Assignment 2 Flashcards
What is the merger doctrine? Please cite a case.
he merger doctrine is a doctrine that states that if there is only one way, or very few ways, to express an idea, such an idea may not be granted copyright protection. Under the doctrine, ideas and expression merge into one entity. The purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a monopoly over ideas that can only be manifest in a limited number of ways. See Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).
Randy Researcher develops a new fabulous weight loss program and writes a book “Fabulous” describing the program. Big Guy buys a copy of “Fabulous” and begins to promote the program. Big Guy writes his own book expounding upon and promoting the program, which does not directly quote any text from “Fabulous” but which does discuss and disclose every step of the program. Randy Researcher objects that Big Guy has “ripped me off,” and “stolen the program.” What is Big Guy’s best argument in defense of a copyright infringement claim concerning “Fabulous”? Cite a case from our text and a statutory provision in support of your argument
Big Guy’s best argument in defense of the copyright infringement claim would be that the weight loss program described in Fabulous was only an idea or a process and not an “original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” The book, Fabulous, is in fact “original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.” Thus, since copyright protection is not afforded to ideas or processes alone, Big Guy’s book would not be infringing upon Randy Researcher’s copyright infringement claim. This statutory provision that supports this argument is §102(b) of the Copyright Act of 1978. The case that supports this argument is Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880), in which the Supreme Court held that the idea behind a specific accounting method was not entitled to copyright protection.
In five sentences or less, explain the difference in approaches between Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley and Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble Company. In other words, distinguish those two cases.
The difference in approaches between Beardsley and Morrissey is based on whether the work in question was entitled to copyright protection. In Beardsley, the accounting method was described in a pamphlet that contained some original expression. The Beardsley court determined a “thin level” of copyright protection could be afforded to only those original elements. In contrast, the Morrisey court held the sweepstakes rules were not entitled to any sort of copyright protection. Thus, if the pamphlet in Beardsley was reproduced without authorization, the reproducer would be infringing, but if the sweepstakes rules were reproduced, there would be no infringement.
Computer object code is protectable under copyright law. Under the Copyright Act, what type of work is object code? Please site the Act provision identifying the types of works that are protectable.
Computer object code is protectable under copyright law as a literary work. The provision identifying the types of protectable works is located in §102.
How much of a computer software program must be disclosed in order to register the copyright in the program?
Copyright registration of a computer software program only requires the first and last twenty-five pages of the source code of the program be disclosed. If trade secrets are involved, then less of the code will be required.
Randy Researcher takes a CD with copyright source code, inserts the CD, and runs the program on his computer. In order to do this, the computer makes a temporary copy of the source code in order to run the program on the machine. Does this pose a copyright problem? Please cite a statutory provision in support of your answer.
No, this does not pose a copyright problem. Under §117(a)(1) of the Copyright Act of 1976, it is permissible for the owner of a copy of a computer program to to make a temporary copy of such computer program if the copy is created “as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner[.]”
Is copyright protection available for a mass produced utilitarian article? Cite a case.
Yes, copyright is available for certain mass produced utilitarian articles. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954).
What is the standard for protection of useful articles under the statute? Cite the statutory provision and quote the relevant phrase of the statute.
Under the statute, a useful article is protected if the article’s utilitarian elements can be separated from the article’s original or artistic elements. Such original elements will then qualify the article for protection as a “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work” described in §102(a)(5). The existence of utilitarian elements, if combined with the original or artistic elements, will not preclude copyright protection. This is because §113(a) states, “[t]he exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.”
Please identify the tests or approaches discussed in the Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. for determining protectability of useful articles and briefly describe them.
The Brandir court discusses four tests used to determine the protect ability of useful articles. The first test is the temporal displacement test, which examines how a person classifies a useful article. For example, a person looking at the Cellini salt cellar is more likely to think the article is a piece of art rather than a salt cellar. The second test is the primary use test. Under the primary use test, the primary use of an article determines whether an article is protectable. For example, a belt Kieselstein’s belt buckles’ primary purpose is for art rather than for holding up pants. The third test is the marketability test. The test examines whether an article is marketed as art or as a utilitarian article. The fourth test is the Denicola test, which focuses on the creator’s motivation for creating the work. If the work is created to serve a utilitarian function, then there is no separability between the artistic elements and the utilitarian elements and thus no copyright protection. If the work was created for artistic or other purposes outside the utilitarian purpose, then there is separability and the work is protectable.
How does the Copyright Office view copyrightability of masks and costumes?
The Copyright Office views masks and costumes separately in terms of copyright ability. In general, masks can be registered for copyright. Costumes, however, are classified as useful articles and therefore can only be registered if separate pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features exist on the costume.
