The Copyright Handbook

Home > Other > The Copyright Handbook > Page 52
The Copyright Handbook Page 52

by Stephen Fishman


  Publishing, LLC., 409 F.Supp.2d 587 (D.

  or her derivative rights retains the right to

  N.J. 2006).) For example, one court held that

  receive part of the total fee (often a royalty)

  the law did not apply to copyright notices

  from their exploitation.

  placed on fabric designs. ( Textile Secrets Int’l,

  EXAMPLE: Bill sel s the film rights to his

  Inc. v. Ya-Ya Brand Inc. , 524 F.Supp.2d

  Hussein biography to Repulsive Pictures in

  1184, 1192-93 (C.D. Cal. 2007).) However,

  return for $100,000 and a 5% share of the

  other courts have disagreed with this view,

  profits from the film. Acme Productions

  and held that the statute applies to all types

  releases an unauthorized film based on Bil ’s of copyright notices. For example, a court biography. Both Bill and Repulsive may sue

  held that the law was violated when someone

  Acme. However, because it would get most

  removed a handwritten copyright notice from

  of the recovery from a suit against Acme,

  architectural plans and falsely claimed to

  Repulsive would likely carry the ball in this

  be the copyright owner of the plans. ( Fox v.

  situation—that is, its attorneys would do

  Hildebrand, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60886 at

  most of the work and Bill would simply join

  *2, 5-8 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2009).)

  along as a plaintiff.

  CHAPTER 11 | COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT | 295

  Compromise Settlement Letter for Example 1

  Felix Franklin

  Editor-in-Chief

  The Plagiarist’s Review

  123 Copycat Lane

  New York, NY 10000

  Dear Mr. Franklin:

  This letter embodies the terms of our settlement of the outstanding dispute

  arising from publication of the article “Old Ideas In New Bottles” in the

  November 20xx issue of The Plagiarist’s Review:

  1. Sal y Bowles hereby retroactively grants The Plagiarist’s Review a

  nonexclusive license to reprint her article “Old Ideas In New Bottles” in

  its November 20xx issue.

  2. The Plagiarist’s Review promises to print a prominently placed

  correction in its March 20xx issue, in words approved by Sal y Bowles,

  informing its readers that Sal y Bowles was the author of the article “Old

  Ideas In New Bottles” that ran in the November 20xx issue and that her

  name had been left off the article in error.

  3. The Plagiarist’s Review also promises to publish the fol owing articles by

  Sal y Bowles at its customary fee no later than December 20xx;

  • an approximately 2,000-word article tentatively entitled “What to Do

  If You’re Accused of Plagiarism,” and

  • an article of approximately 1,500 words on the subject of marketing

  freelance writing.

  Sally Bowles

  Sally Bowles

  Date

  Felix Franklin, Editor-in-Chief

  Date

  The Plagiarist’s Review

  296 | THE COPYRIGHT HANDBOOK

  Compromise Settlement Letter for Example 2

  Lisa Bagatel e

  President

  Copycat Press

  100 Grub Street

  Boston, MA 10001

  Dear Ms. Bagatelle:

  This letter embodies the terms of our settlement of the outstanding dispute

  arising from Copycat Press’s publication of the book All of French History by

  Professor S.T. Cole:

  1. Copycat Press will pay James McCarthy the sum of $3,000 as

  compensation for the unauthorized use of material from his Ph.D.

  dissertation entitled The French Chamber of Deputies, 1932–1940.

  2. Copycat Press promises not to use any of James McCarthy’s work,

  including material from his Ph.D. dissertation, in the future without his

  authorization. This includes reprintings and new editions of All of French

  History and other works.

  3. James McCarthy agrees that this completely settles the matter in

  dispute between James McCarthy and Copycat Press, and releases

  Copycat Press from any further liability for publication of material from

  The French Chamber of Deputies, 1932–1940, by Copycat Press.

  James McCarthy

  James McCarthy

  Date

  Lisa Bagatel e, President

  Date

  Copycat Press

  CHAPTER 11 | COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT | 297

  What is copyright management information?

  For example, it is illegal to remove the

  Copyright management information includes: copyright notice from a digital work and

  • the title and other information

  then copy and place it online without the

  identifying the work

  copyright owner’s permission.

