119-684: Christian Copyright Licensing International ( CCLI ) is a privately owned company that was founded in the US in 1988 by Howard Rachinski. CCLI was launched after being developed by Rachinski for 3½ years while he was a music minister at a large church in Portland, Oregon. This prototype, called Starpraise Ministries, began in May 1985. CCLI offers copyright licensing of songs and other resource materials for use in Christian worship. Since its foundation, CCLI has expanded around
238-563: A "concrete or permanent form,"....The requirement that a derivative work must assume a concrete or permanent form was recognized without much discussion in Galoob . Even if a work is found to be an unauthorized derivative work, an alleged infringer can escape liability via the defense of fair use . For example, in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , the Supreme Court found that although a parody of
357-454: A House Report, Congress said: The exclusive right to prepare derivative works, specified separately in clause (2) of section 106, overlaps the exclusive right of reproduction to some extent. It is broader than that right, however, in the sense that reproduction requires fixation in copies or phonorecords, whereas the preparation of a derivative work, such as a ballet, pantomime, or improvised performance, may be an infringement even though nothing
476-470: A coin; when the user presses a lever, Uncle Sam appears to put the coin into a carpet bag. One maker of these banks, Jeffrey Snyder, had filed a copyright on such a bank in 1975, planning to import them for the American Bicentennial. Shortly thereafter, another company, L. Batlin & Sons, Inc., also began making a very similar toy bank which was based on Snyder's version (and not, incidentally, on
595-447: A copyright-protected derivative work to come into existence; (2) what acts constitute copyright infringement of a copyright in a copyright-protected work; and (3) in what circumstances is a person otherwise liable for infringement of copyright in a copyright-protected derivative work excused from liability by an affirmative defense, such as first sale or fair use ? French law prefers the term "œuvre composite" ("composite work") although
714-405: A copyrighted work - by selling note cards, for instance, or giving them away - it does not permit the copyright holder to control what is done with the item after it is distributed. Unless there is a separate contract between the parties, the person who owns the object has the right to give it away or resell it themself. In the case of Lee v. A.R.T. , since bonding the cards to ceramic did not create
833-506: A copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. The courts have so far addressed little attention to the issue of lawful (i.e., not unlawful) use without authorization, as in fair-use cases such as the Pretty Woman case. Recently, however, in Keeling v. Hars ,
952-532: A derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to
1071-455: A derivative work, A.R.T. Co. was legally within their rights to resell the cards in such a fashion. When the defendant's modification of the plaintiff's work is de minimis , too insubstantial to "count", there is no infringing preparation of a derivative work. So long as there is no derivative work, there is no infringement—since no conduct that the Copyright Act forbids has occurred. In
1190-520: A direct approach to the infringing party in order to settle the dispute out of court. "... by 1978, the scope was expanded to apply to any 'expression' that has been 'fixed' in any medium, this protection granted automatically whether the maker wants it or not, no registration required." With older technology like paintings, books, phonographs, and film, it is generally not feasible for consumers to make copies on their own, so producers can simply require payment when transferring physical possession of
1309-510: A dramatic increase in the demand for reading matter. Prices of reprints were low, so publications could be bought by poorer people, creating a mass audience. In German-language markets before the advent of copyright, technical materials, like popular fiction, were inexpensive and widely available; it has been suggested this contributed to Germany's industrial and economic success. The concept of copyright first developed in England . In reaction to
SECTION 10
#17330845824591428-563: A dramatic work, by way of performance in public or otherwise, ( d ) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, to make any sound recording, cinematograph film or other contrivance by means of which the work may be mechanically reproduced or performed, ( e ) in the case of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, to reproduce, adapt and publicly present the work as a cinematographic work In Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc. , [2002] 2 S.C.R. 336 , 2002 SCC 34,
1547-749: A fixed period, after which the copyright expired. It was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or the Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." The act also alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began, "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing ... Books, and other Writings, without
1666-578: A literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work". An extensive definition of the term is given by the United States Copyright Act in 17 U.S.C. § 101 : A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
1785-594: A matter of derivative works in Systran v. European Commission (Case T‑19/07 ). However, it was overturned in 2013 based on the conclusion that the case did not fall within the General Court's jurisdiction, after concluding that the dispute had been of a contractual nature, instead of a non-contractual one. Though Canadian copyright law does not explicitly define "derivative work", the Copyright Act of Canada does provide
1904-482: A nation that has domestic copyright laws or adheres to a bilateral treaty or established international convention such as the Berne Convention or WIPO Copyright Treaty . Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed "unauthorized edition", not copyright infringement. Statistics regarding the effects of copyright infringement are difficult to determine. Studies have attempted to determine whether there
2023-461: A preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. The statutory definition is incomplete and the concept of derivative work must be understood with reference to explanatory case law . Three major copyright law issues arise concerning derivative works: (1) what acts are sufficient to cause
2142-417: A product of an individual, with attendant rights. The most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value per se. Copyright has developed into a concept that has
2261-622: A rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law's requirement of originality . Although serious emphasis on originality, at least so designated, began with the Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Feist v. Rural , some pre- Feist lower court decisions addressed this requirement in relation to derivative works. In Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder .
2380-411: A significant effect on nearly every modern industry, including not just literary work, but also forms of creative work such as sound recordings , films , photographs , software , and architecture . Often seen as the first real copyright law, the 1709 British Statute of Anne gave authors and the publishers to whom they did chose to license their works, the right to publish the author's creations for
2499-412: A single word is insufficient to comprise a copyright work. However, single words or a short string of words can sometimes be registered as a trademark instead. Copyright law recognizes the right of an author based on whether the work actually is an original creation , rather than based on whether it is unique ; two authors may own copyright on two substantially identical works, if it is determined that
SECTION 20
#17330845824592618-518: A tangible medium of expression" to obtain copyright protection. US law requires that the fixation be stable and permanent enough to be "perceived, reproduced or communicated for a period of more than transitory duration". Similarly, Canadian courts consider fixation to require that the work be "expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance". Note this provision of US law: c) Effect of Berne Convention.—No right or interest in
2737-467: A use was fair use: "We conclude that where disassembly is the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program and where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access, disassembly is a fair use of the copyrighted work, as a matter of law." However, since the passage of the anti-circumvention statutes contained in the DMCA , further court cases involving
2856-599: A whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to their heirs. Yet scholars like Lawrence Lessig have argued that copyright terms have been extended beyond the scope imagined by the Framers. Lessig refers to the Copyright Clause as the "Progress Clause" to emphasize the social dimension of intellectual property rights. The original length of copyright in
2975-610: A wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works". Specifics vary by jurisdiction , but these can include poems , theses , fictional characters , plays and other literary works , motion pictures , choreography , musical compositions, sound recordings , paintings , drawings , sculptures , photographs , computer software , radio and television broadcasts , and industrial designs . Graphic designs and industrial designs may have separate or overlapping laws applied to them in some jurisdictions. Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only
3094-528: A work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of
3213-415: A work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) provides: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from
3332-552: A work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright, and the copyright expires after a set period of time (some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended). Different countries impose different tests, although generally the requirements are low; in the United Kingdom there has to be some "skill, labour, and judgment" that has gone into it. In Australia and the United Kingdom it has been held that
3451-476: Is a monetary loss for industries affected by copyright infringement by predicting what portion of pirated works would have been formally purchased if they had not been freely available. Other reports indicate that copyright infringement does not have an adverse effect on the entertainment industry, and can have a positive effect. In particular, a 2014 university study concluded that free music content, accessed on YouTube , does not necessarily hurt sales, instead has
3570-429: Is ever fixed in tangible form. The 9th Circuit, however, has resisted this expansive view of liability for derivative works by imposing its own quasi-fixation requirement. In Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. Judge Kozinski wrote: To narrow the statute to a manageable level, we have developed certain criteria a work must satisfy in order to qualify as a derivative work. One of these is that a derivative work must exist in
3689-418: Is invited to the meeting for that region." Copyright A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work , usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in
Christian Copyright Licensing International - Misplaced Pages Continue
3808-609: Is needed if all music is in the public domain or covered by something like the Creative Commons licenses. As an example, most sufficiently old hymns are in the public domain. CCLI maintains a list of songs that are in the public domain. If all of the songs that an organization uses are in that list, then the organization does not need to pay the CCLI license fee. As of March 2015, CCLI's list contained nearly 24,000 public domain songs. The licenses and services offered by CCLI include: For
3927-550: The Harvard Law Review , "Toward a Fair Use Standard", which the Court quoted and cited extensively in its Campbell opinion. In his article, Leval explained the social importance of transformative use of another's work and what justifies such a taking: I believe the answer to the question of justification turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. The use must be productive and must employ
4046-541: The Campbell case. In parody, as the Court explained, the transformativeness is the new insight that readers, listeners, or viewers gain from the parodic treatment of the original work. As the Court pointed out, the words of the parody "derisively demonstrat[e] how bland and banal the Orbison [Pretty Woman] song" is. The modern emphasis of transformativeness in fair use analysis stems from a 1990 article by Judge Pierre N. Leval in
