RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q/USA/1
30October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4571)
Original: English/French*Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONCOPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS
United States1
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofthe
United States inthereview oflegislation oncopyright andrelated rights attheCouncil 'smeeting of
22to25July19962,thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Copyright lawisafundamental anddeeply rooted partoftheUSlegalsystem. Theauthority
toCongress togrant copyrights wasexplicitly provided forintheConstitution attheoutset ofour
existence asanation more than200years ago. Thecentral goalofUSCopyright Law, assetforth
intheConstitution, istoprovide incentives tocreate works ofauthorship inorder tobenefit thepublic
bypromoting theprogress ofscience andthearts.
Thefirstfederal copyright statute intheUnited States wasenacted in1790. Since then, it
hasbeenamended many times, adapting thelawtotakeintoaccount thedevelopment ofnewmarkets
andnewtechnologies.
IntheUSsystem, thereisnoconcept of"neighbouring rights" separate fromcopyright. Sound
recordings, forexample, areconsidered tobeworks ofauthorship under theCopyright Act. Wedo
have, however, various complementary bodies oflawrelating tootherrights ofauthors andperformers,
under bothfederal andstatelaw.
IntheUnitedStatestoday,copyrightinfixedworksofauthorshipisprotectedexclusivelythrough
federal law. Thecurrent statute istheCopyright Actof1976, which tookeffect on1January 1978.
Inthe20years sinceitsenactment, therehavebeennumerous amendments. In1994, Congress
amendedtheCopyrightActtoimplementourobligationsundertheTRIPSAgreement.Thisamendment,
entitled theUruguay Round Agreement Act,restored UScopyrights inworks from WTO Members
which hadfallen intothepublic domain because ofthelackofatreaty relationship between countries
*English, except forECquestions 15-17 inFrench.
1TheUnited States 'notification oflaws andregulations intheareaofcopyright andrelated rights under
Article 63.2 oftheAgreement hasbeen circulated indocuments IP/N/1/USA/C/1 and2.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/8.IP/Q/USA/1
Page2
orafailure tocomply withtheformalities inprior USlaw. Theamendment alsoprovided federal
protection forperformers against theunauthorized fixation, reproduction andbroadcasting oftheir
livemusical performances.
Earlier thisyear, theCopyright Actwasamended again toprovide anexclusive public
performance right forsound recordings thatextends tomany digital performances, including those
thatareinteractive.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYAUSTRALIA
1. Pleaseexplain,havingregardtothedecisionsinSegaEnterprisesvAccolade,Inc.andPrinceton
University Press vMichigan Document Services Inc.andanysimilar cases whether andhowtheUS
lawoffairusecomplies withArticle 9(2)oftheBerne Convention andArticle 13ofTRIPS.
IntheUnited States 'written responses tothefirstsetofquestions posed bytheEuropean
Commission, weexplained whythedoctrine offairusecomplies withBerne Article 9(2)andTRIPS
Article 13.Please seeouranswer totheCommission 'squestion 1.
Astothetwocases referred toinAustralia 'squestion:
InSegaEnterprises v.Accolade, Inc.,977F.2d1510 (9thCir.1992), thecourt applied the
doctrine offairusetothespecific factsofthecasebefore it.Asexplained inourdiscussion offair
usegenerally, courts arerequired tobalance several factors inlightofallthefactsandcircumstances.
TheSegacourt didexactly that. Thisnarrow holding based ontheparticular factsinthecaseisa
defensible judgement forthepurposes oftheexceptions permitted under theTRIPS Agreement.
Thedecisionintheothercase,PrincetonUniv.Pressv.MichiganDocumentServs.,74F.3d1512
(6thCir.1996), hasbeenvacated. Princeton Univ. Press v.Michigan Document Servs., reh'genbanc
granted, vacated, staygranted 74F.3d1528 (6thCir.1996).
2. Please explain whether andhowthedecision inLaCienega Music vZZTopaffects theability
oftheUSGovernment togiveeffect toitsobligations toother WTO Members under Article 14ofTRIPS.
Thedecision inLaCienega Music Co.v.ZZTop,53F.3d950(9thCir.1995), doesnoteffect
theability oftheUnited States togiveeffect toitsobligations under TRIPS Article 14.Thedecision
doesnotrelate totherights ofperformers, producers ofphonograms, orbroadcasting organizations
assuch. Init,thecourt heldthatthedistribution ofphonorecords before thecurrent Copyright Act
became effective in1978constituted apublication ofthemusical works embodied inthephonorecords.
Other courts havereached theopposite result. Rosette v.Rainbo Record Mfg. Corp.,354
F.Supp. 1183(S.D.N.Y. 1973), aff'dpercuriam ,546F.2d461(2dCir.1976); Capitol Records, Inc.
v.Mercury Records Corp.,221F.2d657(2dCir.1955). Legislation iscurrently pending inCongress
toclarify theissue. H.R. 1861, 104th Cong., 1stSess. (1995).
[Follow-up question]
WenotetheUSresponse thatthisdecision doesnotaffect obligations toother WTO Members
under Article 14ofTRIPS. TheUSstated thatithaspending congressional legislation. Could they
provide some detail ofthesubstance oftheprovisions ofthatlegislation intheirwritten response or,
alternatively, anappropriate reference tothat(draft) legislation.IP/Q/USA/1
Page3
ThebillintheHouse ofRepresentatives clarifying theissues raised inLaCienega Music v.
ZZTopisH.R. 1861. Thisbillhasmany partstoit,andthesection relevant tothisissueisonesmall
part. Itwould amend Section 303oftheCopyright Actbyadding thefollowing language: "The
distribution before 1January 1978, ofaphonorecord shallnotforanypurpose constitute apublication
ofthemusical work embodied therein." H.R. 1861 waspassed intheHouse on4June1996, and
iscurrently awaiting action intheSenate. Wedonotknow atthistimewhether thebillwillbepassed
intheSenate without change.
3. Please explain whether andhowColorado StateBillMB1242of1995, Illinois StateBill813
of1995, Missouri State Bill729of1995, Oklahoma State Bill1254 of1995, Texas State Bill526
of1995, andVirginia State Bill499of1995, alldealing withconditions placed onpersons seeking
toenforce rights inperforming rights, comply withArticle 9.1ofTRIPS incorporating Article 11of
theBerne Convention.
IntheUnited States, copyright infixedworks ofauthorship isgoverned exclusively byfederal
law. Accordingly, thescope ofprotection forallworks ofauthorship, including musical works and
sound recordings, isestablished bythe1976Copyright Act.TheActexplicitly preempts andrenders
voidanystatelawthatprovides equivalent rights incopyrightable subject matter, 17U.S.C. §301.
Inaddition, anystatelawthatconflicts withfederal lawispreempted byvirtue oftheSupremacy Clause
oftheConstitution, U.S.Const., art.VI,cl.2.Hines v.Davidowitz, 312U.S.52,67(1941).
Thestatelawsreferred tointhisquestion relate totheconduct ofthebusiness ofcollective
performing rights societies. Totheextent thatanyofthemalsoaffects thescope ofcopyright protection,
orhinders theoperation offederal copyright law,itispreempted. SeeASCAP v.Pataki ,38
U.S.P.Q.2d 1485(S.D.N.Y. 1996) (holding thatsimilar NewYork Statelegislation waspreempted).
4. Please explain whether andhowUSlegislation providing forretransmission offree-to-air TV
broadcasts complies withArticle 11bis(2) oftheBerne Convention.
