Assignment 5 Flashcards
According to the Second Circuit, what is the standard for granting summary judgment in a copyright infringement case?
The Second Circuit standard regarding summary judgment in a copyright infringement case is that summary judgment will be granted when all of the alleged similarity relates to only non-copyrightable elements that are found in the plaintiff’s work.
How can you distinguish Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures from Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, Inc.?
Sheldon is different from Hoehling in that the works in Sheldon were intended to be, and functioned as, fictional works based on a historical event. The court determined in Sheldon that the copying of historical elements in the works was permissible and that fictitious works based on historical events were likely to contain some similarities. In contrast, the works in Hoehling were nonfiction works. Although Hoehling used some creativity in devising his theory about the Hindenburg, the work was written as a work of nonfiction. The Hoehling court held the defendant did not infringe upon Hoehling’s rights because historical interpretations are not entitled to copyright protections.
What is wrong with the holding of Toksvig v. Bruce Pub. Co.?
Toksvig held that the defendant engaged in infringement when he copied a work written by an author who put a lot of time and effort into translating a multitude of documents written in Danish. The court said the work was entitled to copyright because there needs to be an incentive for authors to put time and effort into creating works. Here, the author contributed a lot of effort in translating documents. The court concluded that without the incentive of copyright protection, the author may have not created the work or at least put forth less effort. This holding is questionable because it sounds like the Sweat of the Brow Doctrine. The Feist court rejected the Sweat of the Brow Doctrine and stated that the amount of effort that goes in to creating a work is not determinative in terms of whether or not the work is entitled to copyright protection.
In a literary work, such as a computer program, are the non-literal elements of the work subject to copyright protection? Explain.
Yes, non-literal elements of a computer program are subject to copyright protection. Since computer programs fall in the category of literary works, the copyright protections granted to both computer programs and other literary works is similar. Just as a literary work, such as a book, can have copyright protection in a non-literal element like a plot, a computer program can have the same copyright protection in its non-literal elements. Therefore, just like with a book, infringement of a computer program can happen without actual literal copying.
identify the 2d Circuit’s substantial similarity test for computer programs and explain each step.
the Second Circuit’s substantial similarity test for computer programs has three steps. First, the code must be examined and subjected to an abstraction analysis. During the abstraction analysis, the code must be reverse engineered to determine the code’s different components, purposes, and order of operation. The purpose of abstraction is to separate the ideas from the expression. Next, a filtration analysis must be performed. In the filtration analysis, it must be determined which material is actually protected material. The key with this step is efficiency. Often, if there are only a few ways to write the code efficiently, this part of the program will not be protected. Finally, what is leftover after the filtration analysis (the “core of protectable expression”) must be compared to the defendant’s works to determine whether a substantial similarity exists.
If a certain module of a computer program is the most logical and efficient way to accomplish the task of the module, how does copyright law view that part of a program?
Copyright law views certain modules of a computer program that are the most logical and efficient way to accomplish the task as being ineligible for copyright protection. This is because the most efficient and logical way to accomplish a certain task is not an expression.
When did sound recordings, separate from the underlying musical work (song), receive protection under copyright law?
Sound recordings separated from the underlying musical work when pirating really became a problem in the 1950s and 1960s. As a response to such pirating, Congress amended the 1909 Copyright Act to include sound recordings in 1971. These amendments were later replaced with the Copyright Act of 1976.
Can a band perform a song, closely imitating an existing sound recording, without permission from the copyright owner in the sound recording? Explain your answer and cite the relevant statutory provision.
Yes, a band can perform a song that closely imitates an existing sound recording without permission from the copyright owner of the sound recording. This is because §114(b) of the Copyright Act of 1976 permits a physical duplication of the sound recording. However, such physical duplication still excludes pure imitation.
note: gallon thought this explanation was confusing
