Copyright Law

Subscribe to Copyright Law via RSS

Under the WIPO Internet Treaties, member states are required to recognize in their national laws  the exclusive right of  authors of works to ‘‘make [the works] available’’ and ‘‘communicate [the works] to the public’’, including through interactive platforms, such as the Internet. The United States implemented the WIPO Internet Treaties through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’) in 1998.  Based on advice received from the Copyright Office and others, Congress did not amend U.S. law to include explicit references to ‘‘making available’’ and ‘‘communication to the public,’’ concluding that the distribution right under the Copyright Act already covers those rights.  However, because of  the absence of express “making available” language in the Copyright Act, courts in file-sharing litigation have reached somewhat different conclusions as to whether the distribution right requires proof of actual dissemination.

Commentators on the subject have opined that the “making available” right is subsumed within the distribution rights set forth in Section 106 of the Copyright Act and that most courts have correctly interpreted the Act as such.  These courts have found that a defendant infringes the distribution right by making the work available without having proof that the work was actually accessed by others.  For example, in  A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, the 9th Circuit held that “Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs’ distribution rights”.  Also in UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Alburger, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that “There is no requirement that plaintiffs show that the files were actually downloaded by other users from Defendant, only that files were available for downloading.”

However, it appears that some courts have concluded that an infringement of the distribution right under the Act does not occur in the absence of actual dissemination. For example, in Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, the District Court of Arizona  held that “[the distribution right] is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public.” 
Continue Reading Will The Copyright Act be Amended to Include a “Making Available” Right

By: James Kachmar

A recent decision in the case Jobscience, Inc. v. CVPartners, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) shows the interplay between the various theories of intellectual property claims. There, the plaintiff asserted claims for both copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation arising out of the alleged theft of its software code. The court was required to deal with the issue of whether plaintiff’s trade secret claim was preempted by its claim for copyright infringement.

Jobscience develops and licenses recruiting software applications, including its JS 2 Jobscience Recruiting Package. In 2010, Jobscience entered into a master agreement with defendant CVPartners that contained an End User License and Agreement, which provided the defendant with a license to use plaintiff’s job recruiting software application. The license was renewed in 2011.Continue Reading Copyright Preemption and Its Interplay with Trade Secret Misappropriation

 By: Scott Hervey

From all appearances, it would have been a fight worth watching. In one corner was the Beastie Boys, the Brooklyn bread, 80s powerhouse rap group; they aggressively enforce their intellectual property rights and have never allowed their music to be used in advertisements.  (This commitment was so important to the group that in his will, Adam “MCA” Yauch stated that "in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes.") In the other corner was GoldieBlox, an upstart toy company, founded by a Stanford-educated product designer, with a goal to disrupt the current vision of “toys for girls” and inspire the next generation of female engineers.
Continue Reading GoldieBlox v. Beastie Boys – “Girls To Bring A Lawsuit”

 By: Audrey A. Millemann     

 

      In Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 2013 US App. LEXIS 22517 (9th Cir., November 6, 2013), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in this circuit: whether a claim of copyright infringement based on disputed ownership would be time-barred if a free standing ownership claim was also time-barred. The court held that it would. 

            This dispute has a lengthy and complicated procedural history. It was litigated for over ten years in several different cases in two countries. The copyrights in issue are for three films: “Rules of Engagement,” “An American Rhapsody,” and “Who is Cletis Tout?.” The plaintiff is Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment, a British production company, who acquired the rights in the films from its predecessor.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Watch Out for Statute of Limitations for Copyright Infringement