E-Commerce Times Interview With New York Media Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq. - Massive Hammer Falls On Megaupload

E-Commerce Times Interview With

New YorkMedia Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq. -

Massive Hammer Falls on Megaupload

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/74234.html

By Rachelle Dragani

E-Commerce Times
01/20/12 10:52 AM PT

Megaupload has been shut down by the U.S. Department of Justice, which also arrested several of the site's top executives. The Hong Kong-based file-hosting site was a haven for copyrighted material, according to authorities. The D.O.J. also seized millions of dollars in assets belonging to the business and its managers.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday shuttered Megaupload, a popular file-sharing website, charging seven of its executives with engaging in an international criminal enterprise based on copyright infringement.

Federal authorities called it one of the largest criminal copyright cases in U.S. history. Megaupload, its movie streaming site Megavideo, and its various sister sites were down at the time of publication.

Four of the seven execs charged are now in federal custody, including the site's founder Kim Dotcom (formerly Kim Schmitz). He and Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk were arrested in New Zealand Thursday after authorities obtained about 20 search warrants around the U.S., New Zealandand seven other countries. Each of the seven accused, including the three others that remain at large, are charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. If convicted, they could face 20 years behind bars.

They will be held at least until Monday, when there is a second hearing scheduled.

Mega Indictment

Megaupload and its corresponding sites had generated US$175 million worth of illegal proceeds, according to the D.O.J., and the losses to copyright owners added up to more than $500 million. Kim Dotcom pulled in $42 million from the site in the past year, according to authorities.

The indictment, issued by a grand jury in Virginia, details some of the reasons the D.O.J. targeted Megaupload. It claims that the site facilitated the trading of some movies even before their theatrical releases, that the site ignored removal notices from rights holders, and that the site's executives were laundering money through a Megaupload rewards program that paid users to upload certain content.

In addition to the arrests, authorities also reportedly seized artwork, electronics, guns and millions in cash from the New Zealand home. Several luxury cars, including a Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe and a pink 1959 Cadillac were also seized. As part of the other search warrants, servers, domain names and about $50 million in assets were seized.

The site will now be run by Kaseem Dean, also known as "Swizz Beatz", who is the CEO of the site but wasn't named in the case. His partnership with the site became more well-known last month when Megaupload released "The Mega Song", which featured heavy-hitting entertainment figures such as Kanye West, Will.i.am and Kim Kardashian voicing their support for the site despite its allegedly pirated material.

Some of Megaupload's fans appear to be retaliating. Late Thursday afternoon, websites for the D.O.J., Universal Music Group, the MPAA and the RIAA were down, with the hacker community Anonymous claiming credit.

Representatives from neither the D.O.J. nor Megaupload responded to our requests for comment.

What's Up Next?

The arrests could be the beginning of a lengthy legal battle will likely ensue.

"The New Zealand authorities who arrested the Megaupload folks yesterday have promised cooperation with extradition to the U.S.", [one commentator] told the E-Commerce Times. "There will be lots of legal wrangling and motions to dismiss, to exclude certain items of evidence. Then, probably many months from now, the trial will be held, unless the parties agree to a plea bargain. Whether the defendants will be released on bail is anyone's guess".

For most of that time, the site will probably remain shuttered, and the legal plausibility of re-opening under a different domain name, one that's untouchable by U.S.regulations, is slim.

"At least in the U.S., it's likely that the shutdown of access to the site will continue. I can't say what will happen in other countries, but I'd guess that some of those who are signatory to the Berne Convention [international copyright treaty] will honor the U.S.takedown. It is certainly possible that the site could re-emerge under another domain controlled by another country, but the U.S. Courts could order U.S.-based DNS Service providers to block access there too", said [one commentator].

Concerned over the international nature of the case, several privacy protection advocates, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have condemned the arrest procedure that wound up placing German and Danish citizens residing in New Zealand in the custody of U.S.authorities.

Since the indictment was issued to protect the rights of U.S. copyright holders, however, authorities could obtain worldwide search warrants.

"We're in a world economy now", entertainment lawyer John J. Tormey III told the E-Commerce Times. "Our federal government knows how to pursue, and in some cases take possession of, off-shore assets and off-shore people. The feds may be thwarted trying to reach someone in North Korea, but my bet is that they can reach someone in New Zealand".