4165-536: The Copyright Law in United States , the Copyright Office concluded that many diverse aspects of the current moral rights patchwork – including copyright law's derivative work right, state moral rights statutes, and contract law – are generally working well and should not be changed. Further, the Office concludes that there is no need for the creation of a blanket moral rights statute at this time. However, there are aspects of
4284-615: The European Union require their member states to comply with them. All member states of the World Trade Organization are obliged to establish minimum levels of copyright protection. Nevertheless, important differences between the national regimes continue to exist. The original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the author rather than the author themself if the work is a " work for hire ". For example, in English law
4403-528: The Internet , creating a much bigger threat to producer revenue. Some have used digital rights management technology to restrict non-playback access through encryption and other means. Digital watermarks can be used to trace copies, deterring infringement with a more credible threat of legal consequences. Copy protection is used for both digital and pre-Internet electronic media. For a work to be considered to infringe upon copyright, its use must have occurred in
4522-609: The Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as
4641-483: The RIAA are increasingly targeting the file sharing home Internet user. Thus far, however, most such cases against file sharers have been settled out of court. ( See Legal aspects of file sharing ) In most jurisdictions the copyright holder must bear the cost of enforcing copyright. This will usually involve engaging legal representation, administrative or court costs. In light of this, many copyright disputes are settled by
4760-709: The United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property signed the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations . In 1996, this organization was succeeded by the founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization , which launched the 1996 WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and the 2002 WIPO Copyright Treaty , which enacted greater restrictions on
4879-409: The 1976 Copyright Act to conform to most of the provisions of the Berne Convention. As a result, the use of copyright notices has become optional to claim copyright, because the Berne Convention makes copyright automatic. However, the lack of notice of copyright using these marks may have consequences in terms of reduced damages in an infringement lawsuit – using notices of this form may reduce
Christian Copyright Licensing International - Misplaced Pages Continue
4998-590: The 19th century original). When the latter attempted to import the toy banks, the US Customs service notified them that they appeared to be infringing on Snyder's copyright, and would not allow the toy banks to be imported. Batlin then got an injunction against Snyder to deny the recording of his copyright and allowing them to import their banks. On appeal to the Second Circuit Court, Snyder took great pains to demonstrate how his banks varied in size and shape from
5117-406: The 19th century original, arguing that his banks, though similar to the older work, differed in a number of significant ways and warranted protection under a new copyright. However, his appeal was denied and the injunction against Snyder's copyright upheld (six members of the court voted to deny, the other three filing a dissenting opinion). Much of this decision focused on the fact that nearly all of
5236-446: The Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Before 1989, United States law required the use of a copyright notice, consisting of the copyright symbol (©, the letter C inside a circle; Unicode U+00A9 © COPYRIGHT SIGN ), the abbreviation "Copr.", or the word "Copyright", followed by the year of the first publication of the work and the name of the copyright holder. Several years may be noted if
5355-433: The Berne Convention. As soon as a work is "fixed", that is, written or recorded on some physical medium, its author is automatically entitled to all intellectual property rights in the work, and to any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the rights expires. The Berne Convention also resulted in foreign authors being treated equivalently to domestic authors, in any country signed onto
5474-604: The Consent of the Authors ;... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:". A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws. The Copyright Clause of
5593-523: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that if a copyrighted work is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a "Work for Hire". Typically, the first owner of a copyright is the person who created the work i.e. the author . But when more than one person creates the work, then a case of joint authorship can be made provided some criteria are met. Copyright may apply to
5712-552: The License Fee to the copyright owners (i.e., publishers and songwriters) as royalties." More information about CCLI's royalty distribution policies is available on the CCLI web site. That page also says "Every year CCLI holds an Owner's Meeting for each region, where full details of License fees collected, and royalties distributed, are reported. Every song copyright owner participating in the Church Copyright License program
5831-609: The Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not infringe any copyright of the derivative work itself (although copying it may infringe the copyright, if any, of the underlying work on which the derivative work was based). The Batlin case rested on the copyrightability of an "Uncle Sam" toy bank, first copyrighted in 1886. These toys have Uncle Sam's extended arm and outstretched hand adapted to receive
5950-404: The Second Circuit held that, if the creator of an unauthorized work stays within the bounds of fair use and adds sufficient original content, the original contributions in such an unauthorized derivative work are protectable under the Copyright Act. In that case, the plaintiff created a parody stage adaptation of a motion picture, without authorization. This issue sometimes arises in the context of
6069-533: The Statute of Anne. While the national law protected authors' published works, authority was granted to the states to protect authors' unpublished works. The most recent major overhaul of copyright in the US, the 1976 Copyright Act , extended federal copyright to works as soon as they are created and "fixed", without requiring publication or registration. State law continues to apply to unpublished works that are not otherwise copyrighted by federal law. This act also changed
SECTION 50
#17330845824596188-474: The Supreme Court of Canada clarified the statutory recognition of derivative works extended only to circumstances where there was production and multiplication, i.e. reproduction . Where there is no derivation, reproduction, or production of a new and original work which incorporates the artist's work, there is no violation of the Copyright Act. Derivative works represent the majority of the human cultural, scientific and technological heritage, as exemplified by
6307-652: The U.S. economy at least $ 29.2 billion in lost revenue each year." An August 2021 report by the Digital Citizens Alliance states that "online criminals who offer stolen movies, TV shows, games, and live events through websites and apps are reaping $ 1.34 billion in annual advertising revenues." This comes as a result of users visiting pirate websites who are then subjected to pirated content, malware, and fraud. According to World Intellectual Property Organisation , copyright protects two types of rights. Economic rights allow right owners to derive financial reward from
6426-404: The US moral rights patchwork that could be improved to the benefit of individual authors and the copyright system as a whole. Derivative work In copyright law , a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work ). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from
6545-469: The US. The Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 finally provided protection for authors among the countries who signed the agreement, although the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989. In the US, the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish copyright and patent laws. Shortly after the Constitution was passed, Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1790 , modeling it after
6664-495: The Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." Some countries do not require that a work be produced in a particular form to obtain copyright protection. For instance, Spain, France, and Australia do not require fixation for copyright protection. The United States and Canada, on the other hand, require that most works must be "fixed in
6783-634: The United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain , so it could be used and built upon by others. In many jurisdictions of the European continent, comparable legal concepts to copyright did exist from the 16th century on but did change under Napoleonic rule into another legal concept: authors' rights or creator's right laws, from French: droits d'auteur and German Urheberrecht . In many modern-day publications
6902-515: The United States, Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as
7021-481: The alterations in Snyder's version were made solely to allow the object to be more easily manufactured in plastic rather than metal, and therefore were functional, not artistic or creative. "To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work." The issue was not whether or not Batlin's bank
7140-482: The appellate court held that it was a fair use for owners of copies of video games, such as Super Mario Bros. , to use Galoob's product the Game Genie to customize the difficulty or other characteristics of the game by granting a character more strength, speed, or endurance. Nintendo strongly opposed Galoob's product, allegedly because it interfered with the maintenance of the "Nintendo Culture," which Nintendo claimed
7259-473: The author's commercial interests. Derivative works and their authors benefit in turn from the full protection of copyright without prejudicing the rights of the original work's author. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works , an international copyright treaty , stipulates that derivative works shall be protected although it does not use the term, namely that "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of
SECTION 60
#17330845824597378-452: The authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. In some EU countries, such as France, moral rights last indefinitely. In the UK, however, moral rights are finite. That is, the right of attribution and the right of integrity last only as long as the work is in copyright. When the copyright term comes to an end, so too do the moral rights in that work. This is just one reason why
7497-468: The authors even after the authors have transferred their economic rights. This means that even where, for example, a film producer or publisher owns the economic rights in a work, in many jurisdictions the individual author continues to have moral rights. Recently, as a part of the debates being held at the US Copyright Office on the question of inclusion of Moral Rights as a part of the framework of