USlawprovidingforretransmissionoftelevisionbroadcastsispermissibleunderArticle11bis(2)
oftheBerne Convention, aslegislation "todetermine theconditions under which therights mentioned
in[paragraph(1) ofArticle 11bis]maybeexercised".
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYCANADA
1. Inthelightofthetestofeconomic harm totherightholder setoutinTRIPS Article 13,how
doestheUSAjustify theexception inTitle17,Section 110(3), which saysthatitisnotacopyright
infringement tomake anunauthorized public performance ofanondramatic literary ormusical work
oradramatico-musical workofareligious nature, ordisplay ofawork, inthecourse ofservices at
aplace ofworship orother religious assembly?
Theexception inSection 110(3) ofourCopyright Actiswholly consistent withtherequirements
ofArticle 13oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thepermitted usesareextremely narrow, andhavenotbeen
objected tobyourrightholders. Theexception islimited toonlyafewtypes ofworks, onlycertain
usesarepermitted, andtheyarepermitted onlyinthecourse ofreligious services, which musttake
place onlyinlocations usedforreligious assembly.
2. Bearing inmindthatTRIPS Article 13employs atestofeconomic detriment totherightholder
andnotatestofnon-commercial use,howdoes theUSA justify theexception inTitle17,
Section110(4)(A),whichremovesfromthescopeofcopyrightinfringementtheunauthorizedperformance
ofanondramatic literary ormusical work where there isnodirect orindirect admission charge?IP/Q/USA/1
Page4
Article 13oftheTRIPS Agreement confines exceptions orlimitations onrights tocertain special
cases which donotconflict withanormal exploitation ofthework anddonotunreasonably prejudice
thelegitimate interests oftherightholder.
Section 110(4)(A), which would forexample allow acommunity choir tosingachoral work
forfreeatanartcentre, islimited invarious ways thatprevent unreasonable prejudice totheinterests
oftherightholder. First, itislimited astothecategories ofworks andtypes ofusespermitted. In
addition, itcontains threelimitations thatmake economic detriment totherightholder unlikely: (1)it
mustbedonewithout anypurpose ofdirect orindirect commercial advantage; (2)there must beno
payment ofanyfeeorother compensation toanyoftheperformers, promoters ororganizers; and(3)
there mustbenodirect orindirect admission charge. Furthermore, theexemption doesnotapply if
thecopyright owner objects inwriting.
IV. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. Under 17U.S.C. §107,theUnited States permits "fairuse"ofacopyrighted work. Please
explain howthefairusedoctrine, asithasbeen broadly applied andinterpreted byUScourts,
particularly inconnection witha"parody" thatdiminishes thevalue ofawork, isconsistent withTRIPS
Article 13,given theobligation to"confine limitations orexceptions toexclusive rights tocertain special
cases which donotconflict withanormal exploitation oftheworkanddonotunreasonably prejudice
thelegitimate interests oftheright holder".
Thefairusedoctrine ofUScopyright lawembodies essentially thesame goals asArticle 13
ofTRIPS, andisapplied andinterpreted inawayentirely congruent withthestandards setforth in
thatArticle. Fairusewashistorically developed asasafety valve totheexclusive rights granted by
copyright, permitting limited andreasonable useswithout permission orpayment -precisely thosetypes
ofuseswhich donotinterfere withthecopyright owner 'snormal exploitation ofthework or
unreasonably prejudice hisorherrights. Theclassic example offairuseisthequotation inabook
review ofportions ofthebookbeing reviewed. Thecopyright owner ordinarily doesnotprepare reviews
ofhisownwork, andtheimpact onhisinterests willordinarily beminimal. If,ontheother hand,
somuch material isquoted thatthereview willsubstitute forpurchases ofthebookinthemarketplace,
theusewillnotbeconsidered fair.
Thearticulation ofthisconcept thatwasdeveloped bythecourts overtheyears andcodified
intheCopyright Actin1976 (17U.S.C. §107)identifies fourfactors thatcourts must examine in
determining whether auseisfair: (1)thepurpose andcharacter oftheuse,including whether such
useisofcommercial nature orisfornonprofit educational purposes; (2)thenature ofthecopyrighted
work; (3)theamount andsubstantiality oftheportion usedinrelation tothecopyrighted work as
awhole; and(4)theeffect oftheuseuponthepotential market fororvalue ofthecopyrighted work.
Thebalancing ofthefourfactors represents ameans ofevaluating whether infacttheuseinquestion
conflicts withanormal exploitation ofthework andunreasonably prejudices thecopyright owner 's
interests. TheSupreme Court hasstated thatthefourth factor, which specifically focuses ontheimpact
onpotential market exploitation ofthework, isthemostimportant. SeeHarper &Row, Publishers,
Inc.v.NationEnterprises,471U.S.539,566(1985).Otherfactorsmaybeconsideredaswell,allowing
aflexible andsensitive calibration oftheimpact oftheparticular useunder thecircumstances.
Inapplying thefairusedoctrine, thecourts haveconsistently refused toexcuse usesthatgo
toofarandinterfere withthecopyright owner 'snormal markets forthework. See,e.g.,Harper &
Row, Publishers, Inc.v.Nation Enterprises ,471U.S.539(1985); American Geophysical Union v.
Texaco, Inc.,37F.3d881(2dCir.1994); Pacific &Southern Co. v.Duncan ,IP/Q/USA/1
Page5
744F.2d1490 (11th Cir.1984); Basic Books, Inc.v.Kinko 'sGraphic Corp.,758F.Supp. 1522
(S.D.N.Y. 1991). Those usesthathave been permitted have generally involved productive and
non-commercial usesoflimited amounts ofmaterial from thecopyrighted work. See,e.g., Arica
Institute, Inc. v.Palmer ,970F.2d1067 (2dCir.1992); Wright v.Warner Books, Inc.,
953F.2d731(2dCir.1991); Triangle Pub., Inc.v.Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc.,626F.2d1171
(5thCir.1980).
Inresponse tothespecific question about parody, itisimportant tounderstand thatnotall
parodies qualify asfairuseunder USlaw. Rather, eachparody isdealtwithonacase-by-case basis,
applying thefactors setoutinSection 107inamanner thattakes intoaccount thenature ofparody.
Thus, theUSSupreme Court hasheldthatthepurpose andcharacter ofparody involves bothcriticism
andhumour, giving itsocial andcultural value, andthataparody, inorder tobeeffective, must
necessarily takeenough ofthecopyrighted work tomake theobject oftheparody recognizable.
Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,114S.Ct. 1164 (1994). Notallhumorous works thatdraw on
pre-existing works willenjoy thebenefit ofthismorelenient application ofthefairusefactors, however;
thedefendant 'swork mustqualify asatrueparody, targeting andcommenting onthecopyrighted work
rather thansimply using itasavehicle forunrelated comment. Id.at1172.
Inexamining thefourth fairusefactor, theeffect ontheactual andpotential market foror
value ofthecopyrighted work, theSupreme Court heldthatanynegative impact caused solely bythe
critical aspect ofaparody could notbeconsidered. Id.at1178. Thisanalysis isconsistent withTRIPS
Article 13,since anysuchlessening ofpublic interest inthecopyrighted work doesnotconstitute
"unreasonable prejudice" to"legitimate interests" ofthecopyright owner -rather, itisequivalent to
thelessening ofpublic interest thatmayresult fromascathing review. Thistypeofharm should not
beactionable byacopyright owner; otherwise onlyflattering commentary orbenign parody islikely
tobepermissible. Incontrast, harm tothemarket forother adaptations ofthecopyrighted work will
clearly weigh against afinding offairuse. Id.
