Fletcher V Peck Extended the Supreme Court Power to Review Acts of Congress

United states of america police

Copyright Human activity of 1976

Long title	An Act for the general revision of the Copyright Law, title 17 of the United States Code, and for other purposes
Enacted by	the 94th United States Congress
Effective	January 1, 1978
Citations
Public law	Pub.L. 94–553
Statutes at Large	xc Stat. 2541
Codification
Acts amended	Copyright Human action of 1909
Titles amended	17 (Copyright)
U.s.a.C. sections created	17 United statesC. §§ 101-810
U.Southward.C. sections amended	44 U.S.C. §§ 505, 2113; 18 U.S.C. § 2318
Legislative history
Introduced in the Us Senate equally S.22 by John Little McClellan (D–AR) on January 15, 1975 Committee consideration by House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Courts, Ceremonious Liberties, and the Assistants of Justice); Senate Judiciary Committee Passed the Senate on February 19, 1976 Passed the House on September thirty, 1976 Reported past the articulation conference committee on September 29, 1976; agreed to by the Senate on September 30, 1976  and past the Business firm on September 30, 1976 Signed into law past President Gerald Ford on October 19, 1976
Major amendments
Visual Artists Rights Act Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 Audio Home Recording Deed No Electronic Theft Human action Copyright Term Extension Human activity Digital Millennium Copyright Human action Family Entertainment and Copyright Act Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act

The Copyright Deed of 1976 is a United States copyright police force and remains the chief basis of copyright police force in the United States, as amended past several later enacted copyright provisions.^{[ commendation needed ]} The Act spells out the basic rights of copyright holders, codified the doctrine of "fair apply", and for most new copyrights adopted a unitary term based on the date of the author's expiry rather than the prior scheme of fixed initial and renewal terms. Information technology became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January ane, 1978.^[1]

History and purpose [edit]

Before the 1976 Deed, the terminal major revision to statutory copyright law in the United States occurred in 1909.^{[ citation needed ]} In deliberating the Human activity, Congress noted that all-encompassing technological advances had occurred since the adoption of the 1909 Act. Television, motion pictures, sound recordings, and radio were cited equally examples. The Human action was designed in part to address intellectual property questions raised by these new forms of advice.^[2]

Aside from advances in technology, the other principal impetus behind the adoption of the 1976 Human activity was the development of and the United States' participation in the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (and its predictable participation in the Berne Convention). While the U.S. became a party to the UCC in 1955, the machinery of government was slow to update U.South. copyright law to conform to the Convention'southward standards.^{[ citation needed ]} Barbara Ringer, the U.s.a. Register of Copyrights, took an active role in drafting a new copyright act.^[3]

In the years following the Usa' adoption of the UCC, Congress commissioned multiple studies on a full general revision of copyright police force, culminating in a published study in 1961. A draft of the bill was introduced in both the House and Senate in 1964, but the original version of the Human activity was revised multiple times between 1964 and 1976 (see Firm written report number 94-1476). The bill was passed as South. 22 of the 94th Congress past a vote of 97–0 in the Senate on February xix, 1976. Due south. 22 was passed past a vote of 316–vii in the House of Representatives on September 22, 1976.^{[ commendation needed ]} The terminal version was adopted into law as title 17 of the The states Code on October nineteen, 1976 when Gerald Ford signed it. The police went into issue on January 1, 1978. At the time, the police force was considered to exist a fair compromise between publishers' and authors' rights.^{[ citation needed ]}

Barbara Ringer called the new police force "a balanced compromise that comes down on the authors' and creators' side in nearly every instance."^[4] The police was almost exclusively discussed in publishers' and librarians' journals, with little discussion in the mainstream press. The claimed advantage of the law'due south extension of the term of subsisting copyrights was that "royalties will be paid to widows and heirs for an actress 19 years for such about-to-elapse copyrights every bit those on Sherword Anderson'due south Winesburg, Ohio".^[four] The other intent of the extension was to protect authors' rights "for life plus 50 years—the most mutual term internationally and the one Twain fought for in his lifetime".^{[ citation needed ] [4]} Further extensions of both term and scope had been desired by some, as outlined in a Time article.^[4]

