copyright law fall 2006 class 4 columbus school of law the catholic university of america professor...

24
COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Upload: lynette-francis

Post on 04-Jan-2016

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4

Columbus School of Law

The Catholic University of America

Professor Fischer

August 30, 2006

Page 2: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

WRAP UP OF LAST CLASS

• Rationale underlying copyright law: economic and philosophical theories

• Do they really fit our copyright system?

Page 3: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

UNIT II

• Copyrightability: What subject matter is protected by copyright law?

Page 4: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Constitutional Question

• Is it a “Writing” of an “Author”? If so, Congress may protect it for a “limited time” to “promote the progress of Science and the Useful Arts”

• See e.g. Burrow-Giles

Page 5: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Originality Requirement

Page 6: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Originality Requirement

• 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)

“Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a any tangible medium of expression . . . .”

Page 7: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

An Originality Question

• Jane writes a song. Jane never plays her song for anyone else, and consequently Emma has never heard Jane’s song. Suspend credulity and imagine that Emma writes a song that is identical to Jane’s. Is Emma’s song copyrightable?

Page 8: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Learned Hand: Independent Creation Requirement

• “. . .[I]f by some magic a man who had never known it were to compose anew Keats’ Ode On a Grecian Urn, he would be an “author,” and, if he copyrighted it, others might not copy that poem, though they might of course copy Keats.”

• Sheldon v. MGM, 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1936), aff’d, 309 U.S. 390 (1940)

Page 9: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

NOVELTY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

• Unlike patent protection

• See Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda (2d Cir. 1951) CB 52

Page 10: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Can “Dr. Nerd” Copyright . . .

• . . . a heretofore undiscovered and unpublished manuscript of a Shakespeare play that he found while exploring the stacks of Mullen Library?

Page 11: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Exact Copies• Arthur, a forger,

creates an exact reproduction of Rembrandt’s 1629 Self Portrait.

• Experts cannot distinguish Arthur’s copy from the original

• Is Arthur an “author” for the purposes of copyright?

Page 12: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

In Bell v. Catalda, Justice Frank stated:

• “A copyist’s bad eyesight or defective musculature, or a shock caused by a clap of thunder, may yield sufficiently distinguishable variations [to be considered original enough to be copyrighted]. Having hit on such a variation unintentionally, the “author” may adopt it as his own and copyright it.”

Page 13: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

2 requirements of originality

• What are they?

Page 14: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

COPYRIGHTABILITY: ORIGINALITY

REQUIREMENTTwo aspects: • (1) independent creation • (2) at least some minimal

degree of creativity • See Feist, 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

– CB p. 75

Page 15: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903) CB 33 (at

34)• Personality always contains something unique.

It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible which is one man's alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act.

Page 16: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. (1903) CB 33

Page 17: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Catalda (p. 54)

• '‘Originality [in the copyright] context means little more than a prohibition of actual copying. No matter how poor the 'author's' addition, it is enough if it be his own.”

Page 18: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Jabberwocky

• WOULD “‘TWAS BRILLIG AND THE SLYTHY TOVES” be copyrightable?

Page 19: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Copyright Office Regulation provides that some works are not copyrightable, including:

• “Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, familiar symbols or designs, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents.” – 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a)

Page 20: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

ANOTHER TYPE OF IP MAY HELP HERE

• Trademarks

Page 21: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

ORIGINALITY OF LABELS/SLOGANS

• TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THESE COPYRIGHTABLE?

Page 22: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

OVERLAP BETWEEN TYPES OF IP

• Copyrights and Trademarks

• Copyrights and Patents

• Copyrights and Trade Secrets

Page 23: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

Earth Flag

Page 24: COPYRIGHT LAW FALL 2006 CLASS 4 Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America Professor Fischer August 30, 2006

WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP

• See s. 102(a) (1)-(8)

• Overlapping?

• Exclusive?