Source: http://techlawjournal.com/topstories/2004/20041108.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 15:26:23
Document Index: 540483101

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 411', '§ 408', '§ 409', '§ 408', '§ 202', '§ 206', '§ 106', '§ 411', '§ 206', '§ 602', '§ 411']

District Court Holds Copyright Registration Invalid on Technicality, 11/8/2004.
November 8, 2004. The U.S. District Court (EDPenn) issued an opinion [17 pages in PDF] in Gallup v. Kenexa, a copyright infringement case in which the District Court granted summary judgment to an alleged infringer on the basis that the copyright registration was invalid because the attached copy of the work was not the original, but rather a slightly modified revision.
Registration of a copyright with the Copyright Office is not required under the Copyright Act. However, registration is a prerequisite for bringing a lawsuit for infringement. See, 17 U.S.C. § 411.
The Copyright Act also provides certain basic requirements for the registration of copyrights. 17 U.S.C. §§ 408 addresses registration in general. It provides, in part, that "the material deposited for registration shall include ... in the case of a published work, two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition". Then, 17 U.S.C. §§ 409 addresses the application for copyright registration.
The Appeals Court wrote in Kodadek that "the registration deposit requirement permits `bona fide copies of the original work only ... .´" The District Court in the present case followed this in holding that Gallup had to register the original of its questionnaire.
Perhaps it should be noted here that neither the words "original work", or any variation thereof, appear in 17 U.S.C. §§ 408, 409, or 411.
Obsolescence of Registration Regulations. The Copyright Office has promulgated detailed and lengthy regulations governing how to register different types of works, forms for different types of registrations, deposits required for different types of registrations, and fees. See, 37 CFR § 202.3 [PDF]. For example, there are the Form TX, Form PA, Form VA, Form SR, Form SE, Form SE/Group, and so forth.
The unanswered questions are legion. These questions create uncertainty as to how to register new media works, and whether registrations will be sufficient to maintain an action for infringement.
Copyright Office officials periodically speak at legal, policy, and professional conventions and panel discussions. They generally state that the registration rules are out of date, and provide little guidance for how to register new media works. The Copyright Office's examiners tell persons seeking registrations that they have no rules or guidelines to apply to new media. The verbal instructions dispensed by the Copyright Office's front desk personnel change as frequently as the weather.
§ 206 of the IPPA (§ 106 of HR 4007 EH) amends 17 U.S.C. § 411, which establishes registration of a copyright as a prerequisite for filing a claim for copyright infringement. Some pirates now obtain and distribute works before they are completed, or after completion but before the Copyright Office has issued a certificate of registration. Moreover, this early piracy can cause tremendous economic harm to the ultimate copyright holder. § 206 of the IPPA allows federal prosecutors to take action against these early pirates without having to wait for the completion of the registration process.
Also, § 602 of the IPPA amends 17 U.S.C. § 411, by adding a new subsection that provides that "A certificate of registration shall satisfy the requirements of this section and section 412 irrespective of any inaccurate information therein, unless -- (A) the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and (B) the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration."
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) stated when he introduced the bill that first included this language that "Some accused infringers have tried to avoid liability for statutory damages by challenging the accuracy of the information in copyright registrations; this bill clarifies that courts should resolve such challenges by applying the existing judicial doctrine of fraud-on-the-Copyright-Office." See, Hatch release. See also, story titled "Sen. Hatch Introduces Bill With Numerous Amendments to Copyright Act" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 791, December 3, 2003.
The District Court could have disallowed the motion because of its timing, based upon some theory of waiver or delay. Nevertheless, the Court allowed it, because the issues raised "concern the very basis for this copyright action." Such a precedent encourages defense counsel to engage in dilatory tactics.