Copyright Infringement analysis - Samuels

Copyright Infringement analysis - Samuels - REPRODUCTION...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
REPRODUCTION RIGHTS Proving Infringement – Music, literary 1. Is it ©able – is it within the subject matter of © a. Originality – low threshold, unique or distinguishable variations b. Is it fixed in tangible medium - 101 c. Idea/expression – protects expression of ideas, not ideas themselves i. No © if necessary to function (computer – functionality) ii. If limited ways to express, then not © d. Facts/ compilation – facts not © but compilation of facts is if it features an original selection e. Derivative – consent, substantial variations (originality threshold) f. Utilitarian function – conceptually separable – pictorial, graphic, sculptures - useful articles g. Architectural work h. Characters - © if the character is the story and plot (rocky example) i. Computer programs –literal work protection i. Functionality – method of operation is not copyrightable 2. Is there infringement a. Is there ownership – Prima facie case - circumstantial evi if no direct (admission) i. Formalities – typically must be registered to sue for damages b. Must infringe reproduction c. Absent direct evidence of copying, P must show D had access and the works are substantially similar – both of which are issues of fact (arnstein) i. Access – opportunity to view or copy work 1. Nimmer – providing a reasonable opp to view the work – yet not conjecture or speculation 2. Estab 2 ways: (1) a particular chain of events is established between the plaintiff's work  and the defendant's access to that work (such as through dealings with a publisher or  record company), or (2) the plaintiff's work has been widely disseminated 3. Unconscious - If similarity so striking then doesn’t matter how remote the access was –  (harrisongs) 4. is sufficient to show "access through third parties connected to both a plaintiff and a  defendant ii. Substantial Similarity – inverse ratio rule– higher degree of access means only need a lower  degree of substantial similarity 1. if no access – must be strikingly similar (access inferred from strikingness) 2. 2 part test a. extrinsic similarity – objective – analytical dissection of the work and expert  testimony i. what elements are similar 1. Music - hook, verse, how many notes, coda, instrumentation, arrangement 2. Literary - the type of artwork involved, the materials used, the  subject matter, and the setting for the subject- plot, themes,  dialogue, mood, setting, pace, and sequence ii. if satisfied, then apply intrinsic b. intrinsic similarity – subjective – whether a the ordinary, reasonable person would  find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar - The Court 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
must determine whether reasonable minds can differ as to whether defendants  captured the total "concept and feel" of plaintiffs' scripts
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 5

Copyright Infringement analysis - Samuels - REPRODUCTION...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online