[Follow-up question]
TheUSanswer equates thelikely effect ofacritical parody ofaworkwiththatofascathing
review. Theanswer alsosuggests thatamuch greater partofthecopyright workwillbereproduced
intheparody thaninthereview. Unlike areview, therefore, exploitation oftheparody could apparently
replace anydesire toexploit thecopyright work.
HowdoestheUSjustifythispossibilitygiventherequirementinTRIPSArticle13thatlimitations
andexceptions toexclusive rights should notconflict withanormal exploitation ofthework?
Ifexploitation ofaparody isofanature thatitreplaces anydesire toexploit thecopyright
work, thefourth fairusefactor applied bythecourts willweigh strongly against thedefendant, and
theusewillnotbeconsidered fair.Asnoted inouroriginal answer tothisquestion, theSupreme Court
oftheUnited States hasspecifically directed thelower courts toconsider theeffect oftheparody on
themarket forother adaptations ofthework, inapplying thefairusefactors. Asaresult, theright
holder 'sability tocontrol theexploitation ofcopies oradaptations ofthework isprotected.
2. Under 17U.S.C. §1101, theUnited States provides remedies against theunauthorized fixation
ortransmission ofalivemusical performance butnotforother typesofperformances suchasdramatic
performances, lectures, poetry, orcomedy. Please explain howthisprovision complies withthe
obligation under TRIPS Article 14toprovide alltypes ofperformers thepossibility ofpreventing
unauthorized fixation ortransmission oftheirperformances.IP/Q/USA/1
Page6
TRIPS Article 14requires WTO Member countries toprovide protection toperformers against
theunauthorized fixation ortransmission oftheirperformances inphonograms only. USfederal law,
enacted in1994, provides suchprotection tolivemusical performances. 17U.S.C. §1101. These
performances constitute thevastmajority ofperformances fixed inphonograms, andthose thatare
ofprimary economic significance. Infact,USlawgoesbeyond therequirements ofTRIPS byproviding
protection against theunauthorized fixation oflivemusical performances inanyform, notlimited to
fixation inphonograms.
Inaddition tothisnewtypeofprotection under federal law,performers ofallvarieties are
protected against unauthorized fixation anduseoftheirperformances under various long-standing
doctrines ofstateandfederal law.Thelawsofmany states contain prohibitions onunauthorized fixations
ofperformances. See,e.g.,N.Y. Penal Law§§275.15 and275.20. TheUSLanham Actprotects
performers against those usesoftheirperformances thatmislead thepublic astosource orsponsorship.
15U.S.C. §1125. State lawalsoprovides rights ofpublicity, making itunlawful toexploit
commercially aperformer 'sname, voice orlikeness without hisorherconsent. See
generally 2J.Thomas McCarthy, THE RIGHTS OFPUBLICITY AND PRIVACY §8.16(1996).
Other doctrines ofstatelawprotect against interference withprivacy rights andmisappropriation of
identity. 1id.at§4.14; Midler v.Ford Motor Co.,849F.2d460(9thCir.1988).
[Follow-up question]
Please explain howtheState lawscitedintheUSresponse toquestion 2provide nationwide
protection against thefixation ofliveperformances -other thanmusical performances -onphonograms
asrequired byTRIPS Article 14.
Also, please explain howthese performers havethepossibility ofpreventing thereproduction
ofanyfixations onphonograms andthebroadcasting andcommunication tothepublic oftheirlive
performances inconformity withTRIPS Article 14.1. Also, doanyrights forthese performers apply
equally toperformers fromother WTO countries?
Please explain howallperformers receive protection forexisting performances asrequired
bytheTRIPS Article 14.6applying theprovisions oftheBerne Convention mutatis mutandis tothe
rights ofperformers inphonograms.
Statelawshaveeffect onlywithin theirownterritories, andasageneral matter donotapply
toactswithin other states. Asaresult, ifarightholder believes thathisorherrights havebeenviolated
inmore thanonestate, separate actions ineachstatemight berequired. Thisisconsistent withthe
TRIPS Agreement, which permits rights tobegranted onastate-by-state basis, inaddition toona
national level.
Thesestatelawsprovidenon-musicalperformerswithrightsintheirliveperformancesconsistent
withArticle14.1oftheTRIPSAgreement,withoutregardtothenationalityordomicileoftheperformer.
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-
16-7to16-8; D.C. Code Ann. §22-3814.
Thenewfederal anti-bootlegging legislation imposes nolimits onitsapplication tolive
performances thatoccurred before itcame intoeffect.IP/Q/USA/1
Page7
3. Insome USjurisdictions themenu hierarchy ofacomputer programme constitutes a"method
ofoperation" thatisnoteligible forcopyright protection. Please explain howthisruleisconsistent
withtheobligation inTRIPS Article 10.1toprotect computer programmes asliterary works under
theBerne Convention.
Asrequired byTRIPS Article 10.1, USlawtreats computer programmes asliterary works.
Seedefinitions of"computer programme" and"literary work", 17U.S.C. §101.Under theCopyright
Act,thescope ofprotection forliterary works, likeallcopyrighted works, iscircumscribed bywhat
isknown asthe"idea/expression dichotomy", codified inSection 102(b), which states: "Innocase
doescopyright protection foranoriginal work ofauthorship extend toanyidea, procedure, process,
system, method ofoperation, concept, principle, ordiscovery, regardless oftheform inwhich itis
described, explained, illustrated, orembodied insuchwork." Thus, acourt examining thescope of
copyright inaninfringement suitmustdistinguish between those elements ofthework thatconstitute
ideaandthoseelements thatconstitute expression. TheTRIPS Agreement incorporates thesameconcept
inArticle 9.2,limiting copyright protection "toexpressions andnottoideas, procedures, methods
ofoperation ormathematical concepts assuch".
Thelinebetween ideaandexpression isoften difficult todraw, under thelawoftheUnited
States oranyother country. Inthecaseofcomputer programmes, UScourts havehadtodosojust
asforanyother typeofliterary work. Asmall number ofcourts havedrawn thelinetoexclude certain
menu hierarchies from protection as"methods ofoperation" under Section 102(b). While theUS
government doesnotnecessarily taketheposition thatthisresult iscorrect, itisadefensible judgment.
Inreviewing theissue several months ago,theSupreme Court wasequally divided andtherefore did
notissue anopinion. Lotus Development Corp. v.Borland ,116S.Ct. 1062 (1996).
4. Under 17U.S.C. §104A(d)(2), acopyright holder mustfileorserve notice ofintent toenforce
arestored copyright toobtain aremedy against areliance party. Please explain howthisrequirement
isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1inconjunction withArticle 5(2)oftheBerne Convention, which
prohibits requiring formalities forcopyright protection.
The"noticeofintenttoenforce"arestoredcopyrightprovidedforunder17U.S.C.§104A(d)(2)
isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1inconjunction withArticles 5(2)and18oftheBerne Convention.
Under theUruguay Round Agreements Actof1994, copyrights ineligible works fromother
WTO Members wererestored automatically asof1January 1996, without theneedfortherightholder
totakeanyaction. See17U.S.C. §104A(a)(1)(A). These copyrights areenforceable under USlaw
tothesameextent asanyexisting copyright withregard tofuture usesoftheworks, thatis,usesinitiated
afterthedateofrestoration. 17U.S.C. §104A(d)(1).