Another Privacy Battle

The arrests and seizures occurred in the midst of another federal copyright infringement battle: the fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. The bill would strengthen the powers of authorities and rights holders to crack down on sites -- even foreign ones -- that are suspected of trafficking in copyrighted content. The bill's opponents say SOPA is too broad, however, and could hurt sites that aren't engaging in illegal activity at all.

The arrests came the day after some of the Web's most popular sites such as Wikipedia and Reddit blacked out to raise awareness of SOPA.

After the arrests on Thursday, the authorities involved said the two cases were not related.

"The timing is ironic, but the investigation has been going on for quite some time. Also, indictments don't usually happen on short notice. I suspect the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office have been planning this for months. But they may have timed the arrests and shutdown of the site to capitalize on the publicity connected to yesterday's site blackouts", said [one commentator].

In zeroing in on Megaupload, the D.O.J. targeted a site with more than 150 million registered users and about 50 million daily hits. In addition, the site has the support of some big names in the entertainment industry, somewhat of a rarity for such an enterprise.

"The infringers just had a real long drink at the trough. A real long swing on the pendulum - now, we're seeing the pendulum swing back", said Tormey. "It's OK to start a new business. It's not OK to start a new business and pretend that the federal law governing the business does not exist. Pretending that the U.S. Copyright Act does not exist will probably turn out to be an extensive and expensive strategic mistake for the Napsters of our day".

Brits Demand Pirate Bay Blockade - Interview With Entertainment Attorney John J. Tormey III, Esq.

BRITS DEMAND PIRATE BAY BLOCKADE -

INTERVIEW WITH ENTERTAINMENT ATTORNEY JOHN J. TORMEY III, ESQ.

Brits Demand Pirate BayBlockade
By Rachelle Dragani
E-Commerce Times
11/07/11 11:02 AM PT
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/73695.html

British lobby group BPI wants one of the UK's largest Internet service providers, BT, to ban its customers from accessing file-sharing website The Pirate Bay. The site's been blocked in a handful of countries before, yet it lives on as one of the Web's most popular destinations for those looking to share copyrighted material online.

http://n4g.com/news/883338/brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade

A coalition of film studios, record labels and media entities led by the UKrecord industry lobby group BPI recently sent a letter to British Internet service provider (ISP) BT demanding that the company block access to The Pirate Bay website.

http://current.com/technology/93533031_brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade.htm

The group said that if BT doesn't act within two weeks, the matter will proceed to court. BPI is banking on the recent UK court decision regarding Newzbin2, a British file-sharing website recently blocked by court order.

http://www.corkboard.it/posting/show/21302-brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade

It was the first British website to be blocked for reasons besides carrying offensive material such as child abuse images, and BPI is hoping to capitalize on that decision and get the courts to again demand blocking The Pirate Bay, which provides visitors with files that can be used to share media and data online, including copyrighted works.

http://digg.com/news/entertainment/technology_news_piracy_brits_demand_pirate_bay_blockade

It's not the first time The Pirate Bay has faced such demands since its start eight years ago by a Swedish anti-copyright organization. Lawsuits and raids have led to brief downtimes for the website, as well as restrictions, fines and prison sentences for its creators. The site is blocked in Denmark, Finland, and Italy.

http://www.startaid.com/review/19279486/Brits-Demand-Pirate-Bay-Blockade.html

BT indicated to The Guardian that it would await a court order before blocking any Web content. The Pirate Bay, BPI and BP did not respond to the E-Commerce Times' requests for further comment.

http://sitemarks.in/technology/brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade/

Copyright Battles

"The effects of illegal downloading and piracy have certainly trickled down to the ranks of the artists and creative community", New York entertainment lawyer John J. Tormey III told the E-Commerce Times. The music industry has been transformed, the TV industry has been transformed, the book publishing industry has been transformed, and the film industry has been transformed."

http://current.com/technology/93533031_brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade.htm

The producers of copyrighted media whose works are freely traded online have for years said their businesses are directly hurt by piracy. However, as industries start to blend together -- for example, a computer company like Apple could make deals to become a content provider -- there are many more organizations with interests in protecting copyrights.

"If the courts don't support the business of copyright, then we're pulling the rug out from under the ones who are doing it to survive, and it dis-incentivizes creation. From a global perspective, it really puts you in a less competitive place", said Tormey.

http://jtormey.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/09/8727325-brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade

No Going Back

Illegal downloads, illicit BitTorrent activity, unauthorized streams and other pirating methods have become so rampant it may be practically impossible for the film, music and television industries to eliminate the phenomenon entirely. If the BPI can get The Pirate Bay blocked, as it has been in other countries, there will likely still be other sites and methods for freely obtaining and sharing copyrighted material.

Since the legal system has to straddle the line between protecting freedom of speech and protecting enterprise, coupled with a technological scene that's advancing quickly, legislation has had a difficult time keeping up.

In order for copyrights to maintain their importance, then, outdated legislation might not be the answer, though it's possible for protections to catch up to technology.
http://bx.businessweek.com/entertainment-industry/e-commerce-news-piracy-brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade/13322907556411127837-611313eb4c2aa3e6d86d6786d8713c62/

"Carriers are essentially saying they can't control what goes through the door, but the technology exists. The U.S. government has the ability to pick up on certain key words as a weapon against terrorism, so the intelligent powers know that a macro can be set up to pick up material that is harmful - so the technology exists of common carriers to pick up certain file-sharing or illegal activity", said Tormey.

Some record labels or pro-copyright groups also focus on education campaigns to counter the inability of legislation to accomplish widespread bans on illegal file-sharing.

"I'm not sure if legislation can fix the system, but I think education can", [another commentator] told the E-Commerce Times. "We have to do a better job of educating everyone about the importance of copyright because the kind of legislation we see coming out ends up being clumsy and overreaching, putting us in a situation where we end up clamping down on free speech instead of keeping the lines open".

http://blog.mmoga.com/2011/11/brits-demand-pirate-bay-blockade/

evolver.fm Interview With John J. Tormey III, Esq., New York Music Lawyer: Reversions Of Masters, Terminations Of Transfers, And Derivative Works Under The United States Copyright Act

EVOLVER.FM INTERVIEW WITH JOHN J. TORMEY III, ESQ., NEW YORKMUSIC LAWYER: REVERSIONS OF MASTERS, TERMINATIONS OF TRANSFERS, AND DERIVATIVE WORKS UNDER THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT ACT
http://evolver.fm/2012/02/29/why-mastered-for-itunes-wont-defuse-a-copyright-time-bomb/
http://www.evolver.fm/

Interview by Eliot Van Buskirk

Why ‘Mastered For iTunes’ Won’t Defuse A Copyright Time-Bomb

Next year, in 2013, a time-bomb embedded in the Copyright Act of 1976 starts to detonate, as valuable copyrights fall back into the hands of artists who decide that they would prefer to own their songs, rather than allowing their label and publisher to keep selling them.

Recordings released in 1978 will be up for copyright termination in 2013, even if artists legally sold those songs away decades ago. Recordings from 1979 fall into this category in 2014, and so on, over the years.

These are valuable copyrights, useful for licensing in movies, advertisements, and videogames in addition to being sold in iTunes and elsewhere.  Wouldn’t it be convenient if the labels could devise a way to hang on to those sound recordings? After all, everyone from the guy behind “Funkytown” (listen above) to The Eagles is lawyering up to take back songs sold to labels and publishers.

Indeed, Mitch Glazer, later hired as a lobbyist for the RIAA, gave the labels some grounds to keep these copyrights by adding a provision to the Copyright Act in 1999 that attempts to categorize sound recordings as “works for hire” made by musicians as employees of the labels. The U.S. Registrar of Copyrights objected strongly to the addition because it changed the law, rather than correcting an oversight. (Update: The provision was repealed [thanks, Eriq Gardner], although sources we’ve spoken with say the “works for hire” issue is still at play today). Our courts — possibly the Supreme Court — will likely have to untangle the whole mess after artists start trying to get their songs back next year, with notices already being filed.