7616-696: The calculation of copyright term from a fixed term (then a maximum of fifty-six years) to "life of the author plus 50 years". These changes brought the US closer to conformity with the Berne Convention, and in 1989 the United States further revised its copyright law and joined the Berne Convention officially. Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In
7735-513: The civil law system. The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works, but as there was initially no copyright law, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. Popular new works were immediately re- set and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high, and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics. Printing brought profound social changes . The rise in literacy across Europe led to
7854-435: The claim. Thus the law is clear that a derivative work is protectable only to the extent that it embodies original expression. Its non-original aspects are not copyright-protectable (what is loosely called "uncopyrightable"). In both of these cases, the defendants were held not to be liable for copyright infringement, even though they presumably copied a considerable amount from the plaintiff's work. They were not liable because
7973-454: The concepts throughout the years have been mingled globally, due to international treaties and contracts, distinct differences between jurisdictions continue to exist. Creator's law was enacted rather late in German speaking states and the economic historian Eckhard Höffner argues that the absence of possibilities to maintain copyright laws in all these states in the early 19th century, encouraged
8092-474: The convention. The UK signed the Berne Convention in 1887 but did not implement large parts of it until 100 years later with the passage of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . Specially, for educational and scientific research purposes, the Berne Convention provides the developing countries issue compulsory licenses for the translation or reproduction of copyrighted works within the limits prescribed by
8211-590: The convention. This was a special provision that had been added at the time of 1971 revision of the convention, because of the strong demands of the developing countries. The United States did not sign the Berne Convention until 1989. The United States and most Latin American countries instead entered into the Buenos Aires Convention in 1910, which required a copyright notice on the work (such as all rights reserved ), and permitted signatory nations to limit
8330-481: The copyright holder is entitled to enforce their exclusive rights. However, while registration is not needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enables the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees. (In the US, registering after an infringement only enables one to receive actual damages and lost profits.) A widely circulated strategy to avoid
8449-561: The copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use was once required to assert copyright, but that phrase is now legally obsolete. Almost everything on the Internet has some sort of copyright attached to it. Whether these things are watermarked, signed, or have any other sort of indication of the copyright is a different story however. In 1989 the United States enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act , amending
8568-477: The cost of copyright registration is referred to as the poor man's copyright . It proposes that the creator send the work to themself in a sealed envelope by registered mail, using the postmark to establish the date. This technique has not been recognized in any published opinions of the United States courts. The United States Copyright Office says the technique is not a substitute for actual registration. The United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office discusses
8687-478: The court excused Accolade from copyright infringement liability on fair use grounds. Nintendo and Sega produced video game consoles. Each stored the games in plastic cartridges that provided game data to the consoles. By way of analogy, the Sega hardware console's "platform" differed from Nintendo's, as a Macintosh platform differs from that of a PC . Hence, a video game cartridge that works on one system does not work on
8806-555: The defendant purchasing a copy of a picture or some other work from the copyright owner or a licensee and then reselling it in different context. For example, pictures from greeting cards might be affixed to tiles or one kind of textile product might be turned into another that can be sold at a higher price. In Lee v. A.R.T. Co. , (the Annie Lee case), the defendant affixed the copyright owner's copyright-protected note cards and small lithographs to tiles and then resold them. The original art
8925-420: The downloading was improper copying (reproduction) of Sega's code. The court held that Sega was trying to use the copyright in its computer code to maintain a monopoly over the sale of video games, to which it was not legally entitled. Accolade downloaded the computer code only to ascertain how the lock worked, so that it could make a key that would permit its games to work in Sega consoles. The court held that such
9044-416: The duplication was coincidental, and neither was copied from the other. In all countries where the Berne Convention standards apply, copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file),
9163-517: The duration of copyrights to shorter and renewable terms. The Universal Copyright Convention was drafted in 1952 as another less demanding alternative to the Berne Convention, and ratified by nations such as the Soviet Union and developing nations. The regulations of the Berne Convention are incorporated into the World Trade Organization 's TRIPS agreement (1995), thus giving the Berne Convention effectively near-global application. In 1961,
