Copyright Law

Subscribe to Copyright Law via RSS

Recently, Wikimedia (the entity behind Wikipedia) has refused repeated requests from professional photographer David Slater to remove from one of his most famous photos from its royalty free photo collection website.  The photo at issue is a “monkey selfie.” Slater claims he owns the copyright to the photo and Wikimedia is using it without his permission.  Bananas! claimed Wikimedia;  a recent report reveals that Wikimedia editors decided that Mr Slater has no claim on the image as the monkey itself took the picture.

In what must be the wildest of luck, Slater was visiting a North Sulawesi national park in Indonesia when a black macaque grabbed an errant camera and took an amazing array of self-portraits.   These amazing pictures ran in an July 5 article about the incident in the UK’s Daily Mail.  Two of the four pictures featured in the article included a copyright notice indicating Caters News Agency (Slater’s photo agency) as the owner.

Can Canters News Agency or Mr. Slater own the copyright in the photos taken by this highly intelligent and obviously photogenic?   In order for this to be the case, the monkey would have to be an author under the Copyright Act.    And if a monkey can be considered an author, he or she would have to assign or transfer the copyright in the photos to Caters News Agency.
Continue Reading Copyright Ownership Claim Of Pictures Taken By Wild Ape is Monkey Business

This column addressed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the case Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al., approximately 18 months ago.  The Ninth Circuit held that the equitable defense of laches could be asserted to bar a claim for copyright infringement even if it was filed within the three-year statute of limitations.  As the column pointed out at that time, Justice Fletcher concurred in the opinion only because that it was consistent with prior Ninth Circuit precedent but pointed out that there had been a split among the various circuits as to whether this was a proper result.  Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court considered this circuit split and found that the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing the defense of laches to bar a claim for infringement that was brought within the three year statute of limitations.

A short recap of the facts of the case are as follows:  Jake LaMotta retired from boxing and with his friend, Frank Petrella, worked together to write a book and two screen plays concerning LaMotta’s life.  The works were registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.  One screen play in 1963, a book in 1970 and another screen play in 1973.  In 1976, Frank Petrella and LaMotta assigned their rights in the three works to a production company, which subsequently assigned the motion picture rights to MGM in 1978.   MGM released “Raging Bull” in 1980.

Mr. Petrella passed away in 1981 and his copyright renewal rights passed to his daughter Paula.  (Note: When an author dies prior to the beginning of a copyright renewal period, his successors get his or her renewal rights even if the author previously assigned the rights.)  Ms. Petrella filed a renewal application for the 1963 screen play in 1991.  She later retained an attorney who contacted MGM and others between 1998-2000 to notify them of Ms. Petrella’s copyright interest in the 1963 screen play and claiming that their exploitation of derivative works, including the motion picture Raging Bull, constituted infringement of her rights.  MGM responded by denying that it infringed on any of Ms. Petrella’s rights.  Ms. Petrella then waited almost a decade before filing suit against MGM and others in 2009.  Prior to trial, the district court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor on the basis of the doctrine of laches.  This was despite the fact that plaintiff had alleged that MGM had continued to infringe on her rights within the three year statute of limitation set forth in section 17 U.S.C. §507(b).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment based on laches in 2012 and plaintiff appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Continue Reading Raging Bull Revisited – Copyright Infringement and the Laches Defense

On April 22, 2014 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) v. Aereo.  Although this case has been overshadowed by other matters on the Court’s docket and has received very little media attention, the Court’s decision will potentially have an impact on copyright law that…

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