Source: http://chart.copyrightdata.com/citations.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 16:18:09
Document Index: 421999674

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§101', '§ 5', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 302', '§ 302', '§ 401', '§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 406', '§ 105', '§ 403', '§ 7', '§ 8', '§ 405', '§ 506', '§ 402', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 408', '§ 202', 'art 202', '§ 302', '§ 23', '§ 24', '§ 304', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 109', '§ 104', '§ 303', '§ 303', '§ 404', '§ 104', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 304', '§ 101', '§ 304', '§ 108', '§ 1201', '§ 115', '§ 116', '§ 116', '§ 304']

Citations to tree-view chart - CopyrightData.com
This is a page of citations to the Tree-View Chart page of CopyrightData.com. If you have reached this page without having come through the main page of the tree-view chart, click this link to visit that page. All links from within the citations open a new browser page (or than links that reposition this page). A never-performed never-displayed work never in tangible form is not protectable by copyright
This is discussed in §§ 102(a) and (b) of the 1976 Act.
Performance or exhibition of a work not even in tangible form
Citations from the law and from court decisions on this subject are provided at the two pages linked here to other parts within this web site: here and here.
Copies of the work have been distributed to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display
This terminology is used in the definition of ‘publication’ found within §101 of the current version of the Copyright Act (enacted 1978), which is the section on “definitions.” Court decisions which have been decided on this basis include American Vitagraph, Inc. (Lloyd V. Friedgen, Jr., and William J. Gleason) v. Ronald R. Levy, M.D. and Cinamco, Inc. and Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Leslie Rubinowitz, et al.
“A movie circulated in only one exhibition print, never out of the owner’s control, is considered unpublished up until the rights-owner decides to distribute it more broadly
Read the summaries of court decisions on this site at this page.
The letter(s) preceding the numerals on the work’s registration indicates the class of the work
This is covered by § 5 of the 1909 and 1947 Copyright Acts. Further information, with illustrations, is provided on this web site at this page.
Information on obtaining full texts of amendments and the various versions of the Copyright Act.
Extensions noted in the table were automatic, requiring no filing by claimant.
The United States Congress has modified the Copyright Acts at various times to extend the duration of a term of copyright beyond the period of time which claimants had believed they were limited to when they registered their works. On September 19, 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87-668, which extended all renewal-term copyrights then in effect to last through December 31, 1965. Because it was policy then that copyrights expired on the anniversary date of when protection started, there were copyrights expiring almost every day. The prior day saw the expiration of second-term copyrights of works originally registered September 18, 1906. (That 1906 date had been fifty-six years earlier, and represented two 28-year terms.) However, works that otherwise would have expired September 19, 1962, were given a reprieve — the first of nine. Also, beginning at this time, second-term copyrights came to expire at the end of the applicable calendar year.
Subsequent laws passed by Congress on this matter were public laws 89-142 (passed 1965), which extended renewal-term copyrights to the end of 1967; 90-141 (1967), through 1968; 90-416 (1968), through 1969; 91-147 (1969), through 1970; 91-555 (1970), through 1971; 92-170 (1971), through 1972; 92-566 (1972), through 1974; and 93-573 (1974), through 1976. Finally, in 1976, Congress approved an entirely-rewritten Copyright Act (Public Law 94-553), which established (in § 304(b)) that “copyrights in their renewal term” had their term “extended to endure for a term of seventy-five years from the date copyright was originally secured.” Furthermore, in § 305, the new law ordered that “[a]ll terms of copyright provided by §§ 302 and 304 run through to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.”
As a result of the combined extensions named above, 1906 works that would have expired in late 1962 instead received copyright protection through the end of 1981 (the end of the 75th year). Works copyrighted in subsequent years likewise received protection through the end of their respective seventy-fifth years. Thus, the table on the tree-view chart page linked to this footnote refers to 19-year extensions.
On October 27, 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-298 (“The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act”), extending last-term copyrights on works originally copyrighted 1923 and later to expire at the end of the 95th year. This represents the 20-year extension referred to in the table.
Additional information on this subject is provided on this web site at this page and this one.
Under the 1909 and 1947 Copyright Acts, unpublished works had been provided “common law” protection, losing it only upon publication, at which point “statutory law” went into effect, contingent upon meeting requirements. If a work remained unpublished, it would remain perpetually entitled to copyright protection.
The 1976 Copyright Act did away with perpetual protection. Section 303 is entitled: “Duration of copyright: Works created but not published or copyrighted before January 1, 1978.” It in effect established that the clock started ticking on these works and would expire on the same deadlines as post-1978 unpublished works and published works. An exception was made here for the oldest unpublished works, establishing that no such copyright would “expire before December 31, 2002; and if the wok is published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright shall not expire before December 31, 2027.” (This last date was later pushed back to December 31, 2047, by Public Law 105-298, passed October 27, 1998.)
The section of the 1976 Act governing duration for unpublished works created before January 1, 1978, the aforementioned section 303, refers readers to section 302 to calculate the duration of copyright term. §§ 302(a)-(b) provides the life-plus-years rule for works owned by individuals and joint authors. Section 302(c) provides the fixed-duration rules for works owned by anonymous, pseudonymous and corporate authors, including works for hire.
Renewal requirements on unpublished registered works
The Copyright Act (USC Title 17) has never addressed renewals on unpublished works registered for copyright, but since 1959 the Code of Federal Regulations has. “Claims to renewal copyright must be registered within the last (28th) year of the original, copyright term. The original term for a published work is computed from the date of first publication; the term for a work originally registered in unpublished form is computed from the date of registration in the Copyright Office. Unless the required application and fee are received in the Copyright Office during the prescribed period before the first term of copyright expires, copyright protection is lost permanently and the work enters the public domain. The Copyright Office has no discretion to extend the renewal time limits.” (emphasis added) On August 8, 1956, the preceding became 37 CFR 202.17(a), as announced in 21 Fed. Reg. 6021-6025. In 1978, the unrelated first part was amended by 43 FR 964. In 1981, the citation for this subsection was amended in 46 FR 58671, moving section (a) to section (c). In 1992, by 57 FR 60483, the subsection was moved to (e) and it was amended to address only “works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977,” which were now the only works eligible for renewal.
Court decisions on notice errors are summarized at each of these three pages elsewhere on this web site: here, here and here.
A copyright notice dated more than one year later than the date of first publication is treated as if there is no notice.
A copyright notice that gives the year as one more than one year later than the actual one, were it accepted as the beginning date for calculating the expiration date, would give the copyright holder a longer term than a copyright on a work for which an accurate notice is given. Rightly, such end-runs are not rewarded. In the 1976 Act, this is treated in §§ 401 and 402, and in § 406(b), which is called “Error in date”. On this web site, additional information is at this page.
Where conflicting copyright dates are on the work itself, the earliest date applies.
In the 1976 Act, this is in § 406(b). On this web site, additional information and images of defective copyright notices of this kind are at this page.
Dates in Roman numerals are legal for use in copyright notices.
An early court decision decided this. The decision is summarized on this site at this link.
Without a named claimant, it’s as if there’s no copyright.
In the 1976 Act, this is in § 406(c). On this web site, additional information is at this link.
Different policies apply to motion pictures
Copyright Office circular no. 3 discusses with this. The copyrightdata.com web site has a page on this subject here.
Artworks on which the copyright notice lacks the date
The applicable statutes as well as examples are on this web site at this link.
Non-government works lacking in material added by the purveyors of the new work
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 105. Also, from 1978 to 1989, this was another aspect was covered by § 403. In the 1909 Act, this is covered in § 7; in the 1947 Act, § 8. On this web site, visit this page for a relevant excerpt from a Copyright Office circular.
Omission of notice or error of notice corrected in subsequent copies issued within the five years following publication (1978 to March 1, 1989)
Two pages on this site provide precedents on how this condition has been treated: first link and second link.
Omission of notice or error of notice on just a small number of copies
Court precedent is summarized on this site at this page.
The rightful copyright owner cannot be penalized for actions involving an unauthorized appropriation of his property.
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by §§ 405(a)(3) and 405(c).
Fraudulent notices can bring fines.
In the 1976 Act (which went into effect in 1978), this is covered by § 506(c). There is no equivalent statute in the Acts in effect from 1909 to 1977.
Notice was required on sound recordings from 1972 to March 1989. Since 1989, it has been optional. Allowances are made for placement of the name of the claimant.
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 402(b)(3).
Copyright notices, although now optional, have evidentiary weight.
In the 1976 Act as modified June 26, 1992 (by Public Law 102-307), this is stated in § 304(a)(4)(b).
Following the 1976 Act going into effect January 1, 1978, Copyright renewal is permitted up through the December 31st of the year containing the 28th anniversary of publication.
Prior to the copyright extension act of September 19, 1962 (Public Law 87-668), all copyrights expired on the anniversary date of when protection started. Consequently, copyrights expired almost every day. With the 1962 act, all second-term copyrights set to expire in the next two years, three months and twelve days were extended to December 31, 1965. Since then, all second terms have expired on the December 31 of the final year. In 1976, Congress approved an entirely-rewritten Copyright Act (Public Law 94-553), which established (in § 305) that all first-term copyrights then in effect would “run through to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.” Furthermore, new copyrights under the 1976 Act (which provides one long term of copyright rather than two shorter terms) would expire on the December 31 of their final years. See this page.
Under rules passed by Congress June 26, 1992, renewal registration is not required for a post-1963 work to receive copyright protection beyond 28 years. In the past, registration made after the first term was invalid because the work had by then irretrievably fallen into the public domain.
The Copyright Office specifically states this in their Circular no. 45.
Renewal registration may be made on a 1964 or later work even if there was no original registration made during the original 28-year term.
This is stated in Copyright Office Circular 15, “Renewal of Copyright,” (revised July 2006).
A work originally copyrighted as a single work has been grouped with others for filing of renewal
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 408(c)(3)(C). The Copyright Office discusses this in their Circular no. 32. On this web site, this is elaborated upon at this link.
Deposit of copies within three months of publication
The Code of Federal Regulations covers this in Title 37, §§ 202.19, 202.20 and 202.21. On this web site, additional information is at this link.
The Library of Congress concedes that the deposit requirement was met where it obliges a registrant’s request for the return of a motion picture.
Illustrations of such requests, copied from Copyright Office materials, are reproduced on this site at this page. Additional documentation is provided on this site at here.
Best Edition of a motion picture
The Code of Federal Regulations covers this in Title 37, Appendix B to Part 202. This web site provides quotations and other documentation at this link and this page.
Only with copyrights filed 1949 and earlier does each filing date have a unique range of dates for renewals.
Prior to 1962, all United States copyrights (whether first-term and renewal-term) expired on the anniversary date of the specific month and date when the term began. On September 19, 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87-668, which extended all renewal-term copyrights then in effect to last through December 31, 1965. Subsequent extensions also had renewal terms ending on December 31st of the year that the term ends. However, from 1962 to 1977, first terms continued to expire on the anniversary date of when protection began. This changed with the 1976 Copyright Act, which, upon going into effect in 1978, specified that “[a]ll terms of copyright provided by §§ 302 and 304 run through to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.” (Section 305) Because section 304(a) controls “copyrights in their first term on January 1, 1978,” this latter rule extended the first terms of copyrights then in effect through to the December 31 of the 28th year.
1906 works copyrighted September 18 or earlier expired by 1962.
Section 23 of the 1909 Act provides that the initial copyright term was 28 years, with an opportunity for an additional 28 years should a renewal term be secured. These specifics were retained in the 1947 Act, where these were enumerated in section 24. No extensions were enacted into the law until Congress passed legislation on September 19, 1962 (Public Law 87-668), which affected only works on which copyright began September 19, 1906, and later.