9282-419: The exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.... US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: A typical example of
9401-682: The exogenous differential introduction of author's right (Italian: diritto d’autore ) in Napoleonic Italy shows that "basic copyrights increased both the number and the quality of operas, measured by their popularity and durability". The 1886 Berne Convention first established recognition of authors' rights among sovereign nations , rather than merely bilaterally. Under the Berne Convention, protective rights for creative works do not have to be asserted or declared, as they are automatically in force at creation: an author need not "register" or "apply for" these protective rights in countries adhering to
9520-407: The fair-use defense of such activities have yet to be actually litigated. A crucial factor in current legal analysis of derivative works is transformativeness , largely as a result of the Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. The Court's opinion emphasized the importance of transformativeness in its fair use analysis of the parody of " Oh, Pretty Woman " involved in
9639-456: The first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright . Translations , cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works. Most countries' legal systems seek to protect both original and derivative works. They grant authors the right to impede or otherwise control their integrity and
9758-416: The following generally agreed-upon examples of what constitutes a derivative work in section 3 : "copyright"...includes the sole right ( a ) to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the work, ( b ) in the case of a dramatic work, to convert it into a novel or other non-dramatic work, ( c ) in the case of a novel or other non-dramatic work, or of an artistic work, to convert it into
9877-414: The form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States and fair dealings doctrine in the United Kingdom. Some jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license
9996-418: The form or manner in which they are expressed. For example, the copyright to a Mickey Mouse cartoon restricts others from making copies of the cartoon or creating derivative works based on Disney's particular anthropomorphic mouse, but does not prohibit the creation of other works about anthropomorphic mice in general, so long as they are different enough not to be judged copies of Disney's. Typically,
10115-504: The holder in a civil law court, but there are also criminal infringement statutes in some jurisdictions. While central registries are kept in some countries which aid in proving claims of ownership, registering does not necessarily prove ownership, nor does the fact of copying (even without permission) necessarily prove that copyright was infringed. Criminal sanctions are generally aimed at serious counterfeiting activity, but are now becoming more commonplace as copyright collectives such as
10234-423: The jurisdiction . Some countries require certain copyright formalities to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without a formal registration. When the copyright of a work expires, it enters the public domain . The concept of copyright developed after the printing press came into use in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. It was associated with a common law and rooted in
10353-487: The legally recognised rights and interests of others. Most copyright laws state that authors or other right owners have the right to authorise or prevent certain acts in relation to a work. Right owners can authorise or prohibit: Moral rights are concerned with the non-economic rights of a creator. They protect the creator's connection with a work as well as the integrity of the work. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with
10472-429: The likelihood of a defense of "innocent infringement" being successful. In the UK, the publisher of a work automatically owns the copyright in the "typographical arrangement of a published work", i.e. its layout and general appearance as a published work. This copyright lasts for 25 years after the end of the year in which the edition containing that arrangement was first published. Copyrights are generally enforced by
10591-607: The moral rights regime within the UK is often regarded as weaker or inferior to the protection of moral rights in continental Europe and elsewhere in the world. The Berne Convention, in Article 6bis, requires its members to grant authors the following rights: These and other similar rights granted in national laws are generally known as the moral rights of authors. The Berne Convention requires these rights to be independent of authors' economic rights. Moral rights are only accorded to individual authors and in many national laws they remain with
10710-722: The other. Sega and Nintendo sought to "license" access to their hardware platforms, and each company developed software "locks" to keep out cartridges that did not have the proper "key." Accolade sought a license from Sega for its key, but negotiations broke down over price. Accolade then decided to reverse engineer Sega's lock and key system. To do so, it had to download (copy) all of the computer code from Sega's product and disassemble it (translate it from machine code into human-readable assembly). Accolade succeeded and began to market new video games that it independently wrote, which were capable of being operated in Sega consoles. This led to copyright infringement litigation, in which Sega alleged that