Pregnant portions of the Human activity [edit]

Expansion of U.S. copyright police force (assuming authors create their works at age 35 and alive for lxx years)

The 1976 Act, through its terms, displaces all previous copyright laws in the The states insofar equally those laws disharmonize with the Act.^{[ citation needed ]} Those include prior federal legislation, such as the Copyright Deed of 1909, and extend to all relevant common law and state copyright laws.^{[ citation needed ]}

Subject matter of copyright [edit]

Under section 102 of the Human activity, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, at present known or later on developed, from which they tin be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either direct or with the aid of a machine or device". The Act defines "works of authorship" as any of the following:

1. literary works,
2. musical works, including any accompanying words,
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music,
4. pantomimes and choreographic works,
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and
7. sound recordings.^[5]

An eighth category, architectural works, was added in 1990.

The wording of department 102 is significant mainly considering information technology effectuated a major change in the way of United States copyright protection.^{[ citation needed ]} Under the concluding major statutory revision to U.S. copyright police, the Copyright Act of 1909, federal statutory copyright protection attached to original works only when those works were 1) published and ii) had a notice of copyright affixed. State copyright law governed protection for unpublished works before the adoption of the 1976 Deed, but published works, whether containing a notice of copyright or non, were governed exclusively by federal law. If no notice of copyright was affixed to a work and the work was, in fact, "published" in a legal sense, the 1909 Deed provided no copyright protection and the piece of work became part of the public domain.^{[ citation needed ]} Under the 1976 Act, however, section 102 says that copyright protection extends to original works that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression.^{[ citation needed ]} Thus, the 1976 Deed broadened the scope of federal statutory copyright protection from "published" works to works that are "fixed".^{[ commendation needed ]}

Section 102(b) excludes several categories from copyright protection, partly codifying the concept of idea–expression distinction from Bakery v. Selden.^{[ commendation needed ]} It requires that "in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of performance, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such piece of work."^[5]

Music [edit]

There are separate copyright protections for musical compositions and sound recordings. Composition copyright includes lyrics and unless self-published, is usually transferred under the terms of a publishing contract. Many tape companies volition also crave that sound recording copyright exist transferred to them every bit part of the terms of an anthology release, still the owner of the composition copyright is not ever the aforementioned every bit the owner of the sound recording copyright.^[six]

Exclusive rights [edit]

Section 106 granted five sectional rights to copyright holders, all of which are discipline to the remaining sections in chapter 1 (currently, sections 107–122):

1. the right to reproduce (re-create) the work into copies and phonorecords,
2. the right to create derivative works of the original piece of work,
3. the right to distribute copies and phonorecords of the work to the public by auction, lease, or rental,
4. the correct to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, move moving picture, or other audiovisual piece of work), and
5. the correct to display the piece of work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motility movie, or other audiovisual work).^[7]

A sixth exclusive right was later included in 1995 by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Human activity: the correct to perform a sound recording past means of digital audio.

Off-white use [edit]

Additionally, the off-white utilise defense force to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Human activity. Fair use was non a novel proffer in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common constabulary form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common constabulary doctrine with fiddling modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such utilize technically violates section 106. While fair utilise explicitly applies to utilise of copyrighted piece of work for criticism, news reporting, didactics, scholarship, or enquiry purposes, the defense force is not limited to these areas. The Human activity gives 4 factors to be considered to decide whether a particular employ is a fair utilize:

1. the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, trans-formative or reproductive, political);
2. the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the caste of creativity);
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used; and
4. the effect of the use upon the market (or potential marketplace) for the original work.^[8]

