Companies and individuals should consider registering their copyrights in all kinds of documents they may consider valuable. Sales presentations and info sheets can be easily lifted by competitors, and without a registered copyright, the victim of infringement may be barred from effectively enforcing it’s rights.

Here are three good reasons to register copyrights early.

1. Registration is required prior to filing suit. Although copyright protection exists from the moment a work is created, enforcing the rights conferred by the Copyright Act requires that the work be registered befoe the Courts will hear a plaintiffs case. Since registration can take many months before a certificate is issued, filing early can save valuable time after infringement begins, allowing the plaintiff to file for an injunction much sooner. (expedited filing IS possible, but costly and time still passes while waiting for processing)

2. Statutory damages. Copyright law provides for statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement, but only if the copyright was registered prior to the infringement and within 90 days of the work’s first publication. Otherwise, the plaintiffudt prove it’s actual damages, which can be difficult to quantify.

3. Attorneys Fees. Like statutory damages, lawyers fees are available only for works registered early. Since legal fees can easily rise into the six-figures, this can often mean the difference between enforcing one’s rights and failing to do so.

Copyright registration is inexpensive, relatively easy, and takes only a few minutes (if done online), so registering is worthwhile in many situations.

check with an attorney, though, if your documents contain trade secrets or other proprietary information, since registration requires deposit of a copy of the works with the Library of Congress.

Q:

A: I’m afraid this proposal reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright protection. The change in copyright law  that took effect on January 1, 1978 did not cancel or terminate existing copyrights.  In fact, it expanded the protection of many copyrighted works. Primarily, the 1976 Copyright Act changed  the ways in which copyright protection is obtained, and how long protection lasts.

Copyright duration is a complex analysis that requires an understanding not only of the current copyright law, but also the prior Copyright Acts of  1790, 1831, 1909 and several interim provisions enacted between 1962 and 1974.  So, it’s sometimes very difficult to determine when protection for a particular work expires.  In your example, “Little Women” was actually published in two parts in 1868 and 1869.  Under the copyright law that existed at that time, Ms. Alcott’s work was entitled to copyright protection for two, consecutive 14 year terms.  Assuming she, her estate or her publisher properly renewed the copyright during the 14th year, protection would have expired  in 1896.  “Pal Joey”, on the other hand, is still protected by copyright law until 2035 or thereabouts. ( works  created before 1978 now have a maximum copyright duration of 95 years)

So, combining two older works into a new one is NOT a valid recipe for avoiding copyright concerns.    The best advice I can offer is to consult with a knowledgeable entertainment lawyer or a copyright research service before incorporating third-party material into your screenplays.
This is intended as general information only and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It is not a substitute for a private, independent consultation with an attorney selected to advise you after a full investigation of the facts and law relevant to your matter. We will not be responsible for readers’ detrimental reliance upon the information appearing in this feature.
For a limited time, readers of this column can subscribe to my FREE e-course “6 ways to Finance A Feature Film” by visiting http://firemark.com/minicourse

Redbox is a company that provides $1 DVD rentals through kiosks set up in local supermarkets and other convenient locations.  You’ve probably seen the large red kiosks standing next to the Coinstar machines, lottery ticket vending machines, and Rug-Doctor rental stands.

Redbox purchases the DVDs it sells through the same channels that other rental stores, and DVD retailers do.  They pay the same prices for the DVDs, then places them in the kiosks.

Some movie studios have objected to Redbox’s business model, and adopted policies that stop allowing distributors to sell DVDs to the company.  It seems that they’re pressing for a revenue-share model, where they’d receive a portion of each rental, which they’d insist be priced higher than the current $1.00 charged at the kiosks.

These studios feel that the availability of $1.00 DVD rentals undermines their ability to sell DVDs directly to consumers, and “cheapens” the perceived value of the movies.

The problem is, these studios are fighting an uphill battle.  Under copyright law, the “first sale doctrine” allows the purchaser of a legal copy of a copyright protected work, to do anything with the physical object embodying the work short of copying it.  So, what Redbox is doing is, for the moment, legal.  In fact, it’s the foundation on which the entire Movie-rental business, one of Hollywood’s most important revenue streams, is built.  In 2007, the case of NEBG, LLC v. Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC, 2007 WL 1454460 (D. Mass. May 18, 2007) addressed DVD rentals specifically, holding in favor of such rental arrangements.

Interestingly, Section 109 of the Copyright Act, which codifies the First Sale Doctrine, specifically carves out exceptions for c0mputer software and phonorecords.    Will DVD rentals be the next exclusion?  Not likely, since it’s such a big business, and a cash cow for the industry….

Another possible approach to the problem, from the studios’ point of view would be to switch from a “sale” to a “licensing” model… but again, with an established, mature business, switching to a new paradigm promises to be anything but a simple matter.