10829-424: The owner's permission, often through a license. The owner's use of the property must, however, respect the legally recognised rights and interests of other members of society. So the owner of a copyright-protected work may decide how to use the work, and may prevent others from using it without permission. National laws usually grant copyright owners exclusive rights to allow third parties to use their works, subject to
10948-505: The photocopying of worship music Online access of worship song lyrics, sound samples, and download of lead sheets, chord sheets, and soprano/alto/tenor/bass hymn sheets In a joint venture with MPLC, under the company name of Christian Video Licensing International, for the copyright licensing of the playing of videos / DVDs for church activities CVLI introduced ScreenVue in 2003 as a separate service available for CVLI Video Licensees. ScreenVue offers both free and paid membership which gives
11067-437: The plaintiff did not enjoy copyright protection. The plaintiffs' works lacked enough originality to acquire copyright protection of their own. They were too close to the original works on which they were based. Copyright ownership in a derivative work attaches only if the derivative work is lawful, because of a license or other "authorization." The U.S. Copyright Office says in its circular on derivative works: In any case where
11186-588: The potential to increase sales. According to the IP Commission Report the annual cost of intellectual property infringement to the US economy "continues to exceed $ 225 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software, and theft of trade secrets and could be as high as $ 600 billion." A 2019 study sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), in partnership with NERA Economic Consulting "estimates that global online piracy costs
11305-426: The preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 U.S.C. § 106 provides: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has
11424-826: The printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662 , which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company , giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed. The Statute of Anne , enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect copyrights (but not authors' rights). The Copyright Act of 1814 extended more rights for authors but did not protect British from reprinting in
11543-434: The prototypical Mickey, Donald, and Pluto, authored by Disney and subsequently represented by Disney or its licensees in a seemingly limitless variety of forms and media." Because the court considered that "it is clear that the originality requirement imposed by the Constitution and the Copyright Act has particular significance in the case of derivative works based on copyrighted preexisting works," it denied relief and dismissed
11662-445: The proverb about " standing on the shoulders of giants ." The number of derivative works has been adversely impacted by the introduction of the copyright law, which made them illegal in numerous circumstances, and positively by the spread of the copyleft ethos in the late 20th and early 21st century. For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be
11781-440: The publishing of low-priced paperbacks for the masses. This was profitable for authors and led to a proliferation of books, enhanced knowledge, and was ultimately an important factor in the ascendency of Germany as a power during that century. After the introduction of creator's rights, German publishers started to follow English customs, in issuing only expensive book editions for wealthy customers. Empirical evidence derived from
11900-441: The quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. ...[If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing
12019-683: The quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable other uses. The concept, as Leval and the Campbell Court described it, developed in relation to fair use of traditional works: literary works, musical works, and pictorial works. But recently courts have extended this rationale to Internet and computer-related works. In such cases, as illustrated by Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. ,
12138-547: The relevant policy. The performance of works in copyright (for example, playing music) as part of an act of worship is specifically exempted from copyright laws in several countries. US Copyright Law [17 USC §110], for example, explicitly states that performances of "religious nature" during a service "at a place of worship or other religious assembly" are "not infringements of copyright." However, there are no exemptions for creating copies (e.g. printed, projection slides, recordings), translating, or making new arrangements. No license
12257-406: The reproduction of words of songs for church worship use (The CCLI Church License does not allow a licensee to make copies of performance music pieces. From the CCLI.COM License: "3.0 restrictions: This license does not allow churches to do the following: Photocopy or duplicate any photo sheet music (octavos) cantadas, musicals, handbell music, keyboard music, vocal solo, or instrumental works.") For
12376-489: The song " Oh, Pretty Woman " by 2 Live Crew was an unauthorized derivative work, fair use was still available as a complete defense. This case marked the Supreme Court's pointing to transformativeness as a major clue to application of the fair use defense to derivative works. The defense of fair use has become very important in computer- and Internet-related works. Two 1992 Ninth Circuit decisions are illustrative. In Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. ,
