Copyright Renewal Act of 1992

Last updated

Copyright Renewal Act of 1992
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Enacted bythe 102nd United States Congress
Citations
Public law Pub. L.   102–307
Statutes at Large 106  Stat.   264
Codification
Acts amended Copyright Act of 1976
Titles amended17 (Copyrights)
U.S.C. sections amended 17 U.S.C.   § 101, § 108, § 304, § 408, § 409
Legislative history

Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, Pub. L.   102–307 , 106  Stat.   264 , enacted June 26, 1992, is the first title of the Copyright Amendments Act of 1992, [1] an act of the United States Congress that amended copyright renewal provisions of Title 17 of the United States Code enacted under Copyright Act of 1976. The act eliminated the previous requirements under US law that a second term of copyright protection is contingent on a renewal registration with the U.S. Copyright Office. [2] It amended the Copyright Act of 1976.

Contents

Renewal system prior to and following the 1992 amendment

Under the 1909 copyright, works copyrighted in the United States before January 1, 1978, were subject to a renewal system in which the term of copyright was divided into two consecutive terms. [3] Strict time limits were imposed on renewal registration to secure the second term and extending copyright to the maximum length. Current copyright law is contained in title 17 of the United States Code. The Copyright Act of 1976 came into effect on January 1, 1978, and retained the renewal system for works that were copyrighted before 1978 and were still in their first terms on January 1, 1978. The statute, for these works, provides for a first term of copyright protection lasting 28 years, with the possibility for a second term of 47 years. This earlier system is also referred to as an "opt-in" system since authors would have to take the necessary steps required to claim the second term. [4]

The 1992 amending legislation secures this second term for works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977, without a renewal registration requirement. This system has been referred to[ by whom? ] as an "opt-out" system because it provides for copyright protection even if it is not requested by the author of a work. However, if a copyright originally secured before January 1, 1964, was not renewed at the proper time, protection would have expired at the end of the 28th calendar year of the copyright.

Under the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-298) twenty more years were added to the second term for works copyrighted between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. This made the total duration of copyright for these works 95 years.

The copyright office does not issue a renewal certificate, though renewal is secured automatically, unless the renewal application and fees are received and registered at the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office outlines the following benefits of filing a Copyright Renewal Application:

  1. The renewal copyright is established in the name of the renewal claimant on the effective day of renewal registration. If the renewal registration was not made in the 28th year, the renewal copyright is secured by the party entitled to claim renewal by December 31 of the 28th year.
  2. The Copyright Office issues a renewal certificate which acts as prima facie evidence of the validity of copyright during renewal and extended term.
  3. The right to use derivative works in the extended period might be impacted by renewal registration.

However, in cases where no renewal registration was made, important benefits such as statutory damages and attorneys fees can still be secured by filing a renewal registration anytime during the renewal term.[ citation needed ]

Eligibility to claim renewal

The law specifies the persons who are eligible to claim renewal copyright. Apart from anonymous works, the following are eligible to claim renewal:

  1. The author, if living
  2. The widow or widower of the author or the children or both, if the author is dead.
  3. If there are no immediate family members, and there is a will, then the author's executors can claim renewal.
  4. If there is no immediate family or will, the next of kin may claim the copyright.

A copyright proprietor or owner may claim renewal in only the following cases:

  1. Posthumous work
  2. Periodical, cyclopedic, or composite work
  3. Work copyrighted by a corporate entity
  4. Work made for hire.

Music industry implications

Many critics[ attribution needed ] viewed the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992, which was backed by the Recording Industry Association of America, as an attempt to prevent many songs from falling into the public domain because of procedural difficulties and mismanagement. [5] In the past several authors had lost considerable royalties on their works because they were not aware of the renewal procedure; this act aimed to prohibit such instances from occurring. [6]

A Billboard magazine article [6] mentions the complaint of Jacqueline Byrd, widow of Robert Byrd, the songwriter who wrote “Little Bitty Pretty One”, a 1957 hit. Byrd was informed by the Copyright Office that they had not received the renewal application for the song, and hence they would be ending royalty payments. Had the song been renewed, Byrd and her four children would’ve received payments till 2037. This incident was used to convince lawmakers about the need for such an amendment.

Reaction against the 1992 amendment

In 2007, four plaintiffs—the Internet Archive and its founder Brewster Kahle, and Prelinger Archives and its founder Rick Prelinger—filed the case Kahle v. Ashcroft in the Northern District of California, seeking a declaration that the Copyright Renewal Act was unconstitutional. The Internet Archive is a partner in the Million Book Project, a venture that aimed to scan over a million books to make it available to the public on the Internet. [7] [8] The plaintiffs argued that there are several cases where it is impossible to locate the authors. These orphan works could be used to contribute to projects that utilized public domain works. However, the 1992 amendment, by removing the renewal requirement of these works, prevented such works from falling into the public domain.

The district court dismissed the case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal on January 22, 2007, [9] saying that they had essentially made the same arguments as made in the Eldred case, which had already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. [10] [11]

National Film Preservation Act of 1992

The National Film Preservation Act of 1992 was included in the Copyright Amendments Act of 1992 as Title II. This act replaced the previous National Film Preservation Act of 1988 and reauthorized the National Film Registry and the National Film Preservation Board of the Library of Congress until 1996 (four years after the date of enactment). It also included instructions for the Librarian of Congress. [12]

Title III of the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 repealed the previous requirement that the Register of Copyrights report to Congress every five years regarding library and archives photocopying of copyrighted materials. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the constitutionality of the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). The practical result of this was to prevent a number of works from entering the public domain in 1998 and following years, as would have occurred under the Copyright Act of 1976. Materials which the plaintiffs had worked with and were ready to republish were now unavailable due to copyright restrictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Copyright Office</span> Government body that maintains records of copyright registration in the United States

The United States Copyright Office (USCO), a part of the Library of Congress, is a United States government body that maintains records of copyright registration, including a copyright catalog. It is used by copyright title researchers who are attempting to clear a chain of title for copyrighted works.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1790</span> First U.S. federal legislation on copyright

The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term should the copyright holder still be alive.

Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was a Supreme Court case that dealt with copyright and the public domain. It held that the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uruguay Round Agreements Act</span> US free trade law with implications for intellectual property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994. The Marrakesh Agreement was part of the Uruguay Round of negotiations which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1909</span>

The Copyright Act of 1909 was a landmark statute in United States statutory copyright law. It went into effect on July 1, 1909. The 1909 Act was repealed and superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976, which went into effect on January 1, 1978; but some of 1909 Act's provisions continue to apply to copyrighted works created before 1978. It allowed for works to be copyrighted for a period of 28 years from the date of publication and extended the renewal term from 14 years to 28 years, for a maximum of 56 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright registration</span> Legal process

The purpose of copyright registration is to place on record a verifiable account of the date and content of the work in question, so that in the event of a legal claim, or case of infringement or plagiarism, the copyright owner can produce a copy of the work from an official government source.

<i>Kahle v. Gonzales</i>

Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697 is a First Amendment case that challenges the change in the copyright system of the United States from an opt-in system to an opt-out system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Term Extension Act</span> United States copyright law

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States in 1998. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyrights.

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies products or services from a particular source and distinguishes them from others. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1976</span> United States law

The Copyright Act of 1976 is a United States copyright law and remains the primary basis of copyright law in the United States, as amended by several later enacted copyright provisions. The Act spells out the basic rights of copyright holders, codified the doctrine of "fair use", and for most new copyrights adopted a unitary term based on the date of the author's death rather than the prior scheme of fixed initial and renewal terms. It became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Public domain in the United States</span> Status of public domain in the USA

Works are in the public domain if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all, or if the intellectual property rights to the works have expired.

The copyright status of works produced by the governments of states, territories, and municipalities in the United States varies. Copyright law is federal in the United States. Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign. Other than addressing these "edicts of government", U.S. federal law does not address copyrights of U.S. state and local government.

Copyright renewal is a copyright formality through which an initial term of copyright protection for a work can be extended for a second term. Once the term of copyright protection has ended, the copyrighted work enters the public domain, and can be freely reproduced and incorporated into new works.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

The copyright law of the United States has a long and complicated history, dating back to colonial times. It was established as federal law with the Copyright Act of 1790. This act was updated many times, including a major revision in 1976.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective work (US)</span>

A collective work in the copyright law of the United States is a work that contains the works of several authors assembled and published into a collective whole. The owner of the work has the property rights in the collective work, but the authors of the individual works may retain rights in their contributions. Electronic reproduction of the whole work is allowed, but electronic reproduction of the individual works on their own, outside the context of the work as a whole, may constitute an infringement of copyright.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CASE Act</span> United States law on copyright remedies

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 is a United States law that establishes a small claims court-type system within the United States Copyright Office, known as the Copyright Claims Board, for copyright owners to seek damages under US$30,000 for copyright violations.

References

  1. "Titles - S.756 - Copyright Amendments Act of 1992". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. June 26, 1992. Retrieved December 4, 2017.
  2. Registration of Claims to Copyright-Renewals: Final Rule, U.S. Copyright Office, 72 Fed. Reg. 61801-61806 (Nov. 1, 2007)
  3. U.S. Copyright Office (July 2006). "Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright" (PDF). Retrieved June 11, 2018.
  4. Sprigman, Christopher. "9th Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to Copyright Laws in Kahle v. Gonzales." Stanford Center for Internet and Society
  5. Holland, Bill (1992). "C'right Renewal Act Is Law; Home-Taping Act Still Pending." Billboard July 11, 1992.
  6. 1 2 "Bush Likely to OK Bill That Would Renew All Pre-1978 Copyrights." Billboard 20 June 1992.
  7. Lee, Tim (2007). "Appeals Court Rejects Challenge to "opt-out" Copyright." Ars Technica
  8. Staff, Ars (January 25, 2007). "Appeals court rejects challenge to "opt-out" copyright". Ars Technica. Retrieved August 5, 2017.
  9. Kahle v. Gonzales , 487F.3d697 ( 9th Cir. 2007).
  10. Auchard, Eric (2007). “U.S. Court upholds copyright law on “orphan works” Reuters
  11. Auchard, Eric (January 22, 2007). "U.S. court upholds copyright law on "orphan works"". Reuters. Retrieved August 5, 2017.
  12. 1 2 "S.756 - Copyright Amendments Act of 1992". Congress.gov. Library of Congress. June 26, 1992. Retrieved December 4, 2017.