  • a work’s copyright notice

  Penalties for violations

  • the author’s name and any other identi-

  fying information about the author

  Any person injured by a violation of the

  • the copyright owner’s name and any

  law may sue the violator for damages and

  other identifying information about

  seek to obtain a court injunction ordering

  the owner

  the violator to stop distributing the work

  • any terms and conditions for use of the from which the copyright management

  work, and

  information was removed, altered, or falsified.

  • identifying numbers or symbols on

  Such a suit may be brought in addition to any

  the work referring to any of the above

  suit for copyright infringe ment the person

  information or Internet links to such

  may have against the violator.

  information.

  EXAMPLE: John is the author and copyright

  owner of an article about online business

  What can’t you do with copyright

  strategies that was published on a national

  management information?

  magazine’s website. He discovers that

  The law makes it illegal to do any of the

  the article has been copied and placed

  following if you know or have reasonable

  on another website without his or his

  grounds to know that it will induce, facili-

  publisher’s permission. John’s name, the

  tate, or conceal a copyright infringement:

  title of the article, the publisher’s name,

  • intentionally remove or alter any

  and the copyright notice were removed

  copyright information

  from the materials before they were

  • distribute, import for distribution,

  placed online. John can sue the national

  or publicly perform a work whose

  magazine (the owners of the website)

  copyright management information

  for copyright infringement because the

  has been removed or altered without

  magazine illegal y copied and distributed

  permission from the copyright owner

  his article. He can also sue the magazine

  or legal authority

  for removing the copyright management

  information from his work: his name, book

  • provide false copyright management

  title, copyright notice, and publisher’s name.

  informatio
n, or

  He can obtain damages for both violations:

  • distribute or import for distribution

  copyright infringement and illegal removal

  a work containing false copyright

  of copyright management information.

  management information.

  298 | THE COPYRIGHT HANDBOOK

  Ordinarily, both legal claims would be joined Exceptions for fair use and

  in a single lawsuit brought by John against

  public domain works

  the national magazine.

  There are some situations where it is per-

  If the suit is successful, the injured person missible to remove copyright management

  may obtain from the court an award of its

  information without the copyright owner’s

  actual monetary damages or may instead

  permission.

  ask for statutory damages. Such statutory

  First, the law provides that such an action

  damages range from a minimum of $2,500

  is permissible if permitted by law. One

  to a maximum of $25,000 per violation.

  case where the law may permit removing

  It’s up to the court to decide how much to

  copyright management information is when

  award within these limits. If the defendant is material is copied on the grounds of fair a repeat offender—has violated the law two use. The fair use privilege permits people to or more times within three years—the court copy portions of copyrighted works without

  may increase the damage award up to three obtaining permission from the copyright

  times. The court may also award the injured owner under certain circumstances. (See

  person attorneys’ fees and court costs.

  Chapter 10 for a detailed discussion of fair

  However, the court may reduce the

  use.) In some cases it may not be possible or

  damages or not award any damages at all if

  convenient to include copyright management

  the offender convinces the judge that he or she information when a work is copied on the was not aware and had no reason to believe

  grounds of fair use—for example, when

  that his or her acts constituted a violation. In

  creating a parody of a copyrighted work. In

  addition, the court may not award damages

  this event, its removal would likely not be

  against a nonprofit library, an archive, or an

  considered a legal violation.

  educational institution if the court finds that

  Although the law doesn’t explicitly say

  it was not aware and had no reason to believe so, it doesn’t apply to works that have

  that its acts constituted a violation.

  entered the public domain. Such works may

  A person or company that willfully

  be freely copied and altered in any way.

  violates the law for commercial advantage

  Since no one owns a public domain work,

  or private financial gain may be criminally

  no harm is done by removing copyright

  prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department. management information.

  Penalties are steep: A first-time offender can

  Final y, law enforcement, intel igence, and

  be fined up to $500,000 and imprisoned

  other government agencies are permitted

  up to five years. But nonprofit libraries,

  to alter or remove copyright management

  archives, and educational institutions are

  information in order to carry out lawful

  not subject to criminal prosecution.

  investigative, protective, information security,

  or intelligence activities.

