International Intellectual Property Profs. Atik and Manheim Fall, 2006 Copyright Subject Matter

Fall, 2006Int'l IP2 Overview  Originality  Types of Copyrightable Works  Fixation  Computer Programs  Sound Recordings

Fall, 2006Int'l IP3 Originality  Created by Author  Minimum degree of creativity [Feist Pub (1991) ]  Even if not novel (contrast patent)  So long as not a copy of something else  Compilations: so long as some creativity involved  Databases? Probably not; ergo database statutes  Reproductions (usually of fine art): so long as the copyist has contributed something to final work

Fall, 2006Int'l IP4 Copyrightable Works  “Any tangible medium of expression” §102 §102  Current:  Literary, musical, dramatic, pantomimes, pictorial, graphical, movies, sound recordings, architectual  Future:  “any medium.. now known or later developed “  Excluded:  Ideas  Utilitarian works [compare patent]  “any procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery..”

Fall, 2006Int'l IP5 Copyrightable Works  Idea vs. Expression  Recipes, forms, business methods  Functional (utilitarian) vs. Non-Functional  Computer programs, games, material products  Instrumental (perlocutionary) speech  Patentable?  Not mutually exclusive with copyright  Still, more likely to be functional

Fall, 2006Int'l IP6 Fixation  “Writings”  “Any physical rendering” [Goldstein (1973) ]  Instrumental works (punch cards, telephone tones, etc.) might not be “writings”  Unfixed Expressions  Oration, performance art (choreography)  Unless recorded in tangible medium  Dramatic characters

Fall, 2006Int'l IP7 Computer Programs  In General  Same treatment as other original writings  Except limited copying allowed (see §117) §117  Code protected even if functional (as of 1980)  Source code (human readable format – Basic, C++)  Object code (machine readable format – binary)  Note: created automatically by compilern 

Fall, 2006Int'l IP8 Berne/TRIPs  In General  TRIPs Art. 9 - Same as US law  Berne Art. 2 – Somewhat different  Narrower  Must be “literary, scientific, artistic”  Broader  Doesn’t have to be “fixed” (e.g., lectures, dance)  Countries may specify variations or conditions  Fixation (sub § 2)  Legal texts and translations  Political and legal speeches (Art. 2bis(1))  Fair use of public addresses (Art. 2bis(2))

Fall, 2006Int'l IP9 Berne/TRIPs  Computer Programs (TRIPs, Art. 10)  Broader than Berne  All code protected (source, object)  Creative compilations (but not underlying data)  How does code (which implements an idea) differ from a patent invention?  Compare protection terms (life+70 vs. 20 yrs)  How much variation is needed in code (e.g., renaming or adding subroutines) to avoid infringement?  Formulas?

Fall, 2006Int'l IP10 Feist Publ. v. Rural Tel Svc (1991)  Facts:  Feist copies Rural’s white pages phone book  Subject Matter  Facts are not copyrightable  Lack of originality, creativity  © clause extends protection to “Authors” and “writings”  Held to require originality – “a modicum of creativity”  Original intellectual conceptions  Contrast “novelty” in patent law  Two identical works can both be original  Only one can be “novel” (new)  “Facts” are not “authored” (discovered not created)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP11 Feist Publ. v. Rural Tel Svc (1991)  Subject Matter  Facts not ©able; Compilations (generally) are  § 103: § 103  (a) The subject matter of copyright … includes compilations and derivative works …  (b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work …  Compilation “ authors ” can add originality/creativity through the editing process  Additional content (expression)  Choice of inclusion/exclusion

Fall, 2006Int'l IP12 Feist Publ. v. Rural Tel Svc (1991)  Subject Matter  Compilations  Distinguish value added from underlying facts  Pure factual compilations have thin ©  Selection and arrangement  Labor ( “ sweat of the brow ” doctrine)  From Lockean natural law theory  Rejected; not effort, but creativity that is protected  Directories  Insufficient originality in “ selection ” of data  Alphabetical organization too obvious (non-original)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP13 CCH v. Law Soc. Upper Canada (2004)  Facts  Photostat copying of CCH Osgood Hall  Canadian Copyright Act Canadian Copyright Act  § 5 (subject matter): “originality” required § 5  How much creativity is necessary?  Exercise of “skill and judgment”  Some “intellectual” effort (compare mechanical copying)  “Intellectual creation” under Berne  Rejects “sweat of brow” theory;  Accord French law (intellectual contribution + originality)French law  le droit d’auteur le droit d’auteur

Fall, 2006Int'l IP14 CCH v. Law Soc. Upper Canada (2004)  Theory  “Purpose of [Canadian] copyright law is to balance the public interest in promoting the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator.”  Compare US law under Feist  “minimal creativity” not required [is this true?]  CJ McLachlin reads Feist to require novelty (non-obvious)  Is this a proper interpretation of Feist?  See note 5, p. 145  Sweat of brow vs. skill & judgment vs. creativity

Fall, 2006Int'l IP15 CCH v. Law Soc. Upper Canada (2004)  CCH materials  Headnotes  Case summary  Topical index  Judicial decisions  Textbook  Monograph  Result  Not copies, author’s own words  Editing requires judgment  Essentially, a compilation  Also a (selective) compilation  Extends only to added material (e.g., headnotes) other than facts (e.g., date), or trivial corrections  Holding Le droit d'auteur au Canada protège une vaste gamme d'oeuvres originales, notamment les oeuvres littéraires, dramatiques, musicales ou artistiques, les programmes d'ordinateur, les traductions et les compilations d'oeuvres. Il protège l'expression des idées dans ces oeuvres, et non les idées comme telles. See CCH case

Fall, 2006Int'l IP16 Comparative “Originality”  Novelty?  Not required under US law, Berne, or TRIPs  Creativity?  Req’d by US (Feist) [“intellectual conception”]  Req’d by Canada (CCH) [“skill & knowledge”]  Req’d by Berne, TRIPs [“intellectual creation”]  Effort?  Insufficient [“sweat of brow” rejected]  Paradigm: Copying  Protection for added value (edited compilations)

Fall, 2006Int'l IP17 Judicial Decisions  Berne  Protection at discretion of member states  US  Not ©able [extends to gov’t works generally]  Theory  What if case law, statutes, legal materials were not in the public domain?  UK  Government publications are ©able