41508 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices

*Strictly speaking, an ‘‘audiovisual work’’ is one

of the categories of works enumerated in section

102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 102. See also

17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of ‘‘audiovisual works’’).

Thus, it is understandable how the court of appeals

could have interpreted the entry of ‘‘audiovisual

work’’ in the ‘‘nature of this work’’ space as a

description of the scope of Raquel’s claim.

However, given the Office’s practice of accepting

descriptions of the physical form of the deposit, and

given the Office’s practice of looking to the ‘‘nature

of authorship’’ statement for a description of the

scope of the claim, the Office understood the term

‘‘audiovisual work’’ in this context to be a physical

description of the deposit.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2000–6]

Registration of Claims to Copyright

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Statement of policy.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress issues this statement

of policy to clarify the practices relating

to examination of copyright claims in

music, and the relevance of the ‘‘natureof-work’’ designation at space 1 of the

PA Form.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David O. Carson, General Counsel, or

Charlotte Douglas, Principal Legal

Advisor, Copyright Office, Library of

Congress, Washington, DC 20540.

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax:

(202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Copyright Office is issuing this

statement of policy to clarify its

examination practices with respect to

the ‘‘nature-of-work’’ space on Form PA,

for registration of works of the

performing arts. This policy statement is

in response to a recent judicial decision

by the United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit in Raquel v.

Education Management Corp., 196 F.3d

171 (3rd Cir. 1999) [hereinafter referred

to as Raquel], in which the court

appears to have misunderstood the

Copyright Office’s longstanding

published practices relating to the

‘‘nature-of-work’’space.

In Raquel, the court held that a

certificate of registration of a copyright

was invalid because the claimants,

authors of the copyright in a musical

composition, had described the ‘‘nature

of this work’’ in space 1 of their Form

PA application as ‘‘Audiovisual work.’’

The deposit submitted with the

application was a videotape of a

television commercial in which the

claimants’ musical composition was

performed. The court concluded, and

the claimants do not appear to have

contested, that the claimants did not

own any copyright interest in the

television commercial itself. In space 2,

the application had correctly designated

the nature of authorship as ‘‘All music

and lyrics and arrangement.’’

A key element of the court’s reasoning

in invalidating the registration was the

court’s conclusion that ‘‘[h]ad the

Register of Copyrights known that

Raquel did not author the audiovisual

work identified in its registration, it is

likely that this rather fundamental

misstatement would have occasioned

the rejection of Raquel’s application.’’

196 F.3d at 177. Based upon this

prediction of what the Copyright Office

would have done if it had known the

claimants had not authored the

television commercial, the court

concluded that the claimants had made

a material misrepresentation in the

application for registration. The court

also concluded that this

misrepresentation could not have been

inadvertent. As a result, the court

applied the principle that a plaintiff’s

knowing failure to advise the Copyright

Office, in an application for copyright

registration, of material facts which

might have led to the rejection of a

registration application constitutes

grounds for holding the registration

invalid and incapable of supporting an

infringement action. 196 F.3d at 176

(citing Masquerade Novelty, Inc. v.

Unique Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 663, 667

(3d Cir. 1990).

The Raquel case raises questions

concerning the ‘‘nature of this work’’

space on the Form PA application for

copyright registration. If applied strictly,

the decision could jeopardize the

validity of copyright registrations of

musical works in a number of instances.

Because of the possibility that other

courts will rely on Raquel as valid

precedent for invalidating copyright

registrations under similar

circumstances, the Copyright Office is

issuing this policy statement to clarify

that it was not misled in registering the

copyright claim in the Raquel case, and

that the Copyright Office knew that the

copyright claim was in a musical work,

and not an audiovisual work. The Office

is also issuing this statement to clarify

that in the ‘‘nature of this work’’ space

on Form PA, it has been and continues

to be acceptable to describe the physical

nature of the deposit submitted with the

application.

While section 409 of the copyright

law largely dictates the content of the

application form, this statutory section

does not require a nature-of-work space.

This space was added to the PA and VA

forms because these forms cover a

number of different categories of works,

and it was believed the additional

information would clarify the general

character or the type or category of the

work being registered. In practice,

however, the information provided in

this space by applicants often does not

relate to the nature of the claim; and the

Office’s practice has always been to look

to the ‘‘nature of authorship’’ statement

in space 2 as the primary source of such

information. See Compendium of

Copyright Office Practices,

Compendium II (‘‘Compendium II’’),

§ 619 (1988) (‘‘In general, the nature of

authorship defines the scope of the

registration; therefore, it represents an

important copyright fact’’). If, on the

basis of the deposit and the nature of

authorship statement, the nature of the

copyright claim is clear, the Copyright

Office will proceed with registration.

Ideally, the nature-of-work space

should describe the work being

registered. In practice, it has served a

variety of functions, e.g., as a substitute

for the statement of authorship (when

such a statement was lacking) or as a

supplementary description augmenting

the statement of authorship. It has also

served as a description of the physical

nature of the deposit, and the Office has

treated such a statement as acceptable

where the nature of authorship

statement and deposit make clear the

scope of the copyright claim being

registered. The Compendium establishes

this policy in the following language:

‘‘Forms PA and VA contain a nature-ofwork space. This space should give a

description of the general nature and

character of the work being registered. A

description of the physical form of the

work is generally acceptable. Ordinarily,

the Copyright Office will not consider

the omission or incorrect completion of

information in the nature-of-work space

as a reason, in itself, for communicating

with the applicant * * *’’ Compendium

II, § 614.

In Raquel, the nature of authorship

line described the copyright claim as

‘‘All music and lyrics and

arrangement.’’ The deposit consisted of

a videotape which contained the

musical composition being registered. In

the nature of work space, the applicant

stated ‘‘audiovisual work.’’ Consistent

with general Copyright Office practice,

the Office regarded the copyright claim

to be in a musical composition, and no

communication with the applicant was

made regarding the reference to

‘‘audiovisual work’’ in the nature-ofwork space since it was regarded as a

physical description of the work being

registered.*

The Office will continue to accept

applications in which the ‘‘nature of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Notices 41509

this work’’ space describes the physical

nature of the deposit rather than the

scope of the copyright claim. However,

the decision of the Third Circuit in

Raquel demonstrates that there is some

risk in engaging in this practice. It is

hoped that this statement of policy,

clarifying what the Office’s practice has

been and will continue to be, will offer

guidance to the courts and to litigants

about the Office’s examination practices

with respect to the nature-of-work

space, and will prevent other courts

addressing situations similar to that in

Raquel from reaching the same result as

in Raquel.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Marybeth Peters,

Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 00–16888 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (00–074)]

Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that AVIR, LLC, of Charlottesville, VA

22906, has applied for a partially

exclusive license [limited to the field of

use defined as ‘‘remote sensing,

including remote imaging, of the

production, stockpiling, use or any

other existence of narcotic drugs, their

precursors and decay products, whether

the drugs are legal or illegal,’’ to practice

the inventions described and claimed

in: U.S. Patent No. 5,128,797 entitled

‘‘NON-MECHANICAL OPTICAL PATH

SWITCHING AND ITS APPLICATION

TO DUAL BEAM SPECTROSCOPY

INCLUDING GAS FILTER

CORRELATION RADIOMETRY,’’ U.S.

Patent No. 6,008,928 entitled ‘‘MULTIGAS SENSOR,’’ U.S. Patent No.

6,057,923 entitled ‘‘OPTICAL PATH

SWITCHING BASED DIFFERENTIAL

ABSORPTION RADIOMETRY FOR

SUBSTANCE DETECTION,’’ NASA

Case No. LAR 15361–2 entitled ‘‘GAS

SENSOR DETECTOR BALANCING,’’

and NASA Case No. LAR 15818–2

entitled ‘‘OPTICAL PATH SWITCHING

BASED DIFFERENTIAL ABSORPTION

RADIOMETRY FOR SUBSTANCE

DETECTION,’’ for which United States

Patent Application(s) was/were filed by

the United States of America as

represented by the Administrator of the

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Written objections to

the prospective grant of a license should

be sent to Langley Research Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be

received by September 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney,

Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212,

Hampton, VA 23681–2199; Telephone

757–864–3230; Fax 757–864–9190.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–16901 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (00–075)]

Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that Cytec Industries, Inc., of Five Garret

Mountain Plaza, West Paterson, NJ

07424, has applied for an exclusive

patent license to practice the invention

described and claimed in NASA Case

Number LAR 15449–1 entitled

‘‘METHOD TO PREPARE

PROCESSABLE POLYIMIDES WITH

REACTIVE ENDGROUPS USING 1, 3

BIS (3-AMINOPHENOXY) BENZENE,’’

which has been assigned to the United

States of America as represented by the

Administrator of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Written objections to the prospective

grant of a license should be sent to

Langley Research Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be

received by September 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Hillary W. Hawkins, Patent Attorney,

Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212,

Hampton, VA 23681–2199; Telephone

(757) 864–8882; Fax (757) 864–9190.

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–16902 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00–073]

Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent

license.

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice

that Vehicle Enhancement Systems,

Inc., of Rock Hill, SC 29731, has applied

for an exclusive license to practice the

invention described in NASA Case

Number LAR 15601–1, entitled ‘‘Base

Passive Porosity for Drag Reduction,’’

for which a United States Patent

Application was filed by the United

States of America as represented by the

Administrator of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Written objections to the prospective

grant of a license should be sent to

Langley Research Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be

received by September 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Helen M. Galus, Patent Attorney,

Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212,

Hampton, VA 23681–2199; Telephone

757–864–3227; Fax 757–864–9190.

Dated: June 27, 2000.

Edward A. Frankle,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 00–16900 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–P

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY BOARD

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July

11, 2000.

PLACE: NTSB Board Room, 429 L’Enfant

Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. 20594.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

6837A—

Safety Recommendations related to

Fires on board the passenger ships

Universe Explorer on July 27, 1996 and

Vistafjord on April 6, 1997.

7178A—Pipeline Accident Report:

Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and

Subsequent Explosion in St. Cloud,

Minnesota, December 11, 1998.

7271—Railroad Accident Report:

Derailment of Burlington Northern

Santa Fe Freight Train S–CHILAC–1–31

and Hazardous Material Release near

Crisfield, Kansas, September 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rhonda Underwood (202) 314–6065.