The Act was subsequently amended to extend the fair use defence force to unpublished works.^[ix]

Term of protection [edit]

Previous copyright law set the duration of copyright protection at 28 years with a possibility of a 28 year extension, for a total maximum term of 56 years. The 1976 Act, however, substantially increased the term of protection. Section 302 of the Act extended protection to "a term consisting of the life of the author and fifty years after the author's decease".^[10] In add-on, the Act created a static 75-year term (dated from the engagement of publication) for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for rent. The extension term for works copyrighted earlier 1978 that had not already entered the public domain was increased from 28 years to 47 years, giving a total term of 75 years. In 1998 the Copyright Term Extension Human action further extended copyright protection to the elapsing of the author's life plus 70 years for general copyrights and to 95 years from date of publication or 120 years from appointment of cosmos, whichever comes showtime, for works fabricated for hire. Works copyrighted earlier 1978 accept a duration of protection that depends on a variety of factors.^{[ citation needed ]}

Transfer of copyright [edit]

Section 204 of the Act governs the transfer of buying of copyrights. The section requires a copyright holder to sign a written musical instrument of conveyance that expressly transfers buying of the copyright to the intended recipient for a transfer to be constructive.^[11] Prior instance law on this outcome was alien, with some cases espousing a rule similar to department 204 and others reaching a quite unlike conclusion.^{[ commendation needed ]} In the 1942 New York case Pushman five. New York Graphic Society,^[12] for case, the court held that although a copyright in a work is distinct from a property right in a copy of the work, where the only existing re-create of the work is transferred, the copyright is transferred along with the copy, unless expressly withheld by the writer. Section 202 of the 1976 Human action retains the property right/copyright distinction, but section 204 eliminates the inconsistent common law past assuming that the copyright is withheld by the writer unless it is expressly transferred.

Registration and deposit [edit]

Co-ordinate to department 408 of the Act, registration of a work with the Copyright Office is non a prerequisite for copyright protection.^[13] The Act does, however, allow for registration, and gives the Copyright Office the ability to promulgate the necessary forms. Bated from Copyright Office paperwork, the Act requires only that one copy, or two copies if the work has been published, be deposited with the Office to achieve registration. Though registration is not required for copyright protection to attach to a piece of work, section 411 of the Act does require registration before a copyright infringement action by the creator of the work can keep.^[14] Even if registration is denied, however, an infringement action can continue if the creator of the work joins the Copyright Part every bit a accused, requiring the courtroom to determine the copyrightability of the work before addressing the outcome of infringement.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Termination rights [edit]

The Human activity besides codified the power for writers and other artists that license their work to others to act on termination rights 35 years after the publication of the work.^[xv] This was intended to allow these people to renegotiate licenses at the later period if the value of the original work was not apparent at the time or cosmos. This protection only applies to works made afterward 1978, and does not apply to works fabricated for hire. The law requires the creator to issue notice of termination at to the lowest degree two years prior to the 35-year date giving the rights holder time to prepare.^[xvi]

Bear on on innovation [edit]

One of the functions of the Copyright Royalty Judges defined past the Copyright Act is to "minimize any disruptive bear on on the structure of the industries involved and on generally prevailing industry practices". Critics of the law have questioned this aspect of it, every bit it discourages innovation and perpetuates older businesses.^[17]

Legacy [edit]

Impact on net radio [edit]

Streaming music on a portable device is mainstream today, merely digital radio and music streaming websites such equally Pandora are fighting an uphill battle when information technology comes to copyright protection. 17 USC 801(b)(1)(D) of the Copyright Act states that Copyright Royalty Judges should "minimize any confusing impact on the structure of the industries involved and on more often than not prevailing industry practices".^[17] "Much of the initial drafting of the '76 Act was by the Copyright Function, which chaired a series of meetings with prominent industry copyright lawyers throughout the 1960s".^[xviii] Some believe^{[ who? ]} that Section 106 was designed with the intent to maximize litigation to the benefit of the legal industry, and gives also much power and protection to the copyright holder while weakening fair utilise.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Critics of the Copyright Act say that Pandora volition never be assisting if something does not change considering "services similar Pandora already pay over 60 percent of their revenue in licensing fees while others pay far less for delivering the same service. As a event, services similar Pandora have been unable to meet profitability and sustainability is already in question." An increase in subscription fees would likely be an end to Pandora's business organisation.^[19]

