Making Sense of Intellectual Property, Fair Use and Consent: An Analysis of Current Copyright Laws

1. Making Sense of Intellectual Property, Fair Use and Consent:
An Analysis of Current Copyright Laws
Marti Vaughan

2. Why?
With the media at everyone’s fingertips, copyright laws have become a gray area at the
federal level.
To understand our present, we must revisit our past.
After a brief history of copyright laws in the United States, we will compare them to
current issues within the system for a better understanding of the inner workings of our
government.

3. A Brief History of Copyright Law
Official steps to alleviate copyright
concerns in the United States date back
to 1787, when the Copyright Clause was
written into the United States
Constitution as Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 8.
This Clause allows granting patents
and copyright to “promote the progress
of science and useful arts.”

4. • The first federal act concerning copyright
• This act granted 14 years of copyright from the time of recording books, maps and
charts
• Gave the copyright holder the right to renew for an additional 14 years (if the author
survived to the end of the first term)
• This act only offered protection if the formalities were satisfied
• If formalities were not met, the work was entered the public domain.

5. Wheaton v. Peters
• 1834
• The Supreme Court case
• the original author, Henry Wheaton,
did not have the common law right
to control reproduction following
the first publication of his work
• Wheaton v. Peters was officially the
first United States Supreme Court
ruling concerning the issue of
copyright

6. Copyright Act of 1909
• the next landmark statute in
United States copyright law
• steps to develop the act were
put into motion by President
Theodore Roosevelt
• Roosevelt felt that a complete
revision of copyright law was
necessary

7. Roosevelt to Congress in December of 1905
"Our copyright laws urgently need
revision. They are imperfect in
definition, confused and
inconsistent in expression; they
omit provision for many articles
which, under modern
reproductive processes, are
entitled to protection; they impose
hardships upon the copyright
proprietor which are not essential
to the fair protection of the public;
they are difficult for the courts to
interpret and impossible for the
Copyright Office to administer
with satisfaction to the public”

8. Issues with the 1909 Act
• Under the act, protection was only attached to original works if they were published
and had a copyright notice affixed (if not the work became public domain)
• State copyright laws governed unpublished work but published work was
exclusively governed by federal law
• These laws were not revised for benefits of the author, but for the benefit of the
public.

9. Amendments to the 1909 Act
• The Townsend Amendment of 1912
• resulted in motion pictures being added to
the category of protected works
• The Act of September 25, 1941
• preserve the rights of authors in states of
emergency (World War II)
• prevent authors and copyright owners
from losing the opportunity to acquire
or renew copyright protection due to
communication disruption during war

10. The Copyright Act of 1976
• Officially went into effect on January 1st of 1978
• superseded the Copyright Act of 1790 (which remains
effective for copyrighted works created before January 1st of
1978)
• remains the primary foundation of current United States
copyright laws
• Fair use was only a common-law doctrine in the U.S. until
this act
• introduced the idea that the unitary term could be based off
the death of the author rather than the fixed renewal system

11. Amendments to 1976 Act
Copyright Term Extension Act
extended copyright terms to the entire life of the
author plus 70 years (previously would last for the
entire life of the author + 50 years)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
criminalizes the production of devices or services
intended to bypass measures taken that control access
to copyrighted work
criminalizes the act of bypassing access control
(whether the violator succeeds in infringing copyright
or not)
heightened penalties for infringement of copyright
for internet violators

12. Recent Copyright Law
Recently, copyright law has
seen an influx in proposed bills
concerning music and artist
compensation

13. Fair Play Fair Pay Act
• Introduced in House in April of 2015
• proposed to “extend a sound recording copyright owner’s rights to include the exclusive right to perform
or authorize the performance of the recording publicly by means of any audio transmission thereby
requiring terrestrial AM/FM broadcast radio stations that play copyrighted sound recordings to pay
royalties for the non-digital audio transmissions of the recordings”
• copyright owners currently have a performance right that applies to digital transmissions by satellite,
cable and internet

14. Songwriter Equity Act
• Could be introduced to the 115th Congress
• Originally introduced to the Senate in March of 2015
If approved would…
“amend federal copyright law regarding the exclusive rights of
sound recording copyright owners to remove a provision that prohibits
license fees payable for the public performance of sound recordings,
by means of a digital audio transmission, from being taken into
account in any administrative, judicial, or other governmental
proceeding to set or adjust the royalties payable to copyright owners of
musical works for the public performance of their works”

15. Capitol Records v. Vimeo
Capitol Records v. Vimeo will feature a petition, filed by Capitol Records, that would allow the
United States Supreme Court to review a first- ever ruling that federal law would shield sites like YouTube
and Vimeo from liability, even for pre-1972 recordings that are currently governed by state law.

16. Can materials found on the internet be copyrighted?
What is eligible for copyright protection?
• The laws and penalties
that apply to copying
and redistributing
illegal copies physical
media can also apply to
materials found on the
internet.
• Just like in print, the
author is not required
to include a copyright
statement on the
material to be
protected.

17. Does public release, disclosure or dissemination
mean the same as public domain?
Public release, disclosure and dissemination are
not synonymous and should not be used
interchangeably.
Public release = the act of making information or
material previously designated as controlled
unclassified information (CUI) available to the public.
Disclosed and disseminated information, in addition
to publicly released information, may be owned and
protected by copyright, meaning that they would not
lie within the public domain.

18. What is the difference between copyright, patent and
trademarks? Are they all the same thing?
Copyrights, patents and trademarks are similar in that they deal with “intellectual property”
but have different guidelines.

19. Patents
Patents give the inventor the exclusive right to duplicate
their design.
Patents last 20 years and cast a wide net, covering
devices, formulas, tools and anything else that has utility.
To gain a patent, the inventor must apply to the US
Patent and Trademark Office and submit the unique design.
An examiner will determine if you are entitled to a
patent and, if granted, the patent bars anyone else from
making, selling or using the invention.
Example: The recipe for a unique new pie could be
patented

20. Trademark
A trademark is a logo, word or phrase
that identifies a brand, product or service.
A trademark can also be found at the US
Patent and Trademark Office.
If a trademark is approved, you can
prevent anyone from using a logo or mark
that could confuse the public about who
offers the product.
Example: the sale and distribution of
counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags is
Registered Trademark
Trademark

21. Copyrights
Copyrights apply to art, literature, music,
movies, plays and scholarly works. These do
not require registration for the most part and
prevent other from copying your work.
Currently, copyrights last for the author’s life
plus 70 years.

22. What Does the Future Hold?
Copyright law has historically been a case-by-case basis and with how rapidly
technology is expanding and evolving, it may very well be for the foreseeable future.
If history truly repeats itself, our courts are bound for some trouble for the next
couple years before we can create a roadmap of intellectual property.