The"notices ofintent" provided forintheActdonotaffect theautomatic restoration and
continued existence ofthese copyrights. They relate onlytotherights of"reliance parties" -those
whohadinvested inthedistribution ofnewly restored works, orinthecreation ofderivative works
based onthose works, during thetimethattheworks wereinthepublic domain. Because theBerne
Convention allows some flexibility indetermining howtoimplement retroactive grants ofprotection
indealing withsuchreliance parties, thenotices ofintent donotviolate thegeneral prohibition against
formalities inArticle 5(2).
Article 18(3) oftheBerne Convention states that"therespective countries shalldetermine,
eachinsofar asitisconcerned, theconditions ofapplication ofth[e]principle" ofretroactivity established
inArticle 18(1). Thisparagraph permits limited exceptions totheapplication ofretroactive protection
forexisting works insituations where aparty hasrelied onthepriorabsence ofprotection ininvesting
intheuseofthework. SeeWIPO GUIDE TOTHE BERNE CONVENTION ¶18.6(1978);IP/Q/USA/1
Page8
SamRicketson, THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OFLITERARY AND
ARTISTIC WORKS: 1886-1986, §12.11 at674-675 (1987).
Inenacting theUruguay Round Agreements Act,Congress availed itself ofthisflexibility in
order toachieve fairness andavoid potential legalproblems under ourConstitution. Itdidsobyallowing
reliance parties certain narrowly circumscribed privileges tocontinue tomake already-initiated uses
oftherestored work. 17U.S.C. §104A(d). Except inthecaseofaderivative work based upon a
restored work, theowner ofcopyright intherestored work wasgiven theability tocutoffthese
privileges after12months bynotifying reliance parties ofanintent toenforce thenewly-restored rights.
Onewaythismaybedoneisbyfiling a"notice ofintent" withtheCopyright Office within twoyears
ofthedateofrestoration,therebynotifyingtheentireuniverseofreliancepartiesofthecopyrightowner's
claim. Theother option doesnotrequire anygovernment involvement orthepayment ofanyfee,
andisnotlimited intime: atanytimeduring thelifeofthecopyright, thecopyright owner mayserve
anotice ofintent individually onanyreliance party. Thenotice ofintent therefore serves asasimple
mechanism formaking appropriate adjustments innewly-restored rights inorder toavoid penalizing
parties whoacted lawfully inthepast.
Insum,thenotice ofintent ispermissible asareasonable condition ofapplication oftheprinciple
ofretroactivity under Article 18(3).3
5. Under 17U.S.C. §104A(d)(2), areliance party hasa12-month grace period forexisting
infringement ofarestored copyright. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withtheobligation
inTRIPS Article 70toprovide copyright protection forexisting works consistent withArticle 18(1)
oftheBerne Convention (1971).
The12-month grace period provided toreliance parties under 17U.S.C. §104A(d)(2) is
consistent withtheobligation inTRIPS Article 70toprovide copyright protection forexisting works
consistent withArticle 18(1) oftheBerne Convention.
Article 18(3) oftheBerne Convention states that"therespective countries shalldetermine,
eachinsofar asitisconcerned, theconditions ofapplication ofth[e]principle" ofretroactivity established
inArticle 18(1). Thisparagraph permits limited exceptions totheapplication ofretroactive protection
forexisting works insituations where aparty hasrelied onthepriorabsence ofprotection ininvesting
intheuseofthework. SeeWIPO GUIDE TOTHE BERNE CONVENTION ¶18.6(1978);
SamRicketson, THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OFLITERARY AND
ARTISTIC WORKS: 1886-1986, §12.11 at674-675 (1987).
Inenacting theUruguay Round Agreements Act,Congress availed itself ofthisflexibility in
order toachieve fairness andavoid potential legalproblems under ourConstitution. Itdidsobyallowing
reliance parties certain narrowly circumscribed privileges tocontinue tomake already-initiated uses
oftherestored work. 17U.S.C. §104A(d). These privileges include a12-month grace period after
notification bythecopyright owner ofanintent toenforce therestored copyright. Thislimited grace
period ispermissible asareasonable condition ofapplication oftheprinciple ofretroactivity under
Article 18(3).
3Seethefollow-up question after ECquestion 5.IP/Q/USA/1
Page9
[Follow-up question relating toquestions 4and5]
Please explain whatisunderstood under USCopyright Lawbytheterm"reliance party".
Please explain what"narrowly circumscribed privileges" aregiven toreliance parties inrespect
ofrestored copyright works.
Also, please statewhether reliance parties cancontinue touserestored works indefinitely if
thecopyright owner never serves anotice ofintent.
Withrespecttothemeaningof"relianceparty"underUSlaw,werefertheEuropeanCommunity
toSection 104A(h)(4) ofourCopyright Act,which contains suchadefinition. Thisprovision hasnot
yetbeenapplied orinterpreted bytheUSfederal courts.
Similarly, thenarrowly circumscribed privileges given toreliance parties inrespect ofrestored
works aresetoutinSection 104A(d)(2) oftheCopyright Act. Thatprovision indicates theremedies
available against reliance parties andthusnecessarily defines thescope ofthepermissible actsthey
canundertake withrespect tosuchworks.
Areliancepartycanusearestoredworkinonlyanarrowlyprescribedmanneruntilthecopyright
owner serves orfilesanotice ofintent. First, reliance partystatus mustbeestablished foreachindividual
work. Second, aparty must havebeenengaged inanongoing series ofacts;cessation ofthose acts
foranappreciable amount oftimewilldeprive himofreliance party status. 140Cong. Rec.E2264
(8October 1994). Third, aparty'sreliance party status extends onlytothesame typeofactshehad
already beenengaged inwithrespect totherestored work; itwillnotextend tonewtypes ofacts.
Finally, copyright owners cantakeaction atanytimeduring thecopyright termtoenforce theirrights;
allprivileges ofreliance parties thenendaftera12-month grace period expires.
6. Under 17U.S.C. §104A(d)(3), areliance party maycontinue toexploit anexisting derivative
workofarestored workifthereliance party paysthecopyright owner reasonable compensation. Please
explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1which incorporates theexclusive rights
provisions oftheBerne Convention (1971).
Thelimited exception provided toreliance parties whoownderivative works based onrestored
works thatwere created before thedateofrestoration isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1,which
incorporates theexclusive rights provisions oftheBerne Convention.
Article 18(3) oftheBerne Convention states that"therespective countries shalldetermine,
eachinsofar asitisconcerned, theconditions ofapplication ofth[e]principle" ofretroactivity established
inArticle 18(1). Thisparagraph permits limited exceptions totheapplication ofretroactive protection
forexisting works insituations where aparty hasrelied onthepriorabsence ofprotection ininvesting
intheuseofthework. SeeWIPO GUIDE TOTHE BERNE CONVENTION ¶18.6(1978);
SamRicketson, THE BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OFLITERARY AND
ARTISTIC WORKS: 1886-1986, §12.11 at674-675 (1987).
Inenacting theUruguay Round Agreements Act,Congress availed itself ofthisflexibility in
order toachieve fairness andavoid potential legalproblems under ourConstitution. Itdidsobyallowing
reliance parties certain narrowly circumscribed privileges tocontinue tomake already-initiated uses
oftherestored work. 17U.S.C. §104A(d). These privileges include theability ofowners ofderivative
works based onrestored works thatwerecreated before thedateofrestoration tocontinue toexploit
thederivative works uponpayment ofreasonable compensation totheowner ofcopyright intherestored
work.ThislimitedexceptionensuresthatauthorsofnewcreativematerialarenotbarredfromexploitingIP/Q/USA/1
Page10
itbecause ofachange inthelegalstatus ofthepriorworks, andispermissible asareasonable condition
ofapplication oftheprinciple ofretroactivity under Article 18(3).