One magical option for the labels would be to create a new sound recording copyright for these songs — say, by remastering them for iTunes. It did seem a bit odd that Apple, after listening to audiophiles complain for nearly nine years about the sound quality of songs sold in iTunes, would unveil its “Mastered for iTunes” program the very year before these old copyrights started reverting. Could the labels’ ace in the hole be a plan to sell newly-copyrighted remasters while allowing the old and busted ones to revert?

After hearing from multiple lawyers and other sources (some who would not comment on the record), we’re convinced that Mastered for iTunes cannot allow record labels to defuse this copyright time bomb — even though movie studios have been granted new copyrights for colorizing black-and-white movies. As it turns out, the difference between the regular version of the song and the “remastered for iTunes” version is too small, from a legal perspective, to justify a new copyright (and with it another 35 years of label control). For a new copyright, a band would have to go farther than that — say, by recording a new version.

[One source] summed things up by phone, putting our mind at ease that “Remastered for iTunes” cannot be a copyright land-grab disguised as an improvement in compressed sound quality. Casey Rae-Hunter, deputy director of the Future of Music Coalition agreed, saying that there’s not enough change in expression between the original and the remaster. (Apple and all four major labels declined to respond.) Then we heard back from New Yorkentertainment lawyer John Tormey III, Esq. (email) with a remarkably in-depth explanation of why Remastered for iTunes won’t stop copyrights from reverting to artists starting next year.

If you’re interested in the intricacies of this situation, buckle up:

[Said John J. Tormey III], "First of all, none of my comments are intended to speak to Apple’s specific situation, or the specific situation of Apple adversaries if any.

Second, the two parts to your question may be apples-to-oranges, to some degree. Though there will always be exceptions, those in your hypothetical question taking action to retrieve “revert[ed]” music-related copyrights under the Termination Of Transfer provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act – See 17 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 203

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203

and 17 U.S.C. § 304

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/304

– would more typically be songwriters or their families seeking a “return home” of rights in the old songs (compositions), rather than in their corresponding masters (sound recordings). Those are two different rights, albeit corresponding to the same album material perhaps. In fact, the United States Copyright Office (USCO) has two different forms for these two different rights – USCO “Form PA” corresponds to songs (compositions):

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formpa.pdf

whereas USCO “Form SR” corresponds to masters (sound recordings):

http://www.copyright.gov/forms/formsr.pdf

 

Traditionally in pop music record-deal history, songs have been exploited by and through publishing companies and performance rights societies:

http://www.ascap.com/

http://www.bmi.com/

http://www.sesac.com/

as agreed and permitted by the original songwriter (generally speaking and to simplify, “publishing”) – whereas rights to the masters traditionally originated with, and often stayed with, the record labels. So, the songwriter/musician signed to a traditional record deal may have retained his/her “publishing” and even received a per-unit record royalty (or been stiffed out of one, perhaps), but that doesn’t mean that the songwriter/musician ever had ownership in the master (sound recording).

But for the sake of your hypothetical, let’s assume that a songwriter/musician somehow originally held both sets of rights (1. Songs, 2. Masters) in the same initially-self-produced album. And now, there’s a later-occurring transferee or licensee, like an Internet distribution company, trying to stave off the songwriter/musician’s family’s pursuit of revert[ed] (or as I sometimes colloquially say, “recaptured”) rights under the Termination Of Transfer provisions of § 203:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203

or § 304:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/304

 

Sure, your hypothetical Internet company can try to claim a “new copyright” in a newly-reworked master:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

and can even try to file a new (or additional) Form SR with the United States Copyright Office (USCO) corresponding to it, but: (A) the USCO, federal courts, and jury might still disregard the Internet company’s claim and filing post facto, and adjudicate to same effect when the claimed “new” right is administratively-tested and/or forensically-tested; (B) the Internet company may be making the “new” claim and filing for “bluff” purposes alone and full well know how flimsy their theory is under their own fact-pattern, never having any intention to go to court or even to the USCO with the “new copyright” theory; and (C) the analysis could be affected by whether the copyright in and to the original, underlying sound recording has already fallen into the public domain (PD):

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

at time of the remastering. If a party in the old chain-of-title for the original master failed to timely file a renewal when the statute required, for example, the copyright in the underlying original work could already be PD, and a new claim and filing won’t bring it back from the dead.

