Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Copyright Registration of Multiple Works
Copyright registration is not mandatory to obtain rights in the United States, consistent with the rest of the world, under the Berne Convention. The owner of a work is entitled to mark the work "© [owner] [date]" to provide notice of ownership, regardless of registration status. A federal copyright registration is only required to enforce rights in U.S. courts. So why register early? U.S. law contains some valuable incentives to encourage copyright registration. An owner who timely registers is eligible to recover statutory damages (if desired) and attorney fees, in addition to obtaining an injunction. A copyright owner who registers more than three months after publication and after infringement commences, can still seek an injunction, but monetary recovery is limited to actual damages.
Many infringement cases involve zero or only de minimis actual damages. With potential statutory damages of up to $30,000 per infringement (up to $150,000 for willful infringement), and in view of the steep cost of litigation, the prospect of being awarded statutory damages and attorney fees can mean the difference between the owner of a registered work confidently asserting and fully litigating its rights, or not being able to litigate at all. A government fee of $45 for electronically filing a copyright application for a single work and a provision that allows for registration of multiple works together in a single application in certain circumstances (more on that below), make registration a bargain compared to other types of IP protection.
Accordingly, for content creators, copyright registration is arguably a "no brainer." But despite the low cost and minimal information required in a copyright registration, filing a registration application still requires thoughtful and experienced consideration.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.