In Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., Case No. 20–915, 595 U. S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the safe harbor provision provided under § 411(b) of the Copyright Act does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. Lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration.
The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) (emphasis added). Courts have uniformly understood “authorship” to refer to a quality that is uniquely “human,” often alluding to the nexus between the human mind and creative expression. For example, some of the earliest copyright cases defined copyright as “the exclusive right of man to the production of his own genius or intellect.” Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 56 (1884). See also Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S 82, 94 (1879) (explaining that copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that are “founded in the creative powers of the mind”).
The retransmitter of unlicensed copyrighted programming could not escape infringement liability when its charges to users exceeded its costs, despite its effort to characterize its charges as “recommended donations.” Following motion practice, the retransmitter service is no longer operational.
Update: This article was republished in the October 2021 issue of The Licensing Journal published by Wolters Kluwer.
Biz Markie (born Marcel Theo Hall), popularly known as hip-hop’s clown prince, passed away on July 16, 2021 at the age of 57. Biz’s innovative beats and lovably goofy lyrics left their mark on the music industry in more ways than one.
In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., Case No. 18–956, 593 U. S. ____ (2021), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Google’s unauthorized copying of around 11,500 lines of Oracle’s computer code was a fair use and therefore not an infringement.
Oh, the Mashups You’ll Stop!
In Dr. Seuss Enterprises, LP v. ComicMix LLC, Case No. 19-55348 (9th Cir. December 18, 2020), the Ninth Circuit held that Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! (“Boldly”)—ComicMix’s Star Trek-themed sendup of Dr. Seuss’s iconic Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (“Go!”)—was an infringement rather than a parody. In finding that all four fair use factors weighed in Dr. Seuss’s favor, the Ninth Circuit decisively reversed the lower court’s decision, which had held that Boldly was a fair use, that is, a permissible albeit unauthorized use of Go!
The Supreme Court recently denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in a much-watched copyright case, leaving in place a March 2020 Ninth Circuit en banc opinion that cleared Led Zeppelin of allegations that the beginning of “Stairway to Heaven” infringed “Taurus,” written by Randy Wolfe and performed by the band Spirit. The Court’s denial leaves undisturbed the Ninth Circuit’s decision concerning the scope of the relevant copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act and the status of the inverse ratio rule in the Ninth Circuit.
The U.S. Copyright Office announced a Final Rule setting forth a new registration procedure allowing copyright applicants the option to register groups of short online literary works with a single application and single filing fee. This option, which is expected to be available in August 2020, should offer substantial cost savings to prolific authors, bloggers and other online content creators seeking to protect their creative output. Group Registration of Short Online Literary Works, 85 Fed. Reg. 37,341 (June 22, 2020) (revising 37 C.F.R. § 202.4).
In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. ____ (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held (5-4) that any works (including non-binding annotations to a State code) authored by or for the State’s legislature in the course of its legislative duties are ineligible for copyright protection.
In Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877, 589 U.S. ____ (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, known as CRCA, did not abrogate the sovereign immunity of States because Congress lacked the authority to abrogate sovereign immunity.