“Derivative work” is a term of art under the Copyright Act. Under the Copyright Act, a “derivative work” is defined as a work based upon one or more pre[-]existing works… such as a new musical arrangement – or, yes, a “transformed” “sound recording” – your very case. See 17 U.S.C. § 101:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101

 

Depending upon factual circumstances, one could argue that a remaster based upon an original master, is a derivative work of the original master, yet I think that would pre-suppose audibly-detectible differences between the first and second master such that USCO, judge, and jury wouldn’t otherwise simply hear the two as identically the same. Jurors, particularly, aren’t always musicians.

Let’s assume, though, that your hypothetical new master is significantly audibly-distinct from, and even improved with respect to, the first master. Still, as stated by the Second Circuit, a derivative (work) copyright is a good copyright only with regards to the original embellishments and additions made [to] the underlying work. See, e.g., Harvey Cartoons v. Columbia Pictures, 645 F. Supp. 1564, 1570 (SDNY, 1986):

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=19862209645FSupp1564_11974.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

 

Copyright in a derivative… work merely protects against copying or otherwise infringing… the original contribution contained in the derivative work. HarveyCartoons v. ColumbiaPictures, 645 F. Supp. 1564 (SDNY, 1986):

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=4&xmldoc=19862209645FSupp1564_11974.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

See also Rohauer v. Killiam, 551 F.2d 484 (2nd Cir. 1977).

http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/rohauer-killiam-shows-36847796

 

So, yes, the Internet company could try to claim a “new” copyright in the new master. But that claim is limited to the incrementally-added material, at best:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103

 

And that “new” claim shouldn’t extend the old copyright term in the underlying master – else the limitations on the term of copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 302 would be rendered meaningless thereby:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/302

 

Imagine record labels re-registering new masters every few years, on into perpetuity perhaps, subverting the purpose and intent of the Copyright Act – which instead only intends to confer a limited but not perpetual lawful monopoly to rights-holders.

Rather, the best that the Internet company in your hypothetical can hope for, when claiming and registering a copyright in the new master, is to seek protection in the new additions made to the old work. That being said, if a USCO Examiner, federal judge, and/or jury can’t actually hear the changes between the old and new work, then the claimant is going to have a difficult if not impossible time as a practical matter alone, using federal law and the judicial process to enforce those “new” claimed rights. Also, if the original underlying sound recording has already fallen into the public domain, the claimant will likely not evoke much judicial sympathy under the hot lights of litigation, to say the least, as the claimant’s new action will look more like a ruse trying to resuscitate dead rights than anything else. In other words, under most scenarios, there won’t likely be much substance to the remasterer’s “new claim”.

As for whether or not the claimant could try to use the new claim or filing for the re-master as a shield against songwriter descendants proceeding under the Copyright Act’s Termination Of Transfer provisions (17 U.S.C. § 203, and 17 U.S.C. § 304):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/304

 

I doubt that that approach would be effective under most circumstances, except maybe as a bluff perhaps. The statute and legislative intent are clear that the party acting pursuant to the Termination Of Transfer provisions of the Copyright Act, should be entitled to recapture (or as the statute says, “rever[sion]“) of the original rights as the statute provides. Most “recapturing” parties in your hypothetical would likely be pursuing recaptured rights to compositions rather than sound recordings. The majority of such Termination Of Transfer scenarios in music will be songwriter-families recapturing rights to songs and not masters. Their songwriter forebears often never maintained rights in the masters to begin with".

There you have it.

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Copyright Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

http://www.tormey.org/copyright.htm

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq. – Entertainment Lawyer, Entertainment Attorney

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection: Written By New York Entertainment Attorney And Copyright Lawyer John J. Tormey III, Esq.

© John J. Tormey III, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

This article is not intended to, and does not constitute, legal advice with respect to your particular situation and fact pattern. Do secure counsel promptly, if you see any legal issue looming on the horizon which may affect your career or your rights. What applies in one context, may not apply to the next one. Make sure that you seek individualized legal advice as to any important matter pertaining to your career or your rights generally.

