RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
15May1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2033)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONCOPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
United States
Addendum
Bymeans ofacommunication fromthePermanent Mission oftheUnited States totheWTO,
dated 9May1997, theSecretariat hasreceived thefollowing responses tothequestions thatBrazil,
theEuropean Communities andtheirMember States, andKorea hadputtotheUnited States inthe
context ofthefollow-up tothereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 's
meeting of22to25July1996.
_______________
I. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYBRAZIL
1. What aretheprerequisites fortheprotection ofawork, performance, phonogram and
broadcasting bycopyright andrelated rights under eachcategory ofsubject matter? Does protection
extend tothetitleofthework? Isthereaspecial requisite forphotographic works ortoworks ofapplied
art?
Works, performances fixed inphonograms, andphonograms arealltreated ascopyrightable
subject matter under USlaw. Theonlyprerequisites forcopyright protection arethatthematerial
mustconstitute original authorship, andmustbefixed intangible form. 17U.S.C. §102(a). Works
subject tothisstandard include photographs andworks ofapplied art,covered under thecategory of
"pictorial, graphic andsculptural works". 17U.S.C. §101.Copyright protection generally doesnot
extend tothetitleofawork, which maybeprotected, however, bythelawsoftrademark andunfair
competition.
Unfixed performances arenottreated ascopyrightable subject matter, butareprotected under
aseparate section offederal law,without anyprerequisites. 17U.S.C. §1101. Thelawsofanumber
ofstates alsoprotect unfixed performances, generally without anyprerequisites. See,e.g., Mass.
Ann. Laws Ch.266,§143B; N.Y. Arts&Cult. Aff.Law§31.01; N.Y. Penal Law§§275.00 -
275.45; Tex.Bus.&Com. Code §35.93; Cal.Civ.Code §980;Ill.Code Ann. ch.720-5-16-7 to
16-8; D.C. Code Ann. §22-3814.IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
Page2
Astoprotection forbroadcasting, totheextent itisnotcovered bytheabove answer, please
seetheUnited States 'reply toquestion 5andtherelated follow-up question from India during the
TRIPS Council review oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights inJuly1996.1
2. What aretheprerequisites fortheprotection ofadaptations, translations, andother alterations
oftheoriginal work, inparticular cinematographic works?
UnderUScopyrightlaw,theownersofallcopyrightedworks,includingcinematographicworks,
enjoy anexclusive righttocreate derivative works based onthecopyrighted work. 17U.S.C. §106(2).
"Derivative work" isdefined toinclude adaptations, translations, andotheralterations ofthecopyrighted
work. 17U.S.C. §101("a'derivative work'isawork based upon oneormore preexisting works,
suchasatranslation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, artreproduction, abridgment, condensation, oranyother forminwhich awork may
berecast, transformed, oradapted ....").Acinematographic work maytherefore beaderivative
work ofoneormore underlying literary works suchasastory ornovel.
Derivative works, ifcreated lawfully, constitute independent copyrightable works subject to
thefullrange ofcopyright protection. See17U.S.C. §103(a). Thisprotection covers onlythenew
copyrightable subject matter thatwascontributed bytheauthor ofthederivative work, anddoesnot
affect anyrights inthepreexisting work. 17U.S.C. §103(b).
3. Please indicate thelegalprovisions thatensure theprotection ofcomputer programs asliterary
works, according toArticle 10(1) oftheTRIPS Agreement. Doesitincorporate source andobject code?
Please seetheUnited States 'reply toquestion 4fromIndia during theTRIPS Council review
oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights inJuly1996.2
4. Whoisconsidered tobetheauthor andrightholder oftheprotected work inrespect toeach
category ofsubject matter? Canalegal person beconsidered theauthor ofintellectual works? If
so,under whatcircumstances?
Theauthor ofanycategory ofcopyrightable subject matter, including phonograms, istheperson
whocreated thecopyrightable subject matter. SeeAndrien v.Southern Ocean County Chamber of
Commerce, 927F.2d132(3dCir.1991). Thatperson isalsotheinitial owner ofcopyright inthe
work. 17U.S.C. §201(a).
Alegalperson canbetheauthor ofacopyrighted work, ifthework isawork made forhire.
17U.S.C. §201(b). Thecircumstances under which awork qualifies asa"work made forhire" are
setoutinthedefinition ofthatterminsection 101oftheCopyright Act. 17U.S.C. §101. Seealso
Community forCreative Non-Violence v.Reid, 490U.S.730(1989).
SincecopyrightsaretransferableunderUSlaw,therightholdermaysubsequentlybeatransferee
whohasobtained rights fromtheauthor, either directly orthrough oneormore intermediate transfers.
See17U.S.C. §201(d).
1Document IP/Q/USA/1, p.16.
2Document IP/Q/USA/1, p.15.IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
Page3
5. Please specify thetypes oflicences available forworks, performances, phonograms and
broadcasting protected bycopyright andrelated rights under thedomestic law(voluntary, compulsory,
etc.)andindicate therelevant legal provisions.
Anytypeofvoluntary licence foranyprotected subject matter isfreely available torightholders
andusers asamatter ofprivate contract. Seegenerally 17U.S.C. Chapter 2,anddefinition of"transfer
ofcopyright ownership" in§101;Effects Associates v.Cohen, 908F.2d555(9thCir.1990), cert.
denied, 498U.S.1103(1991); 3M.Nimmer andD.Nimmer, NIMMER ONCOPYRIGHT §10.02
[A](1996). TheCopyright Actcontains several minimal limitations onthefreedom tolicense, relating
towriting requirements forexclusive licences andthecopyright owner 'sability toterminate licences
afterasetperiod oftime. 17U.S.C. §§203,204and304(c)(4).
Astocompulsory licences, please seetheUnited States 'reply toquestion 13fromtheEuropean
Communities andtheirMember States during theTRIPS Council review oflegislation oncopyright
andrelated rights inJuly1996.3
6. Please specify theexceptions totherightofreproduction (Article 9oftheBerne Convention),
particularly withrespect towireandwireless digital transmissions andbrowsing ontheinternet?
TheUSCopyright Act(17U.S.C.) contains thefollowing exceptions totherightofreproduction:
§107-Limitations onexclusive rights: Fairuse
§108-Limitations onexclusive rights: Reproduction bylibraries andarchives
§112-Limitations onexclusive rights: Ephemeral recordings
§113-Scope ofexclusive rights inpictorial, graphic, andsculptural works
§114-Scope ofexclusive rights insound recordings
§115-Scopeofexclusiverightsinnondramaticmusicalworks:Compulsorylicenceformaking
anddistributing phonorecords
§117-Scope ofexclusive rights: Useinconjunction withcomputers andsimilar information
systems
§118-Scope ofexclusive rights: Useofcertain works inconnection withnoncommercial
broadcasting
§120-Scope ofexclusive rights inarchitectural works
§121-Limitations onexclusive rights: reproduction forblindorother people withdisabilities
Inadditiontotheexceptionscodifiedinthestatute,caselawhasestablishedaconceptof"implied
licence," under which usesthatmaybeimplied fromthecircumstances tobeacceptable tothecopyright
owner areconsidered permissible andnon-infringing. See,e.g.,Effects Associates v.Cohen, 908
F.2d555(9thCir.1990), cert.denied, 498U.S.1103(1991); 3M.Nimmer andD.Nimmer, NIMMER
ONCOPYRIGHT §10.10 [c]at10-97 (1996).
3Document IP/Q/USA/1, pp.13-14 .IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
Page4
Several ofthese exceptions mayapply tocertain reproductions made inthecourse ofwireand
wireless digital transmissions and"browsing" ontheInternet, inparticular theimplied licence concept
andthedoctrine offairuse.