Earlier law was unforgiving of failure to file on time. The work entered the public domain upon the 28th anniversary of the beginning of copyright protection.
Section 23 of the 1909 Act and section 24 of the 1947 Act specify the renewal window. Section 304(a) of the 1976 Act retained the need to renew within strict time limits, until this Act was amended in 1992 by Public Law 102-307 (“The Copyright Renewal Act of 1992”). Summaries of court decisions concerning renewal failure is provided on this web site at here, and summaries of court decisions which provide examples for calculating the window of opportunity for renewal are on this web site here.
Copyright will last until the December 31 of the year in which occurs the 95th anniversary of the beginning of copyright protection
Sections 302 and 304 of the 1976 Act, as amended in 1998 by Public Law 105-298 (“The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act”), provide that copyrights (other than those in the names of individuals which were created 1978 or later) last for 95 years. The 1976 Act makes this true even for works copyrighted while earlier laws were in effect, provided that the work hadn’t fallen into the public domain prior to enactment.
Although a renewal record may have entered the Copyright Office records, a filing made at the wrong time is not a valid renewal.
The Copyright Office may have processed an erroneous renewal registration, not recognizing that the application should have been rejected as defective. Court decisions have occasionally determined that the Copyright Office acted improperly; some of these are summarized on this web site on this page and this one. Quotations from a Copyright Office circular and other material concerning the potential for error are provided on this web site at here.
A renewal of a work originally copyrighted in 1950 renewed beyond 1978 is invalid, unless done Jan. 2, 1979.
Section 206 of 1947 Act (which remained in effect until the end of 1977), as amended April 13, 1954, by Public Law 331 of the 83d Congress, 2d Session, changed the renewal deadline so that Saturdays, Sundays and holidays did not work against a renewal application.
Works copyrighted 1978 and later are accorded a single long term rather than consecutive shorter terms.
Section 302 of the 1976 Act (which went into effect 1978) specifies the lengths of the new longer terms. Comparisons with § 23 of the 1909 Act and § 24 of the 1947 Act reveal the differences.
A significant test of these rules came in a court decision concerning a musical composition by Bela Bartok not generally available until after his death
This decision is summarized on a Citation and Case Summaries page at two points: this link and this one.
Renewal of a work by someone who obtained copyright through transfer
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 304(2)(A).
Second-term rights depends on whether or not the copyright was renewed prior to death.
Several court decisions have dealt with various ramifications and permutations of this situation, as recounted on this page.
Renewals filed April 13, 1954, or later
Works made by (or commissioned by) the United Nations (or agency thereof) or the Organization of American States
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 104(b)(3). Amendments made October 28, 1998 (by Public Law 105-304), provide additional provisions protecting works of the United Nations in § 104(b)(5).
Reciprocal international copyright is not granted to works created before 1994 where the work is older than the maximum amount of time that the U.S. would have given it copyright protection.
Section 104A(1)(B) of the Copyright Act, as amended in 1994, states: “Any work in which copyright is restored under this section shall subsist for the remainder of the term of copyright that the work would have otherwise been granted in the United States if the work never entered the public domain in the United States.” Furthermore, section 104A(h)(6)(B) indicates that “restoration” would not be granted on pre-1994 works post-1994 where the work is “in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection”.
What would be “noncompliance with formalities” on an American work don’t result in denial of copyright to foreign works (beginning on January 1, 1996)
In late 1994, the 1976 Act was amended to add § 104A(h)(6)(c)(i), which specifically states that copyright in foreign works would no longer be denied on bases which previously resulted in foreign works being deprived of copyright protection in the United States.
Publication in the United States “during the 30-day period following publication in such eligible country” disqualifies the work from enjoying American copyright protection strictly on the basis of source-country copyright.