Contrary to the near-indefatigable lay assumption that entertainment attorneys like myself hear all the time, one is not required to register a copyright in one’s work with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. (or elsewhere) as a condition precedent for U.S. copyright protection. In other words, the New York-based author in Chelsea, for example, already has copyright protection in his or her finished original work of authorship, under U.S. federal law, just as soon as the work is reduced to a tangible medium of expression in New York. That copyright protection is automatic, and inheres in the Chelsea-situate New York author immediately, his or her entertainment lawyer will opine.

Therefore, when the New York entertainment attorney hears the Chelsea-based New York writer saying “I ‘copyrighted’ my novel by registering it with the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office in Washington , D.C.”, the writer is usually operating under a mistaken set of geographic and legal assumptions. It is incumbent upon entertainment lawyers to correct those assumptions. This one is a particularly difficult myth to explode - because members of Congress, those that write and edit case law, and a few jurisprudential scholars have been known to use “copyrighted” as a verb form, too. When I hear it, it sounds to me like nails on a chalkboard.

So, “No”, the New York entertainment attorney replies to the New York writer in Chelsea, “you already had automatic copyright protection in your work as soon as you wrote down the text - as soon as you reduced your vision to a ‘tangible medium of expression’. Your act of mailing it from a post office on Manhattan’s West Side in New York City, to Washington D.C., isn’t what engendered the copyright. Rather, your prior act of crystallizing it in a tangible medium here in downtown West Side New York – pen to paper, or keystroke to hard-drive – is what caused the copyright in your work to be born. The New York entertainment attorney then explains that the phrases and verb forms “to copyright” or “I copyrighted” should probably be avoided outright – certainly avoided as synonyms for “registration” or “filing” - specifically to prevent that kind of lay confusion. After all, if the Chelsea screenwriter in New York “copyrighted”[sic] his or her work only by mailing it to Washington D.C. on Friday morning, then that would imply that no copyright yet existed in the work when he or she completed the final draft, hit the “Save” button on his keyboard, and printed it out in hard-copy form in his or her Chelsea home office in Manhattan on the Thursday evening prior – and that conclusion would be legally incorrect. In that fact pattern, the entertainment lawyer opines, the copyright existed and the screenwriter owned it as of Thursday evening based upon the events that happened in downtown West Side New York.

The process of U.S. copyright registration is just an after-occurring formality, though it is one which entertainment attorneys (from New York, and yes, even elsewhere in places like Hollywood) handle for their clients often. In other words, the work is already copyright-protected prior to one’s mailed submission of the work from New York or any other city, to the U.S. Copyright Office and Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Yes, U.S. copyright registration does thereafter provide certain advantages over unregistered works, as your entertainment lawyer will tell you. But copyright registration is not itself a pre-requisite for copyright protection. The copyright protection exists first. The copyright filing comes second.

After all, the USCO form specifically asks the filer when – in what year - his or her work was completed. You could in theory file in 2011 for a 2006-completed work. In that case, the copyright would have existed as of 2006.

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, (which can be found at various locations on the Internet, at 17 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 101 and following)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html

the author of an original and otherwise-protectable work automatically possesses a copyright in that work as soon as the work is reduced to a “tangible medium of expression”. No later.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html

The New York choreographer on Manhattan’s West Side improvises a new set of dance steps for her students - fleeting, in the air - but owns no copyright in these movements or their performance or rendition. However, the moment she writes down the original dance steps using a detailed graphic chart, or videotapes herself performing them in her New York studio – perhaps at her entertainment lawyer’s suggestion - she may then have a chance to claim some copyright-protected work. The key, again, is the work’s reduction to a fixed medium.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html

In fact, she may own the copyright in that material without ever interacting with Washington, D.C. – even though her entertainment attorney will tell her that it sure would be a good idea to thereafter mail a filing to D.C. if the original work of authorship is perceived to have any economic or other long-term value.