7. Arecomputer programs protected byother forms ofintellectual property rights other than
copyright? Ifso,please explain theconditions forprotection.
Yes,computer programs areprotected byother forms ofintellectual property rights inaddition
tocopyright. These other forms include patent andtradesecrecy laws. Questions about theconditions
forprotection should beraised during theTRIPS Council reviews ofthose laws.
8. Please describe thecriteria fortheprotection ofphonograms under UScopyright andrelated
rights law.
Please seethereply toquestion 1above.
II. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. CantheUSplease saywhether there havebeenanydevelopments relating toanyofthebills
listed inthereply toquestion 12posed bytheEuropean Communities anditsMember States, thatis,
thebillswhich would extend theexemption provided forunder Section 110,Sub-section 5,ofthe1976
USCopyright Act? Could theUSalsoclarify thelegal implications oftheproposed exemptions?
Furthermore, willtheUSGovernment ruleoutanysupport for,andpublicly oppose further progress
on,boththese billsandanyfuture billsattempting towiden theexemption fromcopyright protection
inrespect ofthepublic performance ofcopyright material byplaying abroadcast including thematerial
inpublic, and,ifnot,cantheUSplease explain whyanywidening oftheexemption would notconflict
with: (i)thenormal exploitation ofthework, and,therefore, Article 13ofTRIPS; and(ii)Article 11
oftheBerne Convention which requires theexclusive rightofpublic performance byanymeans tobe
provided formusical works?
Thebillslisted intheUnited States 'reply toquestion 12posed bytheEuropean Communities
andtheirMember States werenotenacted intolawinthe104th Congress, which adjourned attheend
of1996. Tworelated billshavebeenintroduced sofarinthe105th Congress: S.28,introduced on
21January 1997, andH.R. 789,introduced on13February 1997, bothentitled "Fairness inMusical
Licensing Actof1997".
Wedonotunderstand whatinformation issought bythepartofthisquestion asking usto"clarify
thelegalimplications oftheproposed exemptions".
TheAdministration andtheCopyright Office willnotsupport anybillthatwidens exemptions
from copyright protection inrespect ofthepublic performance ofcopyrighted material ifandtothe
extent thatthebillisinconsistent withtheUnited States ’obligations under theTRIPS Agreement and
theBerne Convention. Atthispoint, itispremature toconjecture astotheultimate formanylegislation
might take, andwork willcontinue withourinternational obligations inmind.
2. Further totheanswer tofollow-up question 2posed bytheEuropean Communities andits
Member States, cantheUSplease confirm thatthenewfederal anti-bootlegging legislation applies
tofixations oftheperformances, taking place upto50years ago,andincluding performers whoare
nationals ofother WTO countries, sothatthemaking ofreproductions ofsuchfixations requires the
consent oftheperformers asrequired byArticle 14,paragraphs 1and6,ofTRIPS?IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
Page5
Thenewfederal anti-bootlegging legislation intheUnited States, 17U.S.C. §1101, applies
toallperformers, regardless ofnationality. Itcontains nolimitations onduration oronthedateof
aperformance. Accordingly, byitsterms, itwould apply toanunauthorized fixation ofaperformance
thattookplace atanytime, including uptofiftyyears ago.
3. Further totheanswer tothefollow-up question 2mentioned inquestion 2above, cantheUS
please confirm whether allstates havelawsgiving protection consistent withArticle 14.1ofTRIPS
tonon-musical performers andwhether allstates provide thisprotection tofixations oftheperformances,
taking place upto50years ago,andincluding performers whoarenationals ofother WTO countries?
Many, butnotall,states havestatutes protecting livenon-musical performances. Aswiththe
federal anti-bootlegging legislation discussed inourreply toquestion 2above, these statutes donot
contain limitations onthenationality oftheperformer orthedateoftheperformance. Inaddition,
various other statestatutes andcommon lawdoctrines provide protection tononmusical performers
against certain usesoftheirperformances.