This is stated in the 1976 Act, as amended in 1994, in § 104A(h)(6)(D). Caution: Be sure you realize that this provision applies only to the protection granted to works on the basis of source-country copyright. Where there is a valid American copyright (either in addition to the source-country copyright or even in the absence of it), that valid American copyright provides the work with copyright protection.
Source-country copyright owned by a government or an instrumentality of a government
In the 1976 Act as amended in 1994, this is covered by § 104A(a)(1)(2). Additional documentation is on this web site at this page.
Copyrights secured in a timely and proper manner in the source country
In the 1976, as amended in 1994, this is covered in § 104A(h)(2). Rights “shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto”, according to § 104(c).
Listing in the Federal Register within two years of the source country becoming a member of the Berne Convention
In the 1976, as amended 1994, this is covered in §§ 104A(c)-(e).
Works that did not enjoy copyright protection until U.S. entry into Berne through URAA/GATT
In the 1976 Act, as amended 1994, this is covered in §§ 109(a) and 104A(c)-(e).
Derivative versions of works prepared without authorization of the copyright owner
In the 1976 Act, as amended 1994, this is covered in § 104A(d)(3).
“The distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of the musical work embodied therein.”
The above is a quotation from § 303(b) of the 1976 Act.
Musical work was first distributed on phonorecord before 1978 does not publish the music
In the 1976 Act, as amended November 13, 1997 (by Public Law 105-80), this is covered by § 303(b).
Pre-existing works such as advertisements are not considered to be copyrighted as part of the larger works in which they appear.
In the 1976, this is covered in § 404(a). Although the 1909 and 1947 Acts don’t explicitly cover this point, court decisions on works published prior to the 1976 Act going into effect came to the same conclusion, as summarized on this web site here.
An American adaptation of a foreign work created before the foreign work came to enjoy copyright through Berne, is allowed because the rights-holder of the underlying work can be compelled to issue a license to the publisher of an unauthorized translation/adaptation.
In the 1976 Act, as amended 1994, this is covered by § 104A(d)(3).
The term “employee” as used on the tree-view chart (and in copyright law) has a different meaning than in colloquial usage
The United States Supreme Court decided the meaning of “work for hire” as it applies to copyrighted works in a 1989 case. You can read a summary of the decision on this case, Community For Creative Non-Violence et al v. Reid, on this site by clicking this link. By going to the “green” section at the bottom of the page, you can learn where to get the complete opinion free online.
The earlier registration has the priority, assuming it is legitimate, approved by the former rights-owner, without forgery.
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by §§ 204 and 205, especially §§ 204(a) and 205(e)-(f). One court decision addressing this subject is summarized on this web site at this link.
Creators of works originally published as part of newspapers and magazines (1970 and later) have the rights after the publication ceases to have them in trust.
The standard practice for this situation changed dramatically after a major court decision in this matter. That decision is summarized on this web site at this link.
Transfer of ownership (purchase from creator) filed with the Copyright Office
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by §§ 204 and 205.
A claimant’s rights, in the absence of a will or other instructions, go upon death to any widow(er) and to children and grandchildren, proportions determined by a per stirpes formula.
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 304(c)(2)(C). The “definitions” section of the same Act, which is § 101, states that “[a] person’s ‘children’ are that person’s immediate offspring, whether legitimate or not, and any children legally adopted by that person.” Both provisions represent clarification in the 1976 where the previous Copyright Acts supplied no answer. Court decisions prior to then had been made on the basis of state laws controlling inheritance, and thus the basis of transfers by inheritance varied state-by-state. Some states did not regard adopted or illegitimate children to be as worthy of inheritance as biological, legitimate children in the absence of specific provisions stated in a parent’s will. Diagrams illustrating how per stirpes distributions work in typical situations are located on the illustrations page on transfers on this web site.
Heirs may seek termination of a contract
In the 1976 Act, provisions are provided in § 304(c)(2).
Public and school libraries are permitted wider latitude in copying than are individuals and companies.
In the 1976 Act, this is covered by § 108.
