1976 to be a material object which embodies sounds (other than those accompanying audio-visual recordings such as movies), for example cassette tapes, CDs or albums.
SECTION 102(A)=establishes 2 prerequisits for copyright protection
1) ORIGINALITY= “ORIGINALITY OF AUTHORISHIP” =A WORK THAT IS INDIPENDENTLY CREATED WITH A MINIMUM QUANTUM OF CREATIVITY (FEIST CASE)
“ORIGINALITY REQUIRES ONLY THAT THE AUTHOR MAKE THE SELECTION OR ARRANGEMENT INDEPENDENTLY WITHOUT COPYING ANOTHER WORK. –FEIST, MINIMUM LEVEL OF CREATIVITY
-BURROWS-GILES=HELD, OSCAR WILD PHOTGRAPHS ARE ORIGINAL BECAUSE THE PHOTOGRPAHY SHOWED HOW HIS MENTAL CONCEPTIONS/ARITISTIC CREATIVTY WAS PUT INTO TH PHOTO (LIGHTING, PROPS ECT)
BLEINSTEIN V. DONALDSON LIGHTOGRAPHY=HELD, NON DISCRIMINATION PRINCIPLE=COURTS SHOULDN’T BE IN THE BUSINESS OFDECIDING WHAT IS GOOD ART AND BAD ART IS IN ORDER TO AFFORD IT ©
2) FIXATION= THE WORK MUST BE FIXED IN A TANGIBLE MEDIUM OF EXPRESSION
(THERE MUST EXIST (1) A WORK IN A COPY OR PHONORECORD (2) SUFFICIENT TO PERMIT IT TO BE PERCEIVED AND/OR REPRODUCEDFOR MORE THAN A TRANSITORY PERIOD OF TIME.)
SECTION 102(b)=DENIES PROTECTION TO ANY IDEA, PROCEDURE, PROCESS, PRINCIPLE, CONCEPT, DISCOVERY, THAT IS DESCRIBED, EXPLAINED ILLUSTRATED ECT EVEN IF SATISFYING THE FIXATION AND ORIGINALITY REQUIREMENTS.
IDEA VS EXPRESSION DICHTONOMY
-ideas are meant for patent law
-102(b) says that we cannot copyright idea…ect
Baker v. Seldon= a guy came up with a new way of accounting and described it in a book including a bunch of boilerplate forms. Baker basically wrote another book just like seldon and used the forms from bakers book. Held, you cannot copyright the forms in the book because they are necessary to the idea of accounting/bookkeeping. The forms were essential to accounting so they werenent copyrightable
CONCEPT OF MERGER=if an idea can only be expressed in one or a few ways, granting a copyright on that expression wuld effectively lock up anyone from using the idea. Because you cannot copyright the idea, you cant copyright the limited ways to express the idea. Seldon should have paytented his method. (ex. You can protect your book of building a barn, but you cant try and stop people from building the barn. )
A.A. Hoeling v. Universal= hoeling researched and made book on the Hindenburg disaster, which he says his theory of the disaster is that a person (Eric) did it to impress a girlfriend. Mooney, a fiction write wrote a book that used hoeling;s book as a source and wrote about the hindenberg disaster. Hoeling sued for cpryrightinfingment. Held:works that are devoted to historical subjects, a second author is allowed to make significant use of a prior work so long as they do not wholly approproiate the expression of the original work. Mooney was allowed to keep his book because this is about hisroical facts. The court doesn’t think that eveyron should have to go back and research the event from scratch, instead, use others material to write your book, eventhough it may be about the same thing.
DERIVIATIVE WORKS AND COMPILATIONS
DERIVIATIVE WORKS= a work based on one or more preexisting works, such as a musical arrangement, transaltion, dramatization, reproduction of a work of art, motion picture , sound fecording ect. Or any other way the work may be reformed or recast. 102(b) banishment of idead for copyright.
L. Batlin v Snyder= held, a pigy bank in public domain where another person makes a derivative work but adds distinct characteristics to the new design, can copyright the new features the second author gave the new derivative piggybank. However, in this case the differences between the original and the derivative work were too minuscule and Snyder wasn’t allowed to keep his copyright of the piggybank. HELD: the reproduction must contain an ORIGINAL CONTRIBUZTION not present in the original work to be copyrightable. The second author of the piggy bank didn’t do any real original changes to the original which was in the public domain.
PUBLIC DOMAIN= A PLACE OF SANCTUARY FOR INDIVIDUAL EXPRESSION THAT ARE PROTECTED FROM THE PRIVATE APPROPRIATINS OF SUCH EXPRESSION.
EXAMPLE: THINGS LIKE SHAPESPEARE, SILENT FILMS, BEETHOVEN, NEWTONIAN PHYSICS
SCHROCK (PLAINTIFF) V. L
ECKED AND ABANDON VESSEL
Facts: plaintiff (Lindsey) was hired to film and do documentary about titanic in 1994. He did it. he then created his own moviein 1996 and did all the cool lighting and camera and cinematography work and put a lot of his own creativity in the new film he made. P sued for copyright infringement against D because they licensed footage to be used to discovery channel w/o/ P’s consent. Held: P wins, he is the owner of the rights and author of the work. Court reasoned that P put in enough creativity of his own into new movie to call it his own. Because the lighting he did and the camera/ cinematography work and everything else he did (a lot) was enough to show that he put his own originality, of thoughts and conceptions into the film.
DEFINITION §101= a copyrightable work prepared by 2 or more authors with the intention that 1their contributions be merged into an inseparable party of a unitary whole.
Elements of Joint authorship
1) copyrightable work
2) 2 or more authors
3) the authors must INTEND for their contributions to be merged into an inseparable unit.
ERICKSON V TRINITY THEATRES circ ct
FACTS: p(Erickson) a founding member of the theatre prepared 3 plays for the company. After a dispute trinity stopped paying their royalties to P and kept showing the plays. D said it was co author of plays because of how their actors contributed original ways to make the plays better. HELD: D not co author. They didn’t provide any contribution to the work really. To qualify as an author one must contribute/produce smore than just direction and ideas to the work. b/c trinity couldn’t identify any specific copyrightable contributions by the actors the court concluded that trinity is not a co author. This court goes by copyrightable test= all separate parts of the joint authors contributions are copyrightable.