7. Under 17U.S.C. §104A(a)(1)(B), thetermofprotection ofarestored workistheremainder
ofthetermthattheworkwould havebeengranted intheUnited States ifithadnotentered thepublic
domain. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1,which incorporates
thetermofprotection setforth inArticle 7(1)oftheBerne Convention (1971).
Thetermofprotection forarestored work under 17U.S.C. §104A(a)(1)(B) isconsistent with
therequirements oftheBerne Convention asincorporated intoTRIPS through Article 9.1.
Under USlaw,restored works aretreated inthesame wayasworks thatwerealways entitled
tocopyright protection, giving them thesame termofprotection astheywould havehadiftheyhad
notentered thepublic domain. Thetermgranted suchworks isequivalent to,andsometimes inexcess
of,thetermrequired bytheTRIPS Agreement through itsincorporation ofArticle 7(1)oftheBerne
Convention. Seeresponse toquestion 10below.4
8. Under 17U.S.C. §104A(h)(6)(D), thedefinition ofarestored work islimited tothose "first
publishedinaneligiblecountryandnotpublishedintheUnitedStatesduringthe30-dayperiodfollowing
publication insucheligible country". Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withtheobligation
inTRIPS Article 70toprovide copyright protection forexisting works consistent withArticle 18(1)
oftheBerne Convention (1971).
Thelimitation ofthedefinition of"restored work" in17U.S.C. §104A(h)(6)(D) tothose"first
published inaneligible country andnotpublished intheUnited States during the30-day period following
publication insucheligible country" isconsistent withtheobligation inTRIPS Article 70toprovide
copyright protection forexisting works consistent withBerne Article 18(1).
TheUnited States 'obligations under theTRIPS Agreement extend toworks fromother World
Trade Organization Member countries, nottoUSworks. Inimplementing theArticle 70obligation
toprotect existing works -amajor change inUSlaw,taking many works fromaround theworld out
ofthepublic domain -Congress decided nottorestore protection toUSworks.
Thisdecision required adefinition ofwhatconstitutes aUSwork forpurposes ofcopyright
restoration. Thedefinition thatwasadopted constitutes areasonable andappropriate solution, drawing
ontheBerne Convention concept of"simultaneous publication". SeeBerne Convention, Article 3(4).
Ifaworkwaspublished intheUnited States within 30daysofitsfirstpublication abroad, itisconsidered
tohavebeenpublished simultaneously inbothcountries, andtherefore mayberegarded asaUSwork.
[Follow-up question]
TheUSresponse toquestion 8states thatworks published simultaneously intheUSandabroad
constitute USworks. Please explain howthisinterpretation isconsistent withBerne Article 5(4)(b),
which provides thatworks published simultaneously inacountry outside theUnion andacountry of
theUnion areconsidered works ofthelatter country.
Berne Article 5(4)(b) defines "country oforigin" onlyforpurposes oftheuseofthattermin
applying theBerne Convention, andrelates onlytoworks published simultaneously inacountry outside
theUnion. TheTRIPS Agreement doesnotcontain theconcept of"country oforigin." Asstated
4Seethefollow-up question after ECquestion 10.IP/Q/USA/1
Page11
inouroriginal answer tothisquestion, thedefinition ofworks subject toretroactive protection under
USlawisnecessary andreasonable.
9. TheUnited States doesnotconfer onauthors ofcinematographic works therighttoauthorize
orprohibit therental ofsuchworks tothepublic. Please explain howthisisconsistent withthe
obligation inTRIPS Article 11.
TRIPS Article 11excepts Member countries from theobligation toprovide rental rights for
cinematographic works "unless suchrental hasledtowidespread copying ofsuchworks which is
materially impairing theexclusive rightofreproduction". Because ofthestructure ofthecurrent rental
market forcinematographic works intheUnited States, andthecurrent stateofreproduction technology,
thelackofarental rightdoesnotappear tobecausing anymaterial impairment ofthereproduction
right. TheUSmotion picture industry hasindicated tousthatthisisthecase,andwehavenoevidence
tothecontrary.
[Follow-up question]
WilltheUSintroduce arental rightforauthors ofcinematographic works ifauthors fromany
WTO countries produce evidence ofwidespread copying?
Intheevent thatauthors from anyWTO Member produce evidence ofwidespread copying
ofcinematographic works intheUnited States, wewould expect thatevidence tobeconsidered by
ourCongress, along withanyother available evidence onthisissue.
Ifwebecome convinced thatwidespread copying is,infact,taking place intheUnited States
astheresult ofthelackofarental right, wewould advise Congress thatitwould beappropriate to
provide sucharighttocinematographic works.
Atthispoint, however, there isnosuchevidence, andtherefore arental rightinthese works
isnotrequired intheUnited States.
10. Under 17U.S.C. §304themaximum termofprotection forcopyrights subsisting prior to
1January 1978 is75years. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1,
which incorporates thetermofprotection setforthinArticle 7(1)oftheBerne Convention (1971), which
refers tolifeoftheauthor andfiftyyears.
Thetermofprotection forcopyrights under USlawisconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1,
incorporating thetermofprotection setforth inArticle 7(1)oftheBerne Convention.
Since thecurrent USCopyright Actbecame effective on1January 1978, thestandard term
ofcopyright protection intheUnited States hasbeenmeasured bythelifeoftheauthor plus50years.
17U.S.C. §302. Anexception wasmade forcopyrights thatwerealready inexistence onthatdate,
which ordinarily enjoy atermof75years fromthedateofpublication. 17U.S.C. §304.The75-year
term, nowgranted tothese older works without theneedtofilearenewal application, represents a
substantial increase from theprior maximum termof56years.
Thetermof75years from publication isageneral approximation ofthetermoflifeofthe
author plus50years, given aninitial yardstick ofpublication rather thantheauthor 'slife. Inmany
cases itwillbelonger -whenever theauthor dieslessthan25years afterpublication.IP/Q/USA/1
Page12
[Follow-up question relating toquestions 7and10]
Forworks thatpredate 1978, including restored works, theUStermofprotection willbeless
thanthelifeoftheauthor plus50years, iftheauthor livesformore than25years afterthedateof
publication. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 9.1.
Aswestated inouroriginal responses tothese questions, theUnited States believes thatthe
termgranted under USlawisequivalent toandconsistent withthetermrequired under TRIPS and
Berne.
11. Section110(5)ofthe1976UScopyrightlegislationprovidesexemptionsfromcopyrightprotection
inrespect oftheperformance ofcopyright material byhome receiving apparatus. CantheUnited States
authoritiesreconcilethisexemptionwiththeAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualProperty
Rights? Under thatAgreement, Article 1provides thatMembers shallgiveeffect totheprovisions of
thisAgreement.
Section 110(5) oftheCopyright Actisknown asthe"homestyle exemption". Itallows acorner
storetoturnonaradio onthecounter, andclearly fallswithin thetypeofexceptions torights permitted
under TRIPS Article 13.
Theexception issignificantly limited interms ofthestatutory language, thewayinwhich
Congress intended ittobeapplied, andthewayinwhich courts haveactually applied it.
