Category: Copyright Law

In April the Copyright Office published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments related to a proposed change to the current method that cable and satellite providers license broadcast television from stations (e.g., local network affiliates).  Currently, three sections of the Copyright Act provide a compulsory (statutory) license for these broadcasts, meaning that negotiations are not required, the content is simply licensed automatically and  the cable or satellite provider simply pays a predetermined fee.  These sections are contained in  Section 111, 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and must be periodically renewed by Congress. The Copyright Office is requesting comments on eliminating these licenses, making them permanent, and alternative licensing arrangements.   Three specific proposals have been put forward as alternatives:  1) Sublicensing the transmissions - shifting responsibility for payment of copyright holders to the original broadcast providers as a part of their original broadcast license; 2) Private licensing - requiring the satellite and cable providers to seek individual licenses...

April 29, 2011 April 29, 2011: Copyright Office website and online registration unavailable from 5:00 p.m. through May 2, 2011, at 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time. May 1, 2011 Effective date of final rule on deposit accounts May 11, 2011 Due date for notices of participation in public meeting on technical aspects of mandatory deposit of published electronic works available only online May 23, 2011 Due date for affidavits stating that a television station qualifies as a specialty station May 24, 2011 Public meeting on technical aspects of mandatory deposit of published electronic works available only online May 25, 2011 Due date for reply comments on marketplace solutions to statutory licensing June 2, 2011 Roundtable on copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings June 10, 2011 Hearing on marketplace solutions to statutory licensing ...

From the Library of Congress NewNet Issue 412 - February 18, 2011 The Copyright Office is extending the deadline for filing reply comments in response to its Notice of Inquiry requesting public input on the desirability and means of bringing sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, under federal jurisdiction. Reply comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than April 13, 2011, and should be submitted through the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/comment-submission-index.html. Initial comments (including one comment that was received late and that was only recently posted) are available for review on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/comments/initial/. For more information, go to the Office’s website at www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/ ...

In a nod to the reality that most photographers have gone digital and use databases to store and display their work,  the Library of Congress (where the Copyright office is) recently announced an interim rule concerning registration of databases of photographs and group registration of published photographs (previously electronic group registration was limited for unpublished photos).  In summary, the Copyright Office noted in the the Federal Register: The Copyright Office is adopting interim regulations governing the electronic submission of applications for registration of automated databases that predominantly consist of photographs, and applications for group registration of published photographs. This interim rule establishes a testing period and pilot program during which the Copyright Office will assess the desirability and feasibility of permanently allowing such applications to be submitted through the Copyright Office’s electronic filing system (‘‘eCO’’). Persons wishing to submit electronic applications to register copyrights of such photographic databases or of groups of published photographs should contact the Visual Arts Division...

Last week the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Minnesota) ruled in Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of Am., a case involving a copyright infringement claim by an independent signage designer that designed and built various signs and interior elements for Famous Dave’s Restaurant around the Twin Cities. Following a prior dispute between the parties, where Thomsen alleged infringement of his copyright (no work for hire agreement or other assignments were entered into), the parties entered into a settlement agreement. As a part of that settlement, the parties agreed that: Thomson ". . . is releasing all copyright, proprietary design and sign work to [Famous Dave's] in all other restaurants that he has worked on with the exception of . . ." Adopting language from the 9th Circuit, the Bench ruled that " A transfer of ownership requires no "magic words" to satisfy copyright law; even "a one-line pro forma statement will do." (citing, Radio Television Espanola S.A. v. New World Entm't, Ltd....