Please seetheUnited States 'reply toquestion 2from theEuropean Communities andtheir
Member States during theTRIPS Council review oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights in
July1996.4
4. Theanswer toquestion 8ofthequestions posed bytheEuropean Communities anditsMember
States andtheanswer tofollow-up question 8arenoted, butcantheUSplease explain howitjustifies
thestatement that"TRIPS doesnotcontain theconcept ofcountry oforigin" given thatArticle 5of
theBerne Convention, which doesinclude thisconcept, mustbecomplied withtomeettheterms of
Article 9ofTRIPS? Furthermore, cantheUSplease explain inmore detail howitjustifies theuse
oftheBerne Convention concept of"simultaneous publication" todecide whether works areofUSorigin
andtherefore should notconstitute "restored works" given thatthewaythisconcept isusedintheUS
excludes some works firstpublished inother WTO countries from"restored work" status whereas, as
aresult ofthewaytheconcept isusedintheBerne Convention, some works which might otherwise
receive noprotection areincluded?
TheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States arecorrect thattheTRIPS Agreement
"contains" theconcept of"country oforigin," inthesense thatArticle 9ofTRIPS incorporates Article 5
oftheBerne Convention. Toclarify, ourprevious statement wasintended topoint outthattheTRIPS
Agreement doesnotcontain itsownindependent definition of"country oforigin" thatwould apply
toallTRIPS obligations.
Astothesecond partofthisquestion, asweexplained inourprevious reply, webelieve this
isareasonable andpermissible application oftheBerne concept of“simultaneous publication ”inthe
context ofrestoring protection toworks inthepublic domain intheUnited States.
5. Theanswer toquestion 11posed bytheEuropean Communities anditsMember States isnoted,
but,given thateventurning onhome receiving apparatus inashoporrestaurant sothatcustomers
canhearitmeans thatthemusic inthebroadcast isperformed tothepublic, howdoestheUSreconcile
Section 110,Sub-section 5,ofthe1976UScopyright legislation withArticle 11oftheBerne Convention,
bearing inmindthatArticle 11oftheBerne Convention mustbecomplied with, duetoArticles 9and
13oftheTRIPS Agreement?
4Document IP/Q/USA/1, p.6.IP/Q/USA/1/Add.1
Page6
Theexemption insection 110(5) oftheUSCopyright Actispermissible asaminor exception
tothepublic performance rightinArticle 11oftheBerne Convention, seeSamRicketson, THEBERNE
CONVENTION FORTHE PROTECTION OFLITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS: 1886-1986
at532-37 (1986), andfallswithin thescope ofappropriate exceptions andlimitations under Article 13
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Foradetailed explanation ofthenarrow scope ofthisexemption, please seetheUnited States ’
replytofollow-up question 11oftheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States during theTRIPS
Council review oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights inJuly1996.5
III. REPLY TOQUESTION POSED BYKOREA
1. Arethefollowing works, theauthors ofwhich arenationals ofother WTO Members, protected
under theUSCopyright Law:
(i) awork published after1922, buttheauthor ofthework diedbefore 1947;
(ii) awork published after1922, andtheauthor ofthework diedafter1947;
(iii) awork published before 1922, buttheauthor ofthework diedafter1947;
(iv) awork published before 1922, andtheauthor ofthework diedbefore 1947?
Theanswers toeachofthese questions assumes thateither allformalities required under prior
USlawweresatisfied, orthework meets thecriteria forrestoration ofcopyright under section 104A
oftheCopyright Act.
(i) Yes. Such works arestillprotected.
(ii) Yes. Such works arestillprotected.
(iii) No.Thecopyrights insuchworks haveexpired.
(iv) No.Thecopyrights insuchworks haveexpired.
5Document IP/Q/USA/1, p.12.