Thestatutory language establishing theexemption isnarrow inscope. Theexemption islimited
astothetypeofequipment permitted -itmustbea"single receiving apparatus ofakindcommonly
usedinprivate homes". Theexemption applies onlytothecommunication oftransmissions. The
exemption isavailable onlyiftheperson playing theradio orother device doesnotimpose acharge
toseeorhearthetransmission. Finally, nofurther transmission tothepublic ispermitted.
Congress intended thescope ofthisprovision tobeverynarrow. ThisCongressional intent
isreflected inthelegislative history, which states thattheprovision ismeant tocover onlytransmissions
ofbroadcasts andapplies onlytosmall commercial establishments:
Theclause would exempt small commercial establishments whose proprietors merely bring
ontotheirpremises standard radioortelevision equipment andturnitonfortheircustomers 'enjoyment,
butitwould impose liability where theproprietor hasacommercial "sound system" installed orconverts
astandard home receiving apparatus into theequivalent ofacommercial sound system.
H.R. Rep.No.1476, 94thCong., 2dSess. 87(1976).
Thecourts have alsointerpreted theprovision narrowly: ifthereceiving equipment and
loudspeakers aretoosophisticated orpowerful, theexemption doesnotapply. See,e.g.,Sailor Music
v.TheGapStores, Inc.,516F.Supp. 923(S.D.N.Y.), aff'd,668F.2d84(2dCir.1981), cert.denied ,
456U.S.945(1982).
12. Weareaware thatseveral billshavebeenintroduced intotheUSSenate toamend Title17
United States Code (refer S1628, 20March 1996). Suchbillshave, astheirintent, theextension of
theexemption provided forunder Section 110(5) ofthe1976 USCopyright Act. CantheUSTrade
Representative reconcile thisfurther possible breach oftheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights?
Thebillsthatwould amend Section 110(5) areH.R. 789,S.1619, andS.1628. H.R. 789,
104th Cong., 1stSess. (1995); S.1619, 104th Cong., 2dSess. (1996), S.1628, 104th Cong., 2dSess.IP/Q/USA/1
Page13
(1996). Nohearings havebeenheldonanyofthesebills,andtheirfuture remains unclear atthepresent
time. Thediscussions concerning these issues areongoing, andproceed withtheUnited States '
international obligations inmind.
13. CantheUnited States Authorities reconcile thecompulsory licensing provisions under:
Title17,USA - Section 115 - Recordings ofmusical works
Title17,USA - Section 111 - Cable television
Title17,USA - Section 116 - Coinoperated machines (i.e.jukeboxes)
Title17,USA - Section 118 - Non-commercial broadcasting
Title17,USA - Section 119 - Television transmissions bysatellite carriers
toownersofsatellitereceivingapparatusintended
forprivate home viewing
withtheprovisions oftheBerne Convention inconjunction withArticle 9.1oftheTRIPS Agreement:
Article 9,paragraph 1 - "Authors ofliterary andartistic works protected by
thisconvention shall have theexclusive rights of
authorizing thereproduction ofthese works inany
manner orform."
Article 11bis, paragraph 1 - Right ofrebroadcasting bycable
"Authors ofliterary andartistic workshallenjoy the
exclusive rightofauthorizing ...anycommunications
tothepublic bywireorbyrebroadcasting ofthe
broadcasts ofthework when thiscommunication is
made byanorganization other thantheoriginal one."
Article 11,paragraph 1 - Right ofpublic performance
"Authors ofdramatic, dramatico-musical andmusical
works shallenjoy theexclusive rightofauthorizing the
public performance oftheir works, including such
public performance byanymeans orprocess."
Article 11bis, paragraph 1 - Broadcasting right
"Authors ofliterary andartistic workshallenjoy the
exclusive rightofauthorizing thebroadcasting oftheir
works orthecommunication thereof tothepublic by
anymeans ofwireless diffusion ofsigns, sounds or
images."
There areseveral compulsory licenses inUSlaw,allofwhich arepermissible under Berne
asincorporated intoTRIPS.
Section 115contains acompulsory license, permitted under Berne Article 13(1), forthe
production anddistribution ofphonorecords ofanondramatic musical work. Thislicense isavailable
onlyaftertheowner ofcopyright hasfirstauthorized thedistribution ofphonorecords embodying the
work. Sections 111and119contain compulsory licenses forsecondary transmissions bycable andIP/Q/USA/1
Page14
satellite, which arepermitted under Berne Article 11bis(2).Section 118contains acompulsory license
fortheuseofcertain works inconnection withnoncommercial broadcasting, andispermitted under
Berne Articles 11bisand9(2). Section 116isnotacompulsory license. Rather, itallows negotiated
licensesforpublicperformancesbymeansofcoin-operatedphonorecordplayers,bypermittingindustry-
wide negotiation ofagreements without antitrust problems, andbyproviding theoption ofusing
arbitration procedures within theCopyright Office. Since 1989, alllicenses under Section 116have
beenvoluntary negotiated licenses.
14. CantheUnited States authorities reconcile thejudicial exemptions prevalent intheUSand
thefailure oftheUSlegislative branch toclarify thisissuewiththeenactment ofTitle17,United States
Code -1976, withtheBerne Convention, inparticular Article 11,paragraph 1,andtheAgreement
onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property, Article 9,paragraph 1?
Weareunable toanswer thisquestion asphrased, since wedonotunderstand which caselaw
isreferred toby"judicial exemptions prevalent intheUS".
15. Article 14.4ofTRIPS provides protection fortherental ofworks reproduced onphonograms:
CantheUnited States clarify howthegeneral copyright principles ofTitle17aresufficient toensure
thisprotection?
Sections 106and109oftheCopyright Actgiverightholders insound recordings theability
tocontrol therental ofthesound recordings. Asanowner ofcopyright, theproducer istherefore
granted theability tocontrol therental ofthesound recording, inaccordance withArticle 14.4ofthe
TRIPS Agreement.
16. Inthesame manner, cantheUnited States clarify theextent towhich thegeneral copyright
principles ofTitle17aresufficient toensure theprotection provided forinArticle 14.4ofTRIPS for
performers?
Asnoted withrespect toquestion 1,Sections 106and109oftheCopyright Actgrant right
holders insound recordings theability tocontrol therental ofthesound recordings. Since under US
law,performers canbeauthors andcopyright owners ofsound recordings, theycancontrol theirrental,
inaccordance withArticle 14.4oftheTRIPS Agreement.
17. HowdoesTitle17enable performers toprevent theactsmentioned inArticle 14.1ofTRIPS,
particularly withrespect toperformers whoarenationals ofother WTO Member countries?
TheUnited States hasfullyimplemented Article 14.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Although
rights already existed under USstatelaw,theUnited States established afederal righttocontrol the
unauthorized fixation ofliveperformances, theunauthorized reproduction ofsuchfixations, andthe
unauthorized broadcast ofliveperformances. Bothcivilremedies andcriminal sanctions areprovided
forviolation ofthese rights.
Performers fromallWTO countries aregranted rights under these provisions, which theycan
enforce inUScourts onanational treatment basis.IP/Q/USA/1
Page15
V. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYINDIA
1. Please explain howtheUnited States provides national treatment forworks, phonograms and
performances fromother WTO Members. Inthiscontext, what istheintention behind maintaining
theexception inSection 104(c) andwhatistherightthattheUSwants todeny? Also, please specify
theprovision under which theUSgives national treatment toforeign performers intheUSand/or
performances made outside theirjurisdiction.