So,  can the studios simply refuse to sell to Redbox?  Maybe.  But, doing so might expose them to antitrust liability under the Clayton (15 U.S.C. Sections 12-27, and 29 U.S.C. Sections 52-53)  and/or Sherman Acts (15 U.S.C. Sections 1-7)

Redbox has sued Warner Bros, Universal and 20th Century Fox over their recent restrictions, and  the cases have, so far, survived early dismissal motions by the studios.

This promises to be an interesting set of cases, with long-ranging impact… But the big question is whether the courts will decide the matter before the DVD sale/rental business whithers on the vine in the face of on-demand cable, satellite and internet delivery of movies.

Stay tuned.

Earlier this week,  BMI filed a suit against a restaurant called “Pianos”  where the song “Talk Dirty To Me” by the band Poison  (among other songs) proved a toxic brew.  The suit filed by BMI and a number of copyright holders seeks an injunction, attorneys fees, and statutory damages, which can amount to as much as $150,000 per infringement.

The bottom line is this:  If you’re operating a bar or restaurant,  larger than 3750 square feet, and/or playing music through a system of more than 6 loudspeakers, you need licenses from these Performing Rights Organizations, or you could find yourself on the receiving end of one of these lawsuits.

If you’re  a bar or restaurant owner and you don’t already have your license(s)., you may wish to consult your entertainment lawyer, to determine what’s required.  Of course if you’re contacted by one of these organizations, consult your attorney right away… BEFORE you respond.

With the current backlog of registrations in the Copyright office, it’s especially important to get your works into the que for registration as soon as possible. The agency processes applications on a first-in, first-out basis.

Here, however, is yet another good reason to file your copyright registration now. It’ll save you money. According to this report on the U.S. Copyright Office Website, On August 1st, many copyright office fees will increase.

Copyright registration is relatively simple, but you may need help from an experienced entertainment- or intellectual property attorney for more complex applications, such as those involving multiple works registered as a ‘folio’, or for musical compositions embodied in recordings (essentially two different works).

Even after the fee increases, copyright registration is still one of the most affordable ways an artist or author can protect herself against the losses that can be suffered from unauthorized copying of her work.

Now’s the time folks. Call me if you need advice about copyright registration or any other intellectual property protection issue.

What a show. Host Neil Patrick Harris was terrific, and the musical numbers were just right.

This is among the first recommendations I make to any producer planning a show, film, album, whatever.

(Via PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE Ken Davenport, Broadway, Off-Broadway, Theater )

The case involved copyright in eleven Marx action figures that had, after a number of transfers and a “reposession” found their way into the hands of the plaintiff.

The Defendants’ summary judgment motion was granted, with the judge finding that the chain of title was unclear, and that the mere statement in a “bill of sale” that “The Property has been repossessed by the Seller from Louis Marx & Co. or its affiliated companies in the exercise of its rights under a security agreement.” was insufficient (absent introduction of actual evidence of ownership of copyrights) to support the plaintiff’s infringement claims.

The ruling doesn’t specify any particulars for a writing that would satisfy the terms of section 204, stating that it need only be one-line, but must clearly express the agreement to transfer the copyright in question.

This does, however, raise questions about court-ordered transfers of assets, such as in foreclosures, bankruptcies, etc.

This is a Kansas District Court ruling, so an appeal may be forthcoming.

(Hat tip to: Copyright Law Blog: Exclusive Rights.)

According to this piece at the Hollywood Reporter.. YouTube is taking things a step further… allowing users to REPLACE offending music in video soundtracks with pre-cleared music….  (automatically?)

I ask you again…  does this kind of filtering do any harm to Safe Harbor protections?

Did the RIAA just WIN the battle against Fair Use, and nobody noticed?

In this post, Read Write Web reports that YouTube has apparently instituted an automated system to remove unlicensed music tracks from videos posted to the YouTube site.  The altered videos appear without audio, apparently the ENTIRE audio track is removed, even if only a short segment contains the unlicensed music.  If true, this concession to interests of copyright holders in music will have far-reaching implications for the site.

Does such editorial action (regardless of whether automated or handled by real people), when implemented BEFORE receiving takedown notices do harm to YouTube’s DMCA safe-harbor protections?

Will YouTube be liable to its users who upload material that the system “edits” erroneously? (likely covered by the Terms of Service)

Will users be notified of this policy formally, when uploading, or will the “edits” just occur?

Will YouTube also implement similar filtering for unlicensed video, photos, etc?  What about videos featuring people who’ve not signed releases allowing the use of their likenesses, performance, etc.

Seems to me, this opens a real can of worms.  Should keep the entertainment and internet lawyers busy for  years to come.

What do you readers think?