Copyright Law Blog: Exclusive Rights

Category Archives: Pro-IP Act

Daily Copyright Roundup

Shourin Sen - 24 February 2010 – 9:00 am

Filed under Daily Copyright Roundup, Fair Use, IP Czar, Pro-IP Act, Settlement

I haven’t written a daily roundup in a while. There are a number of recent stories, besides the ACTA leak, that deserve a mention.

The Tennessean is reporting that a suit brought by a music publishing company against A&E over its use of twelve seconds of the song “Rocky Top” has settled. We discussed this case in mid-November when the Middle District of Tennessee found that the use by the network was not fair use, at least without further development of the factual record. No details of the settlement were released.

Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator or I.P. Czar, announced on the White House blog that she formally requested written submissions from the public on the Joint Strategic Plan for intellectual property enforcement:

To further these goals, we are working to find ways of measuring these threats and their impact on us. How many jobs depend on the existence of intellectual property? What are the greatest risks to health and safety? We need better data on these questions and it is part of my job to figure out what the answers are. We cannot do that without your help. So, my office is asking the public to give us information about the costs and the risks – and then give us suggestions for what we could be doing better as a government. As a first step, we are issuing a notice to the public asking for your input. Here’s a link to this request (pdf). You can send your comments to intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov. We look forward to hearing from you.

The formal request for written submissions is published in the Federal Register. (H/t Ben Sheffner.)

Eleanor M. Lackman, a Senior Associate in the IP, Media & Technology group at Lovells NY, wrote an article in the New York State Bar Association publication Bright Ideas on the standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction in copyright cases. The article, titled “Factoring in the Public Interest: The Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief in Copyright Cases,” discusses Salinger v. Colting and Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, and contains Ms. Lackman’s predictions about the future of the preliminary injunction standard:

Even in advance of that ruling, however, the debate in Salinger and other cases has awakened courts to the fact that injunctive relief in copyright cases may no longer be so easy to obtain—at least not without an evidentiary proffer on each of the four eBay factors, which were rarely addressed in copyright cases prior to eBay. eBay also may have an impact on the negotiation of licensing fees and money-based settlements.

In light of all the ways eBay might affect copyright law, this article addresses the following four questions: (1) Does the four-factor test enunciated in eBay apply to copyright cases? (2) Does the four-factor test apply to both preliminary and permanent injunctions? (3) How will the four factors be addressed by the courts? and (4) What can a potential copyright licensor, licensee, plaintiff, or defendant expect in the post-eBay world?

Court finds that distribution of sheet music to the U.K. that is made under license in the U.S. is nonifringing

Shourin Sen - 22 October 2009 – 9:00 am

Filed under Distribution Right, Extraterritoriality, Pro-IP Act

Music Sales Limited, et al., v. Charles Dumont & Son, Inc., 09-1443 RMB-JS (D. N.J. 2009)

There was an interesting decision issued in the federal district court in New Jersey that addressed the territorial limitations of the U.S. Copyright Act. The decision also contained a brief discussion of the new portions of 17 U.S.C. 602(a), as recently amended by the Pro-IP Act.

The Plaintiff, the leading distributor of sheet music in Europe, alleged that the Defendant infringed its exclusive right to distribute music in the U.K. by exporting copies across the Atlantic. The Plaintiff was unable to allege that the Defendant infringed its copyright by making copies in the United States because the Defendant had a license to do so. The Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Said the Court in regards to the claim that the Defendant infringed the plaintiff’s 106(3) distribution right:

To be clear, the unauthorized distribution of a work in the United Kingdom, by mailing the work from the United States to the United Kingdom, does not constitute infringement under the Copyright Act. Section 106(3) creates a right of distribution in the United States only; any right of distribution that exists in the United Kingdom is a manifestation of British law. Plaintiffs treat the copyright laws of disparate nations as if they comprise a seamless ensemble, with infringement of any one’s law enforceable wherever the act was committed. Of course, this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is limited to cases arising under the Copyright Act; it has no power to vindicate violations of British law.

17 U.S.C. 602(a) as amended by the Pro-IP Act

The Pro-IP Act, which was signed into law in October of last year, amended, among other things, Section 602. The Act created a new exclusive right of exportation:

(a) INFRINGING IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION.

(1) IMPORTATION—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501.

(2) IMPORTATION OR EXPORTATION OF INFRINGING ITEMS.—Importation into the United States or exportation from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506.

The Court asked for briefing on whether 602 as amended could create liability for the Defendant. Both parties agreed that it didn’t apply:

Here, there is no allegation that the infringing copies were made in violation of copyright; Plaintiffs allege only that the distribution of the (otherwise lawful) copies infringes upon their license. This position is certainly consistent with a plain reading of the statute, and since Plaintiffs agree that the exportation right does not apply here, the Court need not decide its scope.