TheUnited States provides national treatment forworks fromother WTO Members through
Section 104oftheCopyright Act. ThisSection extends protection to,among other works, all
unpublished works without regard tothenationality ordomicile oftheauthor, andallpublished works
bynationals ordomiciliaries ofother countries thatareparty toacopyright treaty withtheUnited
States. Since phonograms areworks ofauthorship protected bycopyright under USlaw(see17U.S.C.
§102(7)), theyarecovered bySection 104aswell.
Section 104(c) oftheCopyright Actisnotanexception tonational treatment. Itsimply sets
forththeproposition thattheBerne Convention isnotself-executing intheUnited States, andthatrights
areconferred solely bytheprovisions ofdomestic law. Thisreflects thestandard treatment ofthe
implementation ofinternational treaties intheUSlegalsystem.
Astoperformers, under USlawtheymaybejointauthors ofphonograms, andaretherefore
entitled totherights ofacopyright owner, granted onthebasisofnational treatment asdescribed above.
They arealsoprotected bystatelawsasdescribed inourresponse toquestion 2anditsfollow-up from
theEuropeanCommunitiesandtheirMemberStates.OuradditionalobligationsunderTRIPSArticle14
weremetbyenactment in1994ofanewSection 1101inTitle17.ThisSection provides fullnational
treatment, asitcontains nolimitations onthenationality oftheperformers whoqualify forprotection
orthelocation where theperformance tookplace. Itexplicitly states thatanydistribution ofan
unauthorized fixation isactionable "regardless ofwhether thefixations occurred intheUnited States".
17U.S.C. §1101(a)(3).
2. Under theduration ofcopyright, please explain whytheUSneeds tomaintain Section 301(e).
Section 301(e) simply confirms thattherelationship between USstateandfederal lawhasnot
beenchanged byUSadherence totheBerne Convention.
3. Please explain whether andunder which specific provision theUSprotects compilations of
data.
Under USlaw,compilations ofdatathatconstitute original works ofauthorship areprotected
asliterary works. See17U.S.C. §101(definitions of"compilation" and"literary work"); §102(subject
matter ofcopyright generally); §103(existence andscope ofcopyright incompilations).
4. Please explain thespecific provision under which computer programmes aretreated asliterary
works asrequired under Article 10.1oftheTRIPS andwhether thedefinition ofcomputer programmes
given inSection 101include bothsource codeandobject code.
Computer programmes aretreated asliterary works under theUSCopyright Act.Thisismade
clearbythedefinition of"literary works" as"works ...expressed inwords, numbers, orother verbal
ornumerical symbols orindicia, regardless ofthenature ofthematerial objects, suchasbooks,
periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, films, tapes, disks, orcards, inwhich theyareembodied".
17U.S.C. §101. Seealsodefinition of"computer programme." Legislative history andcaselawIP/Q/USA/1
Page16
explicitly confirms this. SeeH.R. Rep.No.1476, 94thCong., 2dSess. 54(1976); Apple Computer,
Inc.v.Franklin Computer Corp. ,714F.2d1240, 1249 (3dCir.1983).
Thedefinition of"computer programme" inSection 101isnotrestricted toanyparticular
language orform ofthe"setofstatements orinstructions". Caselawhasmade clearthatcopyright
protection extends tocomputer programmes inbothsource codeandobject codeform. See,e.g.,
Apple Computer, Inc.v.Franklin Computer Corp., 714F.2d1240, 1249 (3dCir.1983).
5. Please explain howArticle 14.3ofTRIPS onbroadcasting rights areimplemented under the
USlegislation. Please specify whether theactsoffixation, reproduction offixation, rebroadcasting
aswellascommunicationtothepublicoftelevisionbroadcastscanbespecificallyprohibitedbycopyright
owners/broadcasting organizations intheUS.
TheUnited States provides certain aspects ofbroadcasting rights under various laws, including
theCopyright Act. Inthelanguage ofTRIPS Article 14.3, theUnited States also"provides owners
ofcopyright inthesubject matter ofthebroadcasts withthepossibility ofpreventing" alloftheacts
listed inthatArticle.
[Follow-up question]
Which arethe"various laws" under which "certain aspects" ofbroadcasting rights arecovered
andwhich aretheaspects which arenotcovered?
TheUnited States doesnotgrant rights tobroadcasting organizations perse,although the
Communications Actof1934 doesgrant arightofcivilaction forunauthorized reception ofcertain
communications. 47U.S.C. §605. TheUnited States provides thealternative expressly permitted
under TRIPS Article 14.3, which states that"[w]here Members donotgrant suchrights tobroadcasting
organizations, theyshall provide owners ofcopyright inthesubject matter ofbroadcasts withthe
possibility ofpreventing theabove acts,subject totheprovisions oftheBerne Convention (1971)".
Therights referred toaretherights toprohibit unauthorized fixation, reproduction offixations,
rebroadcastingbywirelessmeansofbroadcastsandcommunicationtothepublicoftelevisionbroadcasts.
UScopyright lawprotects thesubject matter ofbroadcasts. See17U.S.C. §§101(including
definitions of"fixed", "audiovisual works"), 102(a). Thisprotection includes rights toprevent
unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public display andpublic performance. 17U.S.C. §106.
These exclusive rights provide copyright owners withthepossibility ofpreventing theactslisted in
TRIPS Article 14.3.
Inaddition tothisprotection forowners ofcopyright inthesubject matter ofbroadcasts,
broadcasters mayalsoowncopyright inthecompilation ofworks thatconstitutes abroadcast day,
provided thatthereissufficient authorship inthatcompilation. Asowner ofcopyright inthebroadcast
day,abroadcaster mayexercise thesame exclusive rights withrespect tothatcompilation thatthe
owners ofcopyright inthesubject matter ofthebroadcast mayexercise with respect totheir
contributions.
6. Please explain whether thelimitations onexclusive rights intheUSlaw,particularly withrespect
tocompulsory licensing including ceilings ontotalroyalty fees,areinlinewithArticle 13ofTRIPS
inthattheydonotconflict withthenormal exploitation oftheworkanddonotunreasonably prejudice
thelegitimate interest oftheright holder.
TheUSCopyright Actcontains anumber ofdetailed, specific limitations onexclusive rights,
setforthinSections 107through 120.Webelieve thateachofthemisconsistent withTRIPS Article 13,IP/Q/USA/1
Page17
inthattheydonotconflict withthenormal exploitation ofthework anddonotunreasonably prejudice
thelegitimate interest oftherightholder. Inparticular, eachofthecompulsory licenses thatexists
inUSlaw,including provisions astoroyalty fees,ispermissible under Berne asincorporated inTRIPS.
[Follow-up question]
IftheUSanswer isthateachcompulsory license provision intheUSlaw,Sections 107-120,
iscompatible withArticle 13ofTRIPS, canitbeconcluded thatasimilar, ifbroader, exception in
Article 30under patents, canbeinterpreted inthesame way? Ifnot,whynot?
No,thisconclusion cannot bedrawn from theinformation provided bytheUnited States in
response toIndia'squestion 6.Copyrights andpatents aregranted under wholly distinct régimes, and
theexceptions thatmaybepermitted under onerégime donotrelate tothose thatmaybepermitted
under theother.
7. Please explain whether andunder which specific provision oftheUSlawprotection isgiven
toperformers inaccordance withArticle 14ofTRIPS, including thenature, extent andtermofsuch
protection. Please alsoclarify thelimitations orexception towhich these rights aresubject under US
law.