And this makes sense. Look at it from the perspective of copyright enforcement – from the perspective of the New York entertainment attorney litigator trying to prove or disprove copyright infringement in a court of law downtown at 500 Pearl Street. How difficult would the job be of a federal judge or jury in a U.S. copyright infringement litigation in the Southern or Eastern Districts of New York, or that of a U.S. Copyright Office Examiner in Washington, D.C., if the U.S. Congress allowed all of us to claim copyright in the inchoate and evanescent? The courts in New York and indeed nationwide would be inundated with strike suits and other spurious copyright claims, perhaps more often brought by pro se litigants rather than their entertainment lawyers if any. Therefore, Congress doesn’t let us get away with it. Congress requires reduction to a “tangible medium of expression” as a pre-condition for copyright protection. But no, Congress does not require copyright registration as a pre-condition to copyright ownership itself - rather, copyright registration at or around the time of creation is discretionary with the copyright owner. Congress only requires copyright registration as a pre-condition to filing a lawsuit for copyright infringement – something that your entertainment lawyer litigator won’t miss when reviewing the statute pre-filing of the federal court lawsuit:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000411----000-.html

Yes, your entertainment attorney will tell you that after-occurring copyright registration of a work does provide certain strategic advantages, relative to unregistered works. Copyright registration notifies those of us in New York, and in California, the U.S., and the rest of the world, at least constructively, that the copyright claimant thinks he or she owns the copyright in that registered work. Practically speaking, copyright registration creates a likelihood that another company including its own entertainment attorney performing a copyright search, will “pick up” (i.e., see, or notice) the previously-registered work, when that company or its entertainment lawyer counsel later conduct a thorough professional (or for that matter even a cursory and informal) ocular copyright search of the public records of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Copyright Office.

http://www.copyright.gov/records/

Most film studios and their entertainment attorneys perform thorough copyright searches as a matter of course, for example, before optioning an author’s literary work.

As discussed above, whether you live in New York, Los Angeles, or elsewhere, copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. is also a necessary precursor to your entertainment attorney litigator bringing a copyright infringement litigation in a U.S. federal court. For this reason, in practice, individuals and companies and their entertainment lawyers have been occasionally known to register their copyrights days - or even hours, paying an emergency rush filing fee using a New York-to-D.C. Fed Ex - before they sue for copyright infringement in federal court. Of course, the entertainment lawyer will tell you that it is better to register the work at an earlier stage than that. Filing a copyright infringement litigation predicated upon a USCO copyright registration in turn allows for the entertainment attorney litigator to recover certain types of damages afforded by the U.S. Copyright Act, such as “statutory” damages, and plaintiffs’ attorneys fees. These types of damages would not be availing to the copyright plaintiff if his or her entertainment lawyer sued using a different common law theory. A copyright registration may also work advantages in terms of certain international copyright protections.

Click the “Articles” button at:

http://www.tormey.org/art.htm

to return to the main Articles page.

My practice as a New York entertainment attorney includes copyright registration work in music, film, television, publishing, Internet, media, and all artistic fields. If you have questions about legal issues which affect your career, and require representation, please contact me:

Law Office of John J. Tormey III, Esq.

John J. Tormey III, PLLC

1324 Lexington Avenue, PMB 188

New York, NY  10128  USA

(212) 410-4142 (phone)

(212) 410-2380 (fax)

brightline@att.net

http://www.tormey.org/

 

Page:

Copyright Registration Is Not A Pre-Condition To Protection

Title Metatag:

copyright, entertainment attorney, New York, entertainment lawyer

Meta Description:

copyright,entertainment lawyer,New York,entertainment attorney,U.S. Copyright Office,registration,intellectual property

Keywords:

copyright,copyright registration,demo shopping,entertainment attorney,entertainment lawyer,film lawyer,intellectual property,music lawyer,New York lawyer,screenwriting,

script shopping, U.S. Copyright Office, WGA, entertainment attorney, entertainment lawyer, copyright registration, precondition, protection, copyright, entertainment attorney, New York, entertainment lawyer, copyright, entertainment lawyer, New York, entertainment attorney, US Copyright Office, registration, intellectual property, copyright, copyright registration, demo shopping, film lawyer, intellectual property, music lawyer, New York lawyer, screenwriting, script shopping, US Copyright Office,WGA

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT

http://www.tormey.org/copyright.htm