The U.S. Copyright Office today announces the posting of redlines comparing the current version of Compendium of Copyright Office Practices (Third), which was released December 22, 2014, and the public draft of Compendium (Third), which was released June 1, 2017. The redlines are available on the revision history portion of the Compendium webpage. They are intended to assist members of the public in understanding the amendments and revisions contained in the public draft. The Office previously released a list of all sections that have been added, amended, or removed in this update, and a set of release notes providing a brief summary of the substantive revisions. The Office has extended the deadline to provide comments until July 30, 2017. Comments may be submitted on the Office’s website.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
The House of Representatives today approved by a vote of 378-48 the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act (H.R. 1695). This bipartisan bill – introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) — makes important changes to the selection process for the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, known as the Register of Copyrights.
Specifically, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act creates a selection panel made up of Members of Congress and the Librarian of Congress. This panel would be tasked with submitting a list of at least three qualified individuals to the President for his or her consideration. The President would nominate an individual from the selection panel’s list and that individual would be subject to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. The legislation also limits the Register to a 10-year term which is renewable by another Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.
Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers praised today’s approval of the bill in the statement below.
“The Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act is one product of the House Judiciary Committee’s multi-year comprehensive review of our copyright laws. This bipartisan review, which began under the tenure of the former Librarian of Congress in April 2013, has been focused on ensuring our copyright laws keep pace in the digital age and has included much discussion on the merits of giving the Copyright Office more autonomy with respect to the Library of Congress.
“While this legislation represents an important first step in the Committee’s efforts to update our nation’s copyright laws, we remain committed to working with all members and stakeholders to take additional steps to ensure the U.S Copyright Office is modernized so that it functions efficiently and effectively for all Americans.”
Background: Chairman Goodlatte first announced the House Judiciary Committee’s intention to undertake a comprehensive review of U.S. copyright law on April 24, 2013, in a speech before the World Intellectual Property Day celebration at the Library of Congress. As part of the copyright review, the House Judiciary Committee held 20 hearings which included testimony from 100 witnesses. Following these hearings, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers invited all prior witnesses of the Committee’s copyright review hearings and other interested stakeholders to meet with Committee staff and provide additional input on copyright policy issues. In addition, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a listening tour with stops in Nashville, Silicon Valley, and Los Angeles where they heard from a wide range of creators, innovators, technology professionals, and users of copyrighted works. In December 2016, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers released the first policy proposal to come out of the Committee’s review of U.S. copyright law. Additional policy proposals will be released.
More information on the House Judiciary Committee’s comprehensive copyright review can be found here.
Many clients think that they own the copyrights to the photos when they hire a photographer. But, in the United States, if the photographer is not the client’s employee (a w2 employee instead of a w9 independent contractor), the photographer owns the copyrights unless the photographer first agreed in writing and the work falls into one of 9 statutory categories.
Circular 9 from the U. S. Copyright Office explains: a work made for hire (WMFH) is ”a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.” The Circular emphasizes that when the work is created by an independent contractor, both parts must be satisfied–that is, the agreement must be in writing AND the work must fit one of those 9 categories. See also 17 USC 101.
On the other hand, if photos are taken by an employee within the scope of employment, then the photos are a WMFH and the employer is both the “author” and owner of the copyrights.
More companies now insist that they own the copyrights to avoid future infringement claims or licensing expenses, which can be a disadvantage to shooting WMFH photos.
However, in California, Labor Code Section 3351.5(c) provides:
Any person while engaged by contract for the creation of a specially ordered or commissioned work of authorship in which the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire, as defined in Section 101 of Title 17 of the United States Code, and the ordering or commissioning party obtains ownership of all the rights comprised in the copyright in the work.
Likewise, California Unemployment Insurance Code Sections 686 and 621(d) provide that:
Employer also means any person contracting for the creation of a specially ordered or commissioned work of authorship when the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire, as defined in Section 101 of Title 17 of the United States Code, and the ordering or commissioning party obtains ownership of all of the rights comprised in the copyright in the work. The ordering or commissioning party shall be the employer of the author of the work for the purposes of this part.
Therefore, you technically are an employee of any company that hires you to take photos pursuant to a WMFH agreement. Fortunately, the company then must provide workers’ compensation insurance to cover you if you get hurt on the job.
Because California companies have additional responsibilities when you’re an employee (such as payroll taxes and mandatory reporting to the state), they likely will try to avoid the traditional WMFH agreement by asking you to later transfer the copyrights or allowing you to keep some of the rights.
Whatever the agreement, be sure to review it closely so that you understand your rights.
Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
Sierra Trading Post (STP) is a great place to pick up some bargains on outdoor goods. While you have the chance to win a $200 STP Gift Card from its photo contest, just by entering means that you may get less than you bargained for.
Specifically, when you enter STP’s photo contest, you agree to the Terms and Conditions, which state in part (emphasis added):
ENTRANT’S GRANT OF RIGHTS: By participating in the Promotion, each entrant irrevocably grants Sponsor and its agents and successors and assigns a non-exclusive, unlimited, worldwide, perpetual, royalty free, transferable license and right (but not the obligation) to reproduce, publicly perform, distribute, exploit, publicly display, and otherwise use the Submission in any way, for any reason, and in any and all media (including but not limited to the Contest Site), without limitation, and without further notice, consent or consideration to the entrant. Without in any way limiting the foregoing, Sponsor shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to modify and make derivative works of the Submission for any purpose which Sponsor deems necessary or desirable, and each entrant irrevocably waives any and all so-called moral rights they may have therein. Sponsor shall have the right to freely sublicense its rights hereunder, in whole or in part, to any person or entity. Sponsor shall retain the rights granted in each Submission even if the Submission is disqualified or fails to meet the Submission Requirements.