Impacts of termination rights [edit]

The termination right clause only started taking effect in 2013, with notably Victor Willis terminating rights on the songs he had written for The Village People. A lawsuit resulted from this activity Scorpio Music, et al. v. Willis in 2012 (later on Willis had filed find of termination to Scorpio Music, the music benefactor, and which the court upheld Willis' termination rights). Subsequently, other songwriters began seeking termination rights.^[16] This has also become an issue in the picture industry, as the rights to many iconic 1980s motion-picture show franchises are being terminated by their original writers, such as past the family of Roderick Thorp whose novel Nothing Lasts Forever was adjusted into Dice Hard.^[20]

Run into likewise [edit]

• United States copyright law
• Digital Millennium Copyright Human action
• Copyright Term Extension Act

Proposed legislation

• Section 115 Reform Act of 2006

References [edit]

1. ^ Decisions of the U.s.a. Courts Involving Copyright. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1985. pp. 311–.
2. ^ Meet House report number 94-1476.
3. ^ "Barbara A. Ringer '49". Archived from the original on 2014-06-02. Retrieved 2014-06-04 .
4. ^ ^{a b c d} "Righting Copyright", Fourth dimension, Nov i, 1976, p. 92.
5. ^ ^{a b} 17 UsC. 102
6. ^ Demers, Joanna (2006). Steal This Music: How Intellectual Property Law Affects Musical Inventiveness . The University of Georgia Printing. p. 22.
7. ^ 17 The statesC. 106
8. ^ 17 U.s.C. 107
9. ^ Public Law 102-492 – via Wikisource.
10. ^ "U.S. Copyright Act of 1976" (PDF). United States Business firm of Representatives. p. xc STAT. 2572.
11. ^ 17 U.S.C. 204
12. ^ Pushman five. New York Graphic Gild, 39 N.E.2d 249 (N.Y. 1942)
13. ^ 17 U.Southward.C. 408
14. ^ 17 UsC. 411
15. ^ 17 United states of americaC. 203
16. ^ ^{a b} Caplan, Brian (August 2012). "Navigating Us Copyright Termination Rights". WIPO Mag . Retrieved October 2, 2019.
17. ^ ^{a b} Masnick, Mike (17 September 2012). "The Copyright Act Explicitly Says Confusing Innovation Should Exist Blocked". techdirt.com. Mike Masnick. Retrieved 21 Dec 2014.
18. ^ Weber, Peter (ten July 2014). "Decease to Pandora? A guide to the looming music copyright war". Retrieved 21 December 2014.
19. ^ Versace, Chris (23 June 2014). "The Future of Streaming Music Residual with Congress". Pull a fast one on Business. Archived from the original on 27 November 2014. Retrieved 21 December 2014.
20. ^ Gardner, Eriq (October 2, 2019). "Real-Life 'Terminator': Major Studios Face Sweeping Loss of Iconic '80s Film Franchise Rights". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved October two, 2019.

External links [edit]

• US Copyright Function, Championship 17
• Cornell Constabulary School, on Copyright
• Earth wide school.org
• New York Law School Law Review, The Complete Guide to the New Copyright Constabulary, Lorenz Printing Inc., 1977, ISBN 0-89328-013-v
• Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians (Circular 21). The states Copyright Office, United States Library of Congress.(This circular cites and describes the key legislative history documents for the law, and briefly outlines the guidance that the legislative history provides.)

duffgerentow.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

Share this post