  CHAPTER 11 | COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT | 299

  Criminal Prosecutions for Infringement

  Two different types of copyright

  infringement can now result in criminal

  Willful copyright infringement for

  liability. Let’s examine both in turn.

  financial gain has long been a federal crime,

  punishable by imprisonment, fines, or

  Wil ful infringement not for financial gain

  both. However, as a practical matter this

  didn’t mean much, because the federal

  First, it is now a federal crime to willfully

  authorities rarely bothered to prosecute

  reproduce or distribute by electronic or any

  copyright infringers. They just didn’t view

  other means one or more copyrighted works

  copyright infringement as a high-priority

  with a total retail value of $1,000 or more

  crime justifying allocation of limited law

  within any 180-day period. This is so even

  enforcement resources. This has changed,

  though the infringer earns no money or

  at least with regard to infringement of

  other financial gain from the infringement.

  computer software—an activity software

  There is a sliding scale of penalties that

  publishers claim costs them billions

  can be imposed against people convicted of

  of dollars every year. The U.S. Justice

  violating this law:

  Department and FBI have been actively

  • If the copyrighted works involved have

  going after software pirates.

  a total retail value of more than $1,000

  In the best-known case of its kind, the

  but less than $2,500, a violator can be

  U.S. Attorney attempted to prosecute an

  imprisoned for up to one year or fined

  MIT student who set up a computer bul etin

  up to $100,000 or both.

  board to dispense copyrighted software

  • If the offense consists of the reproduc-

  for free. The case was ultimately dismissed

  tion or distribution of ten or more

  because the infringer didn’t earn any money

  copies of one or more copyrighted

  from his actions. ( United States v. LaMacchia,

  works with a total retail value of

  871 F.Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).)

  $2,500 or more, the violator can be

  In response to this defeat, Congress

  imprisoned for up to three years and

  has amended the copyright law to permit

  fined up to $250,000. Jail time can be

  criminal prosecutions of those who commit

  increased to six years in the case of a

  copyright infringement, even if they don’t

  second offense.

  do so for financial gain. Although the law,

  This provision was specifically designed

  called the No Electronic Theft Act, was

  to apply to people who use the Internet

  specifically intended to deal with software

  or electronic bulletin boards to copy and

  piracy on the Internet, it is so broadly

  distribute pirated software, but who don’t

  written it could apply to other types of

  charge users for the copies or otherwise

  infringement as well.

  financially benefit from the infringement.

  300 | THE COPYRIGHT HANDBOOK

  However, this law is so broadly written

  Wil ful infringement for financial gain

  it could apply to others as well, even those

  The criminal penalties are greater if a person

  who don’t use the Internet. Theoretically,

  wil ful y commits copyright infringement

  anyone who makes an unauthorized copy of for financial gain. “Financial g
ain” includes

  any work or works worth more than $1,000 receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything could be subject to criminal prosecution

  of value, including the receipt of other

  by the federal government. For example, a

  copyrighted works.

  group of computer scientists has expressed

  If fewer than ten unauthorized copies

  the concern that scientists and educators

  are made, or the copied works have a retail

  who share their articles and research with

  value of less than $2,500, violators can be

  students and colleagues via the Internet

  imprisoned up to one year or fined up to

  could be subject to criminal prosecution.

  $100,000 or both.

  Others have expressed the fear that the

  If the offense consists of reproducing or

  law could abrogate the fair use rule that

  distributing during any 180-day period, at

  permits unauthorized copying under certain least ten copies of one or more copyrighted

  circumstances. (See Chapter 10.)

  works, with a retail value of more than

  These fears seem exaggerated. It’s hard to

  $2,500, violators can be jailed for up to five

  believe the U.S. Justice Department would

  years or fined up to $250,000 or both. Jail

  criminal y prosecute a scientist or an educator time can be increased to ten years in the who shares an article with col eagues. More-case of a second or subsequent offense.

  over, the requirement that the infringement

  be wil ful to be criminal y liable provides

  some protection. Courts disagree about what Who Is Liable for Infringement?

  “wil ful” means in this context, but most

  Although a primary goal may be simply to

  say that it means an intentional violation of

  stop a publisher from sel ing any more copies

  a known legal duty. (United States v. Moran,

  of an infringing work, you are also entitled

  757 F.Supp. 1046, (D. Neb. 1991).) It would

  to col ect damages from those liable for the

  seem that a person who makes a copy of a

  infringement. As discussed in Chapter 3,

  work in the good-faith belief that the copy-

  “Copyright Registration,” if you timely

  ing constitutes a fair use is not committing a

  registered your work, you may elect to receive

  wil ful copyright infringement and therefore

  special statutory damages and attorneys’ fees,

  should not be convicted under this law.

  which is an important right when your actual

  damages are very small or difficult to prove.

  CHAPTER 11 | COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT | 301

  Multiple Infringements

 

‹ Prev