Source: https://www.rose.edu/content/academics/student-resources/library/copyright/title-17/
Timestamp: 2018-10-21 07:24:33
Document Index: 10849817

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 106', '§106', '§107', '§108', '§110', '§ 108', '§ 110']

Title 17 Chapter 1 (§ 106, §106a, §107, §108, §110)
See also http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102
(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
§ 108 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
§ 110 Limitations on exclusive rights: Exemption of certain performances and displays
(5) (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), communication of a transmission embodying a performance or display of a work by the public reception of the transmission on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless—
(6) performance of a nondramatic musical work by a governmental body or a nonprofit agricultural or horticultural organization, in the course of an annual agricultural or horticultural fair or exhibition conducted by such body or organization; the exemption provided by this clause shall extend to any liability for copyright infringement that would otherwise be imposed on such body or organization, under doctrines of vicarious liability or related infringement, for a performance by a concessionnaire, [1] business establishment, or other person at such fair or exhibition, but shall not excuse any such person from liability for the performance;
For purposes of paragraph (11), the term “making imperceptible” does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture. Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.
Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works.—The final provision of clause (1) deals with the special problem of performances from unlawfully-made copies of motion pictures and other audiovisual works. The exemption is lost where the copy being used for a classroom performance was “not lawfully made under this title” and the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to suspect as much. This special exception to the exemption would not apply to performances from lawfully-made copies, even if the copies were acquired from someone who had stolen or converted them, or if the performances were in violation of an agreement. However, though the performance would be exempt under section 110 (1) in such cases, the copyright owner might have a cause of action against the unauthorized distributor under section 106 (3), or against the person responsible for the performance, for breach of contract.
Projection Devices.—As long as there is no transmission beyond the place where the copy is located, both section 109 (b) andsection 110 (1) would permit the classroom display of a work by means of any sort of projection device or process.
Instructional Broadcasting. Works Affected.—The exemption for instructional broadcasting provided by section 110 (2) would apply only to “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work.” Thus, the copyright owner’s permission would be required for the performance on educational television or radio of a dramatic work, of a dramatico-musical work such as an opera or musical comedy, or of a motion picture. Since, as already explained, audiovisual works such as filmstrips are equated with motion pictures, their sequential showing would be regarded as a performance rather than a display and would not be exempt under section 110 (2). The clause is not intended to limit in any way the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make dramatizations, adaptations, or other derivative works under section 106 (2). Thus, for example, a performer could read a nondramatic literary work aloud under section 110 (2), but the copyright owner’s permission would be required for him to act it out in dramatic form.
Systematic Instructional Activities.—Under section 110 (2) a transmission must meet three specified conditions in order to be exempted from copyright liability. The first of these, as provided by subclause (A), is that the performance or display must be “a regular part of the systematic instructional activities of a governmental body or a nonprofit educational institution.” The concept of “systematic instructional activities” is intended as the general equivalent of “curriculums,” but it could be broader in a case such as that of an institution using systematic teaching methods not related to specific course work. A transmission would be a regular part of these activities if it is in accordance with the pattern of teaching established by the governmental body or institution. The use of commercial facilities, such as those of a cable service, to transmit the performance or display, would not affect the exemption as long as the actual performance or display was for nonprofit purposes.
Paragraph (i) of subclause (C) generally covers what are known as “in-school” broadcasts, whether open- or closed-circuit. The reference to “classrooms or similar places” here is intended to have the same meaning as that of the phrase as used in section 110 (1). The exemption in paragraph (ii) is intended to exempt transmissions providing systematic instruction to individuals who cannot be reached in classrooms because of “their disabilities or other special circumstances.” Accordingly, the exemption is confined to instructional broadcasting that is an adjunct to the actual classwork of nonprofit schools or is primarily for people who cannot be brought together in classrooms such as preschool children, displaced workers, illiterates, and shut-ins.
There has been some question as to whether or not the language in this section of the bill is intended to include instructional television college credit courses. These telecourses are aimed at undergraduate and graduate students in earnest pursuit of higher educational degrees who are unable to attend daytime classes because of daytime employment, distance from campus, or some other intervening reason. So long as these broadcasts are aimed at regularly enrolled students and conducted by recognized higher educational institutions, the committee believes that they are clearly within the language of section 110 (2)(C)(ii). Like night school and correspondence courses before them, these telecourses are fast becoming a valuable adjunct of the normal college curriculum.
The third exemption in subclause (C) is intended to permit the use of copyrighted material, in accordance with the other conditions of section 110 (2), in the course of instructional transmissions for Government personnel who are receiving training “as a part of their official duties or employment.”
To be exempted under section 110 (3) a performance or display must be “in the course of services,” thus excluding activities at a place of worship that are for social, educational, fund raising, or entertainment purposes. Some performances of these kinds could be covered by the exemption in section 110 (4), discussed next. Since the performance or display must also occur “at a place of worship or other religious assembly,” the exemption would not extend to religious broadcasts or other transmissions to the public at large, even where the transmissions were sent from the place of worship. On the other hand, as long as services are being conducted before a religious gathering, the exemption would apply if they were conducted in places such as auditoriums, outdoor theaters, and the like.
Admission Charge.—Assuming that the performance involves no profit motive and no one responsible for it gets paid a fee, it must still meet one of two alternative conditions to be exempt. As specified in subclauses (A) and (B) of section 110 (4), these conditions are: (1) that no direct or indirect admission charge is made, or (2) that the net proceeds are “used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain.”
Under the second of these conditions, a performance meeting the other conditions of clause (4) would be exempt even if an admission fee is charged, provided any amounts left “after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance” are used solely for bona fide educational, religious, or charitable purposes. In cases arising under this second condition and as provided in subclause (B), where there is an admission charge, the copyright owner is given an opportunity to decide whether and under what conditions the copyrighted work should be performed; otherwise, owners could be compelled to make involuntary donations to the fund-raising activities of causes to which they are opposed. The subclause would thus permit copyright owners to prevent public performances of their works under section 110 (4)(B) by serving notice of objection, with the reasons therefor, at least seven days in advance.
With respect to section 110 (5), the conference substitute conforms to the language in the Senate bill. It is the intent of the conferees that a small commercial establishment of the type involved in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151 (1975), [95 S.Ct. 2040, 45 L.Ed.2d 84], which merely augmented a home-type receiver and which was not of sufficient size to justify, as a practical matter, a subscription to a commercial background music service, would be exempt. However, where the public communication was by means of something other than a home-type receiving apparatus, or where the establishment actually makes a further transmission to the public, the exemption would not apply.
On June 17, 1975, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 95 S.Ct. 2040 [422 U.S. 151, 45 L.Ed.2d 84], that raised fundamental questions about the proper interpretation of section 110 (5). The defendant, owner and operator of a fast-service food shop in downtown Pittsburgh, had “a radio with outlets to four speakers in the ceiling,” which he apparently turned on and left on throughout the business day. Lacking any performing license, he was sued for copyright infringement by two ASCAP members. He lost in the District Court, won a reversal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and finally prevailed, by a margin of 7–2, in the Supreme Court.
The majority of the Supreme Court in the Aiken case based its decision on a narrow construction of the word “perform” in the 1909 statute. This basis for the decision is completely overturned by the present bill and its broad definition of “perform” in section 101. The Committee has adopted the language of section 110 (5) with an amendment expressly denying the exemption in situations where “the performance or display is further transmitted beyond the place where the receiving apparatus is located”; in doing so, it accepts the traditional, pre-Aiken, interpretation of the Jewell-LaSalle decision, under which public communication by means other than a home receiving set, or further transmission of a broadcast to the public, is considered an infringing act.