There’s not much that STP can’t do with your photo submission. At least you keep you copyright and you’re not restricted with using it. Just seems that STP is getting the benefit of the bargain here!
Hat tip to Mike Calabro.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
Let the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, know what you want out of the Register of Copyrights position.
Participate in the online survey by January 31, 2017.
If you need some help with what to say in the survey, the Illustrators’ Partnership has provided some suggestions. Note that your name and information provided through the survey will appear online.
Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
Happy New Year! Get a good start on 2017 by testing your copyright knowledge. When you’re finished with the quiz, you can get additional information on each of these questions at https://www.photoattorney.com/test-copyright-knowledge-quiz-notes/.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
The public will have the opportunity to provide input to the Library of Congress on expertise needed by the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, announced today.
Beginning today, December 16, an online survey is open to the public. The survey will be posted through January 31, 2017. Input will be reviewed and inform development of knowledge, skills, and abilities for fulfilling the Register position.
Information provided through the survey will be posted online and submitters’ names will appear. Note that input will be subject to review, and input may not be posted that is off-topic or contains vulgar, offensive, racist, threatening or harassing content; personal information; or gratuitous links to sites that could be considered spam. The Library’s complete comment policy can be viewed here.
To provide input through the survey, click here.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
On Shark Tank last Friday, an entrepreneur with a clothing design business reported that a third-party company had copied her t-shirt design, which later was sold at Target. Target removed the shirts from its stores after the designer complained.
Mr. Wonderful (Kevin O’Leary), then asked, “Did you copyright your design?” The designer replied, “I had not at the time . . . .” Mr. Wonderful then asserted “So they really hadn’t broken any law at the time.”
A work is protected by copyright “when fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Even if the work is never registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, the copyright exists and is protected by copyright law. So, once the designer printed her t-shirt design, she owned a copyright and likely would be entitled to the profits that Target and the third-party company obtained from the infringing sales.
If a copyright for a work is registered, the owner gets additional benefits such as the option to recover statutory damages for infringements and the inference that the person who registered the copyright is the owner.
During the show, Shark Lori Greiner then added, “. . . it’s a great lesson, though, in knowing that when you have unique designs, copyright them. It’s not a lot of money to do so.”
Good advice, Lori, except it’s better to call it “registering” your copyright. If copyright owners tell others that they are “copyrighting” their works when they actually are registering them, others may believe that the works are not protected until that time.
To best protect your works, register your copyrights today (and refer to it that way).
Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
From the U.S. Copyright Office:
October 25, 2016
Karyn Temple Claggett Appointed Acting Register of Copyrights
Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden has appointed Karyn Temple Claggett as Acting Register of Copyrights effective October 21. Maria A. Pallante, who served as Register since 2011, submitted her resignation from the Library of Congress effective October 29.
“Maria’s service as Register has laid the groundwork for important modernization efforts in the Copyright Office, which I intend to pursue working in close collaboration with Congress and stakeholders. Improved information technology for the office will be a top priority. I am committed to making sure the copyright system of the United States is effective, efficient, and secure,” said Hayden.
Prior to Pallante’s term as Register, she served as Deputy General Counsel (2007-2008) and Associate Register and Director of Policy and International Affairs (2008-2011) for the office. From 1999-2007 she was Intellectual Property Counsel and Director of Licensing for the worldwide Guggenheim Museums. She also worked for two authors’ organizations in New York, serving as Assistant Director of the Authors Guild Inc. and as Executive Director of the National Writers Union. She practiced at the Washington, D.C., law firm and literary agency Lichtman, Trister, Singer and Ross and completed a clerkship in administrative law for the appellate division of the U.S. Department of Labor.
“I am pleased to announce that Karyn Temple Claggett will serve as Acting Register while a national search is conducted for a new permanent Register,” Hayden said. “Karyn is a skilled intellectual property lawyer and manager, and I am confident she will provide excellent leadership for the Copyright Office in the interim.”
Temple Claggett has served since 2013 as Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs for the United States Copyright Office. In that role, she has overseen the office’s domestic and international policy analyses, legislative support, and trade negotiations. She has directed the Office of Policy and International Affairs, which represents the Copyright Office at meetings of government officials concerned with the international aspects of intellectual property protection, and provides support to Congress and its committees on statutory amendments and construction.
Prior to joining the Copyright Office, Temple Claggett served as Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, where she assisted with the formulation of Department of Justice policy on legal issues and helped manage the Department of Justice’s Task Force on Intellectual Property. She also spent several years in the private sector as Vice President, Litigation and Legal Affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America and at the law firm Williams & Connolly, LLP. She began her legal career as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division through its Honors Program and also served as a law clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Temple Claggett earned her law degree from Columbia Law School, where she was a senior editor of theColumbia Law Review and Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. She earned her BA from the University of Michigan.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!
From the Copyright Alliance:
For the past several years the Copyright Alliance has been a proud partner of the Columbia-Cravath Copyright Dispute Pro Bono Clinic. Each fall semester the law firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore LLP and law students enrolled in Columbia University provide free legal representation to individuals and small businesses in lawsuits involving cutting edge copyright issues.
To assist the Clinic, the Copyright Alliance reaches out to individual creators and small businesses in all disciplines to solicit for candidates for the program. In addition to having a copyright dispute that is new and ripe for litigation, for a dispute to be accepted by the Clinic it should present an interesting copyright issue, the resolution of which would benefit the creative community. Critically, candidates should be located in the New York City area and be unable to afford legal services.
If you are interested in learning more about this program, please go to www.copyrightalliance.org/content/pro_bono_trial_services_0, where you will find both the application requirements and an application. Because the Clinic only takes a limited number of clients each semester, applications do not guarantee representation.Check Photo Attorney on Lynda.com, in the Lynda.com Article Center, and on Twitter!