Greater latitude is given a new work to copy from an older one when the new work is destined for a different audience than that of the original.
Court decisions that have addressed this matter are summarized on this web site here, here, and here.
Matters of trademark, likeness and rights of publicity fall outside the scope of copyright. Lawsuits have been won for trampling upon trademark, likeness and rights of publicity. The “Secondary Meanings” (go there) and “Moral Rights” (go there) sections of this web site provides summaries of court decisions on this subject.
Circumventing DMCA protection measures (such as DeCSS) is illegal under American law.
The 1976 Act was amended October 28, 1998 (by Public Law 105-304), to add an entire new chapter addressing “Copyright Protection and Management Systems” (the title of the new chapter, Chapter 12). The point concerning circumvention appears in the first section of that chapter, numbered § 1201, titled “Circumvention of copyright protection systems.” Additional information, including a summary of a court decision to a case challenging that then-new statute, is provided on this web site at this page.
Broadcasters must pass along to their audiences copyrighted works in their entirety and without modification
Aspects of copyright law relevant to broadcasting are dealt with on this web site at this page and this one.
Aspects of copyright law specific to music works
Section 115 of the 1976 Act covers aspects of copyright law specific to music works. To be more exact, it deals with “nondramatic musical works.” Thus, operas and theatrical musical works with stories (such as Broadway shows) are addressed by other sections of the law (such as those covering dramas, prose fiction, etc.). Section 115 rules about compulsory licenses to use pre-existing songs. In addition to § 115, the 1976 Act has a § 116, which covers “public performances by means of coin-operated phonorecord players” (e.g., jukeboxes). Because this web site focuses on aspects of copyright likely to be encountered by a layman and others outside the entertainment business, little about this latter section is addressed on this web site. (Those interest in learning more are invited to read the text of § 116 on this web site’s “sister site,” http://law.copyrightdata.com, which reproduces the full text of the various versions of the copyright laws in effect from 1909 to the present.)
The continuums used as illustrations on this web site do not have a parallel in the copyright statutes, but are delineations drawn from court decisions, etc.
The page on this web site on limited publication (which includes a section specifically devoted to court decisions on motion pictures) (go there) provides documentation on how courts have ruled when a work hasn’t been published in the full sense but has been exhibited, displayed or performed in public.
Revocations of grants can occur at points in time when renewal is required. For works copyrighted 1978 and later, a different timetable is used.
In the 1976 Act (which went into effect 1978), § 304(c) goes into detail the rules concerning terminations of grants. Court decisions on this subject (including decisions affecting pre-1978 works) are summarized on this web site at this page.
Copyright notice may be placed on the leader, the permanent container, or the permanent housing of a work of length sixty seconds or less, or be embedded electronically or photochemically on a work this short
The Register of Copyright announced the addition of these forms of placement of copyright notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 230, dated Tuesday, December 1, 1981. The changes are dated November 17, 1981, and were codified in 37 CFR 201.20(h). Section (h)(2) reads:
In remarks that accompanied the text of the new regulations in the Federal Register, the Register described the requests which led to the new regulation:
The Copyright Office received several comments on behalf of the advertising industry concerning the position of the notice on audiovisual works. The comments emphasized the limited time constraints placed upon most advertisers in which to put across an idea to the viewing audience. Placement of the copyright notice on part of the commercial that is broadcast, they contended, could divert the attention of the audience away from the advertiser’s primary message. Accordingly, they proposed several examples of acceptable methods of affixation and positions of the copyright notice for television commercials which would not necessitate the viewing of the notice by the television audience.
The new section (h)(3) which accompanied the new (h)(2) read: “In the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work that is distributed to the public for private use, the notice may be affixed, in addition to the locations specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, on the housing or container, if it is a permanent receptacle for the work.”
The full text of every version of the United States copyright laws from 1909 to the present are available on a sister site to this one at http://law.copyrightdata.com. The law.copyrightdata.com site also reproduces the text of every amendment on copyright passed into law in the United States from 1909 to the present.