COPYRIGHT LAW 2006 PROFESSOR FISCHER THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA FEBRUARY 16, 2006

COPYRIGHT LAW 2006

PROFESSOR FISCHER

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

FEBRUARY 16, 2006

HUGE EXCEPTION TO COPYRIGHTABILITY:

GOVERNMENT WORKS

17 U.S.C. Section 105

• Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

Definition of “Work of United States Government” (Sect. 101)

• A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties

Sacagawea Dollar Case: U.S. v. Washinigton Mint (D. Minn. 2000)

Works of State Governments

• Copyrightable?

• Banks v. Manchester (1888)

Privately Drafted Legislative Codes

• Can legislative codes that are privately drafted but later adopted by states as law be the subject of copyright?

• County of Suffolk

• Veeck

AUTHORSHIP

• 3 possible philosophical concepts of authorship:

• A. Conception of the work

• B. Execution of the Work

• C. Financing the Work

Lindsay v. R.M.S. Titanic et al.

• Which conception of authorship does this court choose?

WORKS MADE FOR HIRE

• WHAT’S A WORK MADE FOR HIRE?

DEFINITION OF WORKS MADE FOR HIRE - 2 TYPES

• A “work made for hire” is defined in section 101• works prepared by employees AND within the

scope of employment (and also 201(b) requirement that work be prepared FOR employer)

• specially ordered or commissioned works - must be within certain categories and there must be a written work made for hire agreement.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WORK MADE FOR HIRE

DOCTRINE?• To think about: is the work made for hire

doctrine constitutional? Can providing money to create a work amount to “authorship”?

• Note that not all countries in the world have such a doctrine

CCNV v. Reid (1989)

• Facts of dispute?

• Issue for U.S. Supreme Court?

CCNV v. Reid: Who is an “employee”?

• According to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the sculpture a work for hire under the definition in section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act?

• Specifically, was the work prepared by an employee?

CCNV v. Reid

• Court canvasses 4 possible tests for when a work is prepared by employee in scope of employment

• 1. RIGHT TO CONTROL test

• 2. ACTUAL CONTROL test (Aldon Accessories 2d Cir, also 4th and 7th Cir)

• 3. AGENCY LAW test (Easter Seals – 5th Cir, DC Court of Appeals in CCNV)

• 4. FORMAL SALARIED EMPLOYEE test (Dumas (1989) – 9th Cir)

AGENCY TEST

• Must consider “the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished” and also nonexhaustive list of other factors to determine this (see CB p. 140)

REID IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

• What is the reasoning of Court – is it right?

WHO IS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OF THE SCULPTURE?

• If it is not a work for hire, doesn’t Reid own copyright in the sculpture?

WHO IS THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OF THE SCULPTURE?

• Supreme Court says CCNV may be a joint author. Remands for determination of this issue. Submitted to mediation.

WHY DOES IT MATTER

• Whether a work is a work made for hire?

TERMINATION OF TRANSFERS

• Work for hire is exempt

• If not, 35 years after work’s publication, copyright owner has a 5 year period to terminate grants of right of publication (or terminate other grants for 5 year period starting 35 years after the grant) (see s. 203)

OTHER ISSUES

• Different duration period for works for hire (See s. 302 – NOT LIFE PLUS 70, but 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first)

• Exempt from moral rights for works of visual art in s. 106A

LATER CONSENT JUDGMENT in CCNV (Jan. 7,

1991)• Terms of this judgment? • Further dispute about Reid’s access to

original sculpture when he sought to make a master mold. Parties came to some agreement in unpublished order.

AYMES v. BONELLI (2d Cir. 1992) CB p. 274

• Were Aymes computer programs works made for hire according to the 2d Circuit? Why or why not? No. Some CCNV factors are more significant than others, and these caused balance to weigh in Aymes’ favor

• Which CCNV factors were the most significant? Right to control means & manner of creation, skill required, provision of employee benefits, tax treatment of hiring party, whether hiring party has right to assign additional projects to hired party

WORK MADE FOR HIRE: TO THINK ABOUT

• Does the CCNV test for a work made for hire, as elaborated in Aymes v. Bonelli, enhance the stated policy goal in CCNV of enhancing certainty and predictability?

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT

• CCNV dealt with whether an author is an employee. How do the courts determine “scope of employment” ?

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT• CCNV dealt with when an author is an employee. How do

the courts determine “scope of employment”?• See Avtec (CB p. 144) –development of computer

programs at employee’s home outside of normal business hours

• Courts rely on test in Restatement (Second) of Agency. Employer must show:

• 1. Work of type employee hired to perform• 2. Creation of work occurred “substantially within the

authorized time and space limits” of the job• 3. Work “actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve”

interests of employer

AGREEMENTS

• Sometimes used to try to enlarge scope,but if too broad will simply be treated as assignments, not as converting a work into a work made for hire

THE TEACHER EXCEPTION• If the teacher exception

exists, it is an exception to the work made for hire doctrine for academic writings

• Did the 1976 Act abolish it?• Many college and university

IP policies adopt the view that teacher exception exists

• See draft CUA IP Policy at: http://counsel.cua.edu/mainpage/

WORK FOR HIRE FOR NON PROFIT ENTITY SET UP FOR

ARTIST• Martha Graham

School v. Martha Graham Center, (2d Cir. 2004)

SPECIALLY ORDERED/COMMISSIONED

WORKS• Statutory categories in s. 101 – work must fall

into one of these 9 categories• “a work specially ordered or commissioned for use

as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.”

SOUND RECORDINGS AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE

• In 1999 Congress added sound recordings to section 101 list of works that could be commissioned works for hire

• “Millennial Flip-Flop”(2000)

WORK FOR HIRE AGREEMENTS

• At what point do parties have to execute work made for hire agreements under 101(2)?

• At time of commissioning?• When commissioning party pays creator?• When work is being created?• Compare Schiller (7th Cir.) and Playboy

v. Dumas (2d Cir.)

WORK FOR HIRE AGREEMENTS

• Does the agreement have to include “work for hire” language? See Armento v. Lasar Image, Inc. (W.D.N.C. 1996)