Seeouranswer toquestion 1.USlawisincompliance withTRIPS Article 14,andgrants
toperformers alloftherights required byArticle 14.1. Thefederal statute doesnotprovide any
limitations onthese rights, anddoesnotimpose anylimitontheduration ofprotection.
[Follow-up question]
CantheUSanswer beinterpreted tomean thatinspiteofthetermofprotection being specified
inArticle 14.5ofTRIPS, theUSprovides eternal protection toperformers 'rights without timelimits?
Also, there arenolimitations andexceptions, whatsoever, tothese rights?
Section 1101 onitsfaceprovides perpetual protection toperformers. Ofcourse, thescope
ofthesection willultimately bedetermined bythefederal courts.
Nolimitations andexceptions arefound inthelanguage ofSection 1101, andnocourt has
yetinterpreted ittocontain any. Congress did,however, contemplate thatthere might beexceptions
incases where FirstAmendment freespeech principles areimplicated, suchaswhere small portions
ofanunauthorized fixation areusedwithout permission inanews broadcast orforother purposes of
comment orcriticism. Message ofthePresident oftheUnited States Transmitting theUruguay Round
Trade Agreements, Texts oftheAgreements Implementing Bill,Statement ofAdministrative Action
andrequired Supporting Statements, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2dSess. 991
(27September 1994).
8. PleaseclarifywhethercertainlawsreferredtoinUSnotificationIP/N/1/USA/C/1suchas"Visual
Artists Rights Act1990", "Computer Software Rental Amendment Act1990", "Digital Performance
Right inSound Recordings Act1995" areincorporated inthenotification made andifnot,whether
theUSintends notifying these lawsseparately.
Allofthelawsmentioned inthisquestion were amendments totheUSCopyright Act,are
nowcodified inTitle17oftheUSCode, andwereincorporated inthenotification made bytheUnited
States totheTRIPS Council on25March 1996. SeeWTO document IP/N/1/USA/C/1.IP/Q/USA/1
Page18
VI. REPLY TOQUESTION POSED BYKOREA
1. According totheanswer fromtheUStoquestion 10posed bytheEC,literary works which
werepublished intheother WTO Member country before 1921, eventhough theauthor(s) ofwhich
diedafter1946, would notbeprotected anew. Thequestion iswhether thisexception setforth in
17U.S.C. Sections 104A(a)(1)(B) and304isregarded aspermissible (bytheUS)asoneofreasonable
conditions inapplying theprinciple ofretroactivity under Article 18.3oftheBerne Convention?5
Inlightofthefactthatthetermofprotection provided toworks subject toourretroactive
copyright provisions isequivalent toandconsistent withthatrequired bytheTRIPS Agreement and
theBerne Convention, theUnited States doesnotconsider itnecessary toavailitselfofthe"conditions
ofapplication" provision inArticle 18(3) ofBerne.
Ouranswer doesnotimply inanywaythatBerne Article 18(3) could beusedtojustify material
limitations ontheapplication oftheretroactive protection requirements intheTRIPS Agreement.
VII. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYNEW ZEALAND
1. Inrespect tothereplytotheEuropean Communities andtheirMember States onfairuse(their
question 1),please clarify howpractice, especially caselaw,hasaffected theuseofworks inrespect
toteaching, research, andscholarship. Inparticular, howopenended isthemultiple copying right
forteaching, does research encompass anycommercial research, andwhat isencompassed by
scholarship?6
Itisimportant tounderstand thatthepurposes listed inthefirstsentence ofSection 107,which
include teaching, scholarship, orresearch, donotautomatically qualify auseasafairuse,butare
simply examples ofthetypes ofpurposes thatarelikely toqualify asfair. SeeTwin Peaks Prods.,
Inc.v.Publications Int'l,Ltd.,996F.2d1366, 1374(2dCir.1993). Eachusemuststillbeexamined
inlightofthefourstatutory factors found inSection 107. Campbell v.Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,510
U.S.569,127L.Ed.2d500,514-515 (1994).
Accordingly,extensivemultiplecopyingforthepurposesofteachinghasbeenheldtofalloutside
thescope ofthefairusedoctrine andtoconstitute aninfringement ofcopyright intheworks copied.
SeeBasic Books, Inc.v.Kinko 'sGraphic Corp. ,758F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), noted inour
original answer tothequestion from theEuropean Communities. Guidelines astothepermissible
amount andtiming ofsuchcopying, negotiated bytheeducational andpublishing sectors, aresetout
inthelegislative history totheCopyright Act. H.R. Rep.No.94-1476, 94thCong., 2dSess. 68-70
(1976).
Additionally, aleading caseheldthatthecopying ofjournal articles byacommercial researcher
didnotqualify asfairuse. SeeAmerican Geophysical Union v.Texaco, Inc.,37F.3d 881
(2dCir.1994), noted inouroriginal answer tothequestion from theEuropean Communities.
Finally, thelabelof"scholarship" initself willnotresolve thefairuseissue, andthere isno
established definition oftheterm. Ifaparticular useisdesigned toadvance knowledge, thisshould
beanaspect ofthepurpose andcharacter oftheusethatweighs infavour ofafairusedetermination.
5Seethereply toECquestion 10.
6Seethereply toECquestion 1.IP/Q/USA/1
Page19
2. Inrespect to17U.S.C. 115concerning thecompulsory licensing formaking anddistributing
phonorecords, please clarify whether acorrectly filednotice interms ofparagraph 6(b)automatically
leads tothegrant ofacompulsory licence orifthere arecriteria which areconsidered indeciding
whether togrant suchalicence consistent withTRIPS Article 13?
Thefiling ofanotice under Section 115oftheCopyright Actpermits thenotifying party to
make another recording ofthenondramatic musical work andtodistribute thatrecording, assuming
thatthelimitations ontheuseofthisprovision setoutinSection 115(a) havebeencomplied with.
Theability totakeadvantage ofthisprovision issubject tothepayment ofafeetotherightholder
intheunderlying work foreachrecording ofthework thatismade. Nocriteria areimposed beyond
those setoutinthestatute.
VIII. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYSWITZERLAND
1. Please indicate whether there isanyremuneration fortheauthor inthecase ofcable
retransmission and,ifyes,howsuchremuneration isdistributed toforeign right holders.
Section 111oftheCopyright Actgoverns secondary transmissions bycablesystems. Itcontains
acompulsory license thatmandates thepayment ofroyalties formostsuchretransmissions. 17U.S.C.
§111 (c)-(d). Thisremuneration isdistributed torightholders through theirfiling ofaclaim fora
share ofsuchfeeswiththeLibrarian ofCongress. 17U.S.C. §111(d)(3)-(4). Anycopyright owner
whose work isincluded inthesecondary transmission isentitled tofilesuchaclaim; thelawdoes
notdistinguish between foreign anddomestic rightholders.
2. According toinformation available, thereseems tobesomeinitiatives made inCongress aiming
atsuppressing theright topublic reception ofbroadcasted works. Could youconfirm thatthis
information iscorrect. Ifyes,whatwillbetheprospects ofsuchinitiatives?
While wearenotsurewhich proposed legislation thisquestion addresses, several billsare
currently pending inCongress which concern public performance ofmusical works, including their
broadcast. H.R. 789,104th Cong., 1stSess. (1995); S.1619, 104th Cong., 2dSess. (1996); S.1628,
104th Cong., 2dSess. (1996). Discussions areproceeding withourinternational obligations inmind.
Nohearings havebeenheldyet,andthefuture ofthebillsisunclear.