12495-435: The storage medium. The equivalent for digital online content is a paywall . The introduction of the photocopier , cassette tape , and videotape made it easier for consumers to copy materials like books and music, but each time a copy was made, it lost some fidelity. Digital media like text, audio, video, and software (even when stored on physical media like compact discs and DVDs ) can be copied losslessly, and shared on
12614-410: The subscriber access to movie clips for illustration use in sermons or other presentations. As of 10 February 2017, the annual fee for a US CCLI license ranged from $ 59 (for a church size less than 25 people) to $ 5,266 (for a church size greater than 200,000 people). License fees are similar for churches in other countries, taking exchange rates into account. "CCLI distributes the majority of
12733-408: The technique and notes that the technique (as well as commercial registries) does not constitute dispositive proof that the work is original or establish who created the work. The Berne Convention allows member countries to decide whether creative works must be "fixed" to enjoy copyright. Article 2, Section 2 of the Berne Convention states: "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of
12852-537: The term '"œuvre dérivée" is sometimes used. It is defined in article L 113-2, paragraph 2 of the Intellectual Property Code as "new works into which pre-existing work [is incorporated], without the collaboration of its author". The Court of Cassation has interpreted this statute as requiring two distinct inputs at different points in time. The Court of Justice of the European Union in 2010 decided on
12971-402: The terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ. Authors' rights are, generally speaking, from the start absolute property rights of an author of original work that one does not have to apply for. The law is automatically connecting an original work as intellectual property to its creator. Although
13090-400: The territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works "cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent. Typically, the public law duration of a copyright expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, depending on
13209-453: The use of technology to copy works in the nations that ratified it. The Trans-Pacific Partnership includes intellectual property provisions relating to copyright. Copyright laws and authors' right laws are standardized somewhat through these international conventions such as the Berne Convention and Universal Copyright Convention. These multilateral treaties have been ratified by nearly all countries, and international organizations such as
13328-459: The use of their works by others. Moral rights allow authors and creators to take certain actions to preserve and protect their link with their work. The author or creator may be the owner of the economic rights or those rights may be transferred to one or more copyright owners. Many countries do not allow the transfer of moral rights. With any kind of property, its owner may decide how it is to be used, and others can use it lawfully only if they have
13447-445: The work has gone through substantial revisions. The proper copyright notice for sound recordings of musical or other audio works is a sound recording copyright symbol (℗, the letter P inside a circle, Unicode U+2117 ℗ SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT ), which indicates a sound recording copyright, with the letter P indicating a " phonorecord ". In addition, the phrase All rights reserved which indicates that
13566-403: The work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders. These rights normally include reproduction, control over derivative works , distribution, public performance , and moral rights such as attribution. Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state do not extend beyond
13685-474: The world to Australia, Botswana, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe, South Korea and as of 2016 can now serve most countries. The mechanism of copyright solution invented by CCLI has been cited by the United States government and official copyright organization in United Kingdom when introducing
13804-459: Was a copy of Snyder's— it undoubtedly was— but whether or not Snyder could claim copyright protection, which the court decided he could not. In the subsequent Durham case, the court applied the same principle in a suit between two different Disney toy licensees in which one licensee claimed that the other had pirated his Mickey Mouse , Donald Duck and Pluto . Durham conceded that in making these toys it used Tomy's Disney figures as models. That
13923-442: Was important to its marketing program. The court held, among other things, that the fair use defense shielded Galoob's conduct. The court said that "a party who distributes a copyrighted work cannot dictate how that work is to be enjoyed. Consumers may use ... a Game Genie to enhance a Nintendo Game cartridge's audiovisual display in such a way as to make the experience more enjoyable." In Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. ,
14042-401: Was not changed or reproduced, only bonded to ceramic and sold. The court held that this act was not original and creative enough to rise to the level of creating a derivative work, but effectively similar to any other form of display or art frame. Distribution rights differ from reproduction rights. While the first-sale doctrine entitles the copyright holder to begin the distribution chain of
14161-423: Was not determinative. The court said that "the only aspects of Tomy's Disney figures entitled to copyright protection are the non-trivial, original features, if any, contributed by the author or creator of these derivative works." But Tomy's toys reflected "no independent creation, no distinguishable variation from preexisting works, nothing recognizably the author's own contribution that sets Tomy's figures apart from
#458541