Ii ctea restoration of doesnt violate iii ctea 20

This preview shows page 17 - 20 out of 37 pages.

We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Business English
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter APC / Exercise 5
Business English
Guffey/Seefer
Expert Verified
ii.CTEA restoration of © doesn’t violateiii.CTEA 20 year extention doesn’t violate.b.Long history of extending duration and doing so by extending previous copyright. e.Termination Of Grants/Licensesi.§203 → Grants Executed after 1/1/7817
We have textbook solutions for you!
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Business English
The document you are viewing contains questions related to this textbook.
Chapter APC / Exercise 5
Business English
Guffey/Seefer
Expert Verified
COPYRIGHTProf. Kurtz, Spring 20081.Purpose: to give power to the grantors if at specified point they wish to revoke the license2.Copyright holder may terminate a license after 35-40 years of use of the © and must give 2-10 years notice3.Only the author has these rights, not the heirsii.§ 304(C) → Grants Executed before 1/1/781.Purpose: to grant authors and heirs to take back the extra period of time given in the 1979 copyright act, ultimately to recapture division2.Provision: can terminate w/in five years after the end of the 56 year original total term.3.Author and heirs have these rights.iii.Derivative Works1.Prepared under the authority of the grant before termination may continue to be used under terms of grant after termination. 2.MGM v. Burroughsa.The grant to MGM included use of Tarzan character in any stories written by Burroughs & to make one film & can remake that film, the family tried to use §304(c) to terminate, didn’t serve proper notice, forgot to add book titles & MGM made new remake in 1980 (after revocation). i.Mills Music→ termination on rights to music co. who had already licensed others who prepared derivative works. D.Publication & Noticea.Generali.Looks like: © John Smith 2007ii.Had to publish works with notice or lost copyrightiii.Purpose → to put into PD lots of material that ppl weren’t interested in protecting, has value by informing public of who owns & how long. b.TimelineDatePublication & Notice RequirementsPrior to 1/1/78→ No copyright when you fixed a work, only when published→ If published with notice, invested the author with a statutory copyright→ Publish without notice, divested the author of statutory copyright1/1/78 to 2/28/89Decennial Period→ Publish with notice, no longer invested a copyright as that went with fixation→ Publish without notice, divests of the copyright (but with safety nets)From 3/1/89 on→ Publish w/o notice, no divestiture (had to do this to be in compliance with Berne). c.Limited v. General Publicationi.Limited 1.Purpose was that limited publication didn’t count as divestiture, meant to mitigate harsh consequences & work still imbued with CL protection. 2.RULEa.To maintain common law protection:i.Must give/show to a limited class 18
COPYRIGHTProf. Kurtz, Spring 2008ii.For limited purposeiii.Without right for further distribution or sale 1.The Academy v. Creative House→ Oscar sued ‘star award’ for infringement and star said pub w/o notice; limited class of winners obvious, limited purpose implied – just to honor recipients. 3.Categorical Exceptions for Divestiturea.Can’t divest by 2-D picture of 3-D objectb.Can’t place © on performance or exhibit.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture