FANDOM


Mohammed Yeasin Khan



A Study of the' 'Copyright Law

in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh








A Research Work Presented to the School of Law

'Northumbria University'

Newcastle upon Tyne'

United Kingdom'







By Dr Mohammed Yeasin Khan LLB Honours, LLM, PhD, PGDL, Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn), UK

March 2008











Table of Contents



Part I: 1. Introduction

2. Aim

3. Objectives

4. Methodology of Analysis



Part II: 1. Copyright Law in England

2. Copyright Law in U.S.A.

3. Copyright Law in Bangladesh



Part III: Future and Reform '



Part IV: Conclusion



Bibliography

























Some Basic Information About Dr Mohammed Yeasin Khan



Born in historic ‘Taragon’ of Akhaura Municipal Town of Akhaura Upazila under Brahmanbaria District of Bangladesh, Dr Mohammed Yeasin Khan LLB Honours, LLM, PhD, PGDL, Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn), UK is a Journalist, Poet and Rhyme Write, Founder Editor of Weekly Deshdarpan, an Appellate Division Lawyer of Bangladesh Supreme Court (Advocate-on-Record)/ Jurist, Educationist and an Adjunct Professor of Law of a London based University Faculty. He performs his continuous philosophical studies and research works being based in England and Bangladesh simultaneously. In his PhD thesis titled ‘Protection and Promotion of Human Rights for Peace and Development’ he has recommended two new doctrines, namely, 'Ipso Facto Legal Rights Theory' and ‘The Man for Man Theory of World Peace’. He is Founder and President of Bangladesh Legal Rights Association and Man for Man International Foundation



According to the new doctrines recommended by Dr Mohammed Yeasin Khan:


Ipso Facto Legal Rights Theory

‘Right’ being synonymous of ‘legal’ and antonymous of both ‘wrong’ and ‘illegal’, every ‘right’ of any human person is ipso facto a ‘legal right’ which deserves protection of law and legal remedy irrespective of having being written into the law, constitution or otherwise in any country.

Man for Man Theory of World Peace

The only way to make the world terrorism and war free and to confirm peace and development worldwide is the unity of the world community in one and single theory of ‘man for man’ correlative, interdependent and ‘one to one-cum-one for other’ approach, namely, the ‘Man for Man Theory’ approach of world peace.



He can be reached at: drmohammedyeasinkhan@yahoo.com







A Study of the

Copyright Law in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh






By Dr Mohammed Yeasin Khan LLB Honours, LLM, PhD, PGDL, Barrister-at-Law (Lincoln's Inn), UK











PART I {C}{C





1. Introduction

It is said that there was a time when the sun of the British Empire did not set. So, at that time, the British had the opportunity to expand its laws, cannons and customs within the vast area of the globe under the British domain. As that of many other countries, both United States of America and Bangladesh were once British dominion. Like many other laws, the Statute of Anne in England, being the first British Copyright Law and Common Law, thereby, got root in the United States of America and in Bangladesh during the British regime. As a result, the model for the first Copyright Act, 1790 of the United States of America was, in fact, the English Statute of Anne. In Bangladesh, during the British regime, subsequent British Copyright enactment, the British Copyright Law of 1911 was introduced in 1914 while copyright in registered designs was available from the British rule through The Patents and Designs Act 1911[1] which came into force on 1st March, 1911. So, apparently, there is an inherent resemblance among the copyright laws of England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh that raises common issues of discussions.



“The term copyright is a highly descriptive term: the right to make copies”, said Marshall A. Leaffer.[2] According to The Webster's New World Dictionary, 3rd Edition, copyright is: “the exclusive right to the publication, production, or sale of the rights to a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, or to the use of a commercial print or label, granted by law for a specified period of time to an author, composer, artist, distributor, etc.”[3]{C}



Copyright is one of the three primary categories of intellectual property which has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “category of intangible rights protecting commercially valuable products of the human intellect” comprising of “primarily trademark, copyright, and patent rights”[4]{C} and having being used a means of censorship, immediately after the of the refinement of printing press in England it developed as a privilege for printers and were modified to protect the authors.[5]



According to Marshall A. Leaffer, “in the broadest sense, copyright law creates a system of property rights for certain kinds of intangible products, generally called works of authorship. Initiated in 18th century in England, the first copyright act gave authors the exclusive right to make copies of their Books. Today, copyright law covers much broader ground, including not only most artistic, literary and musical works, but computer software and some kind of databases as well.”[6]



Ian Jay Kaufman states, “Copyright is fundamental area of intellectual property law that is vitally important, not only with respect to works authored by individuals, but for the myriad types of works produced by companies of all sizes. It is also an area, like trademark law, with a long tradition and an evolving present that reflects the global trends toward harmonisation of territorial laws as well as the continuing need to apply and adapt copyright principles to new technology.”[7]



According to him, “The world of copyright is developing at a rapid pace, and those wishing to protect their rights must stay abreast of new changes in the laws throughout the world, whether through counsel or in-house. As part of the primary triumvirate of intellectual property rights, it is important that business decision-makers keep a steady view to the continuing development and harmonisation of copyright laws worldwide.”[8]



For the protection of Literary and Artistic Works worldwide, the main basis for modern copyright law to which most countries of the world are signatories is the Berne Convention under the terms of which, “authors are entitled to some basic rights of protection of their intellectual out put”[9] and under Article 9(2) of the Convention, signatory nations are given the right for legislation to grant some exceptions to the right of reproduction with such limitations that the reproduction neither conflicts with a normal exploitation of the work, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.[10]



However, Berne being complex, many developed and developing countries were not willing or not able to sign up every conditions and therefore, a compromise was reached in 1952 with the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) in Geneva. So, most of the world nations are signatories to the either of the Berne Convention or the UCC.[11] Two other conventions namely, The International Convention for the Protection of Performing Artists, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention) 1961 and The Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms (Geneva) 1971 give protection to performers of audio visual media.[12] Together with an annex called the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPS), The World Trade Organisation agreement was signed in 1994 to reduce distortions and impediments to international trade ensuring Intellectual Property rights measures and procedures themselves to do not become barriers to legitimate trade with the threat of trade sanctions and incentive for countries to sign up to TRIPS.[13]



In December 1996, for managing international copyright conventions, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted two new treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performers and Producers of Phonograms Treaty.[14]



As that of many other countries among the member states and unions, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (U.S.A.) and Bangladesh dealt with the WIPO, the UCC, the Berne and the TRIPS in the following manner.



The United Kingdom (UK) became a member of WIPO in 1970[15] and ratified protocol of the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) in 1972[16] and then became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1887.[17] UK adopted the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade in 1994.[18]



The United States of America became a member of WIPO in 1970[19] and ratified protocol of the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) in 1972[20] and then became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989[21] and adopted the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade in 1994.[22]



Bangladesh became a member of WIPO in 1985[23] and ratified protocol of the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) in 1975[24] and then became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989[25] of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994.[26] So, the copyright laws in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh being deeply rooted in the 18th century’s Statute of Anne of England, by virtue of a set of international conventions and treaties, has acquired an internationally recognised character. At present, each and every country is trying to shape or reshape its legislation, relating to copyright law in the light of those international conventions.



By virtue of a number of international conventions such as the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, copyright acquired in one country extends to other countries, which are members of these conventions.



Basically, with little difference to meet the national needs of each of the countries, the principles of copyright law requires to be the same in all countries. Due to this reason, to ensure the introduction of such legislation that protect “the traditional manifestation of their culture which are the expression of their national identity”[27] in respective jurisdiction of the nations “Copyright legislation is to be framed with due regard to national needs and in a manner that best serves the national interests”[28] with the aim to achieve a common objective worldwide. On the basis of the same objective as well as in the interest of basically transitional companies and developed countries to ensure maximum profit or interest out of copyright in international trade, within the ambit of The Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights (TRIPs), Copyright, was included as an integral part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).



TRIPs Agreement established the protection of copyright as a major part of the multinational trading system embodied in the WTO and copyright being included as one of the three major components of intellectual property right is within the trading system and international protection of intellectual property while “the protection of intellectual property is one of the three pillars of the WTO.”[29]



When anything is spoken about the copyright law, it is generally spoken about the law of a particular jurisdiction like the United Kingdom, United States of America and Bangladesh. In common case, a practitioner is, only concerned with the law of his or her jurisdiction. But, copyright being interesting because of so many multilateral conventions that have been concluded in an effort to harmonise national laws and increasingly these conventions having direct effects on national law, “with the increases in trade, and now, with the Internet, it has become important to understand not only the law of one’s own jurisdiction, but also the law of other jurisdictions and the international conventions that regulate copyright by means of bilateral and multilateral commitments.”[30]



Under the above, this project will examine (i) the development of copyright law in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh; and (ii) existing national and international laws as well as accessibility of foreign laws and bilateral treaties in the said jurisdictions.



2. Aim

To examine:

(1) the development of copyright law in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh; and

(2) the accessibility of foreign laws, and international laws and treaties in English, U.S.A. and Bangladesh jurisdiction.



3. Objectives

(1) To have an idea about the copyright law development scenario in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh;

(2) To find out the existing legal frameworks of copyright law in each of the jurisdictions; and

(3) To find out the future prospects and reform agenda.



4. Methodology of Analysis

In order to meet the queries of all concerned, the simplest way of analysis has been made in settling the issues in the following manner.



Citation of the Existing law, Texts and Views etc. It has been done from various sources, such as:

(1) National Laws of England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh

(2) Multilateral/ International Conventional Laws

(3) Foreign/Bilateral Treaties

(4) Text Books, Journals, Newspapers and Articles

(5) Statutes

(6) Internet and Websites; and

(7) Supervisor’s Recommended Materials.









PART II



1. Copyright Law in England



1.1 History of Development

In England, after the introduction of the printing press in 1476, licensing acts were performing the function of copyright law until the enactment of the Statute of Anne[31] in 1709. During this period, in 1556, the Charter of Stationers’ Company was granted by Philip and Mary, the Roman Catholic successors to Henry VIII’s Protestant son, Edward VI, empowering stationers to make necessary laws or ordinance for the art or mistery of stationery also authorising them to search out illegal presses and books and things allowing anything contrary to such law or proclamation to be seized, taken, or burnt.[32] To censor any kind of heresy or sedition made by any printing press licensing acts were used by the monarchy as a guild and were being served as a form political censorship and trade regulation.[33]



The Statute Anne of 1709 being limited to books, i.e., literary works, its enactment resulted copyright law to be more a tool of authors and publishers than the state[34] and as well as the growing economic opportunity of authors' creation it also reflected an increasing respect for the rights of the authors[35] further specifying that the copyrights of authors to be limited by its time and title.[36]



The Statute of Anne granted authors or their assigns the exclusive right of publication for 21 years from the effective date of April 10, 1710 for existing works and for new works, the right ran for 14 years from the date of publication and the author living at the expiration of such term was granted the privilege of renewal for more 14 years.



The Statute of Anne conditioned upon entry of the title of the work in the register books of Stationers’ Company before publication as evidence of ownership so that through ignorance no person could be offended by this Act. Subsequently, for the purpose of further security of general public so that none was offended through ignorance of copyright provisions for notice of entry in the register book of Stationers’ Company as well as recording of assignments of rights were required to appear on every published work which involved the Stationers’ Company in the administration of copyrights and became a precedent for the registration system.[37]



Though it was not a condition for copyright, yet, a deposit of nine copies of the work for use by certain libraries of the UK was required27 and if the price of a copyrighted book was too high and unreasonable, any individual could petition designated officials having power to reform the price to protect the public from the monopolistic prices formerly charged by the Stationers[38] where, with a three-month statute of limitations, penalties qui tam of a penny per sheet as well as the remedy of forfeiture were provided.[39]



Although the Statute of Anne was some how straightforward, the Stationers viewed that the it taken away their former perpetual rights and also minimised their scope of remedies against piracy and as such for more than half a century, in the Battle of the Booksellers, in this view, after expiration of the statutory term the lower courts sustained them by granting injunctions and at last after 1738, the Stationers sought relief in Parliament, the Parliament concluded that “the principal problem was importation of Irish reprints, instead passed an act in 1739 forbidding the unauthorized importation of English language books.”[40]

When the question whether the Stationers’ protection was perpetual or limited by the terms set forth in the Statute of Anne remained as above, then, in 1774, it was Donaldson v Becket,[41] in which the House of Lords ruled against the Stationers, holding that on publication the right endured only for the term fixed by the statute which overruled the decision made in Miller v Taylor,[42] a case decided only five years earlier by the King’s Bench,



1.2 Colonial Copyright

Formerly, under English copyright, in the colonies, books of the United Kingdom were protected by the Colonial Copyright Act of 1847, and books printed or reprinted elsewhere could not be imported into the colonies under this Act. Later on, a royal commission was appointed in 1876 to consider UK national, colonial and international copyright issues and the commission made various recommendations. Now, the colonies are all included in the system of international copyright established by the Bern convention. Therefore, while allowing each colony to legislate separately for works first produced within its own limits, to extend the benefit of the British copyright acts to works first produced in the colonies, the matter now rests on the English International Copyright Act 1886, which contains provisions designed.[43]



1.3 International Copyright'

In UK, the rights of foreign authors rest on the International Copyright Act of 1886 giving effect to the Berne convention and an order in council dated 28th November 1887 made under that act confering on the author or publisher of a work of literature or art first published in one of the countries which are parties to the convention, the same rights as if the work had been first published in the United Kingdom, after compliance with the formalities necessary there, provided that those rights are not greater than those enjoyed in the foreign country.[44]



In foreign countries the rights of British authors rest on the domestic legislation in each country by which the country in particular has given effect to its promise has been contained contained in the Berne convention, and are enforced by the courts of that country in particular.[45]



1.4 The Current Copyright Law in England

The current Copyright Law in England is the Copyright Law of the United Kingdom as available in the Copyright , Design and Patent Act 1988,'''[46]''' the most of its part being effective from 1 August 1989, except for some minor provisions that were brought into force by 1990-1991 and thereafter having origintated from European Union directives, various amendments being made to the original statute.'''[47]'''



1.4.1 Protection Eligibility '

The types of work eligible for protection under the 1988 Act[48] are literary, dramatic, artistic or musical works,[49] the typographical arrangement of a published edition,[50] a sound recording, a film or a broadcast.[51] In the 1988 Act, a separate provision was made for material distributed by cable television providers as a copyright for cable programmes.[52]



1.4.2 Protection Qualification'

Under the British law, the work being an original work,[53] copyright in that work is automatically vested in the person who put the concept into material form with exceptions depending on the nature of the work, whether it was created in the course of employment and the purposes creation.[54]



There are two routes by means of which normal copyright works, qualify for protection, namely, the author of the work[55] and the the country of first publication.[56] The work qualifies for protection if its author is:[57]

(i) a British citizen, a British dependent territory’s citizen, a British National (Overseas), a British subject or a British protected person; or

(ii) an individual domiciled or resident in the United Kingdom or another country to which the qualification clause extends; or

(iii) a body incorporated under the law of a part of the United Kingdom or another country to which the qualification clause extends.



A work qualifies for copyright protection if it was first publication:

(i) in the United Kingdom or

(ii) in another country to which the qualification clause extends.[58]



A broadcast qualifies for protection if :[59]

(i) it is made from the United Kingdom or

(ii) it is made from another country to which the qualification clause extends.



For the purpose of this part, the issue of identity of the authoer may arise. If the identity of the author is unknown, the work is of ‘unknown authorship’.[60]



1.4.3 Extension of the Copyright Period '

The duration of the copyright period before 1 January 1996 was life of the author plus years and to harmonise the duration of copyright within the European Economic Area (EEA), following the EU Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC it was extended to life of the author plus 70 years by The Duration of Copyrights in Performance Regulations 1995.[61] Among the conditions of the extended term, one is that the authors should be a national of EEA.[62]



1.4.3.1 Crown Copyright, Parliamentary Copyright and Copyright of International Organisations

Within the United Kingdom, the term of protection offered by Crown copyright,[63] Parliamentary copyright,[64] copyright of Acts and Measures,[65] and that of international organisations.[66] Crown copyright of published literary, dramatic or musical works expires 50 years after publication.[67] Protection of Crown copyright for literry, dramatic, musical or artistic works is a maximum of 125 years.[68] If such a work is published commercially by the first 75 years of that time, then proection by the Crown is for 50 years. Parliamentary copyright of a literary, musical or dramatic work subsists until 50 years after the making of the work.[69] The copyright of Acts and Measures subsists from Royal Assent until 50 years later.[70] Copyright of which an international organisation first owner subsists for 50 years from the end of the year of its creation.[71]{C}



1.4.4 Copyright of 'Typographical' Works'

Copyright in typographical arrangements subsists for 25 years from publication of an edition.[72]



'1.4.5 'Copyright in Broadcasts and Cable Programmes

In a broadcast or cable programme copyright subsists for 50 years[73] from the making of the broadcast or cable programme if it is made in an EEA country. Copyright in a repeat broadcast or cable programme expires at the same time as the copyright in original broadcast or cable progamme.[74]



'1.4.6 'Copyright in Sound Recordings

Copyright in sound recordings expires at the end of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published or if during the initial 50 years the recording is played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from said communication or playing to the public if the author of the broadcast is an EEA citizen.[75]



'1.4.7 'Copyright of Film

Copyright in a film expires 70 years after the death of the person or people who determine the length of copyright. Where more than one person determines the length of copyright, the length is determined to be 70 years after the death of the longest lived of those individuals.[76]



1.4.8 Copyright in Artistic, Dramatic, Literary and Musical Works

Copyright in artistic, dramatic, literary and musical works in rexpect of any known author expires after 70 years of his or her death.[77]



1.4.9 Copyright of Unpublished Work

In England until 1 August 1989, all unpublished writings such as manuscripts, typescripts, computer discs and print-outs, letters, marginalia, shopping lists and birthday card-massages etc. enjoyed perpetual copyright.[78] From the date of implementation of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 on 1 August 1989, a 50-year transition period has been adopted for living copyright-holders.[79] Therefore, manuscripts of any author's including authors who died before August 1989 could remain copyright-protected until the end of 2039.[80] With the introduction of new regulations on extending term the basic rule was that the copyright protection qualified for life plus 70 years. So, after the commencement of the 1988 Act an unpublished work by an author who died before 1969 expires at the end of 2039 and an author if died in 1980 would have his/her coyright protected untill 2050.[81] In the UK, from January 1996, except Crown or international organisations, any phoptograph whether published or unpublished but created between 1 June 1957 to 1 August 1089 are protected now for 70 years.[82]



1.4.10 Unusual Status of Copyright'

This privilege of unusual legislation can rarely be seen explicitly written into Schedule 6 of the Act. Under this unusual legislation privilige, during the debate current UK copyright legislation in Parliament, the former Prime Minister Lord Callaghan of Cardiff proposed an amendment entitling the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children to indefinitely retain the rights to payments of royalties for performances of Peter Pan.[83]



1.4.11 Publication Right

“The definition of publication is very broad and includes any communication to the public, in particular: issuing copies to the public; making the work available by an electronic retrieval system; rental and lending to the public; performing, exibiting or showing the work in public; or broadcasting the work or including it in a cable programme service,” said Sandy Norman.[84]



Publication right was given by Council Directive to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a film not published previously but in which copyright has expired.[85] As part of SI 1996:2967 this publication right was implemented to the UK Act by The Copyright and Related Regulations 1996 which lasts for 25 years provided the publisher of the work is an EEA national and the work is first published in an EEA.[86]



1.4.13 Authors and Ownership of Copyright'

In British law, the first owner of a copyright is assumed to be the author of a work.[87] If a work is made by an author in the course of employment then the author's employer is the first owner of copyright.[88] It includes any person who creates an artistic, or a dramatic, or a literary or any musical work[89] or who publishes any edition of a work[90] or produces any sound recording[91] or is a main dircetor or producer of any film[92] or a maker of a broadcast[93] or a person who made the necessary arrangements necessary for any computer generated creation[94] or who is one of the joint authors of any work.[95]



1.4.14 Databases'

On the legal protection of databases, after a long discussion of four years, the European Council Directive No. 96/9/EC was adopted and had been implemented by the Copyrights and Rights in Database Regulations 1997.[96]



Although the original 1988 Act included protection databases, under this Act the word database was not defined. However, according to the amended 1988 Act, databases are considered to be literary works.[97] Over database, copyright subsists only if the database’s creation is the original work of the author.[98] The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 has been amended accordingly as The Copyright and Rights in Databases (Amendment) Reguations 2003 and thereby beyond the copyright a separate database right exists.[99]



The maker of a database is the first owner of any database right arising.[100] Regards copyright, an employee making a database in the course of his employment is the first owner of any database right.[101] In case of a database right to databases compiled by the monarch or an officer of the Crown in the course of their duties, the Crown owns the database[102] and the Lords or the commons have the right assigned to the appropriate chamber of Parliament for databases made under their direction.[103] Database made by two or more people is jointly owned by those people in respect of the right thereof.[104]



Unless the makers of the database are EEA nationals or resident in an EEA state;[105] are incorporated bodies with their central operations or principal place of business in the EEA and the body has a registered office in an EEA state or the legal entities operations are linked to the economy of an EEA state; or are unincorporated bodies or partnerships with their central operations or principal place of business in the EEA, database right does not subsist.[106]



From the completion of the making of a database, the right thereof lasts for 15 years[107] for making available to the public during that period then this time resets to 15 years from the time of making the same available to the public.[108] A changed database is regarded as effectively a fresh creation and causes the 15 year period to begin anew.[109] The theory databases thereby regularly undergo substantial changes and can enjoy effective perpetual database right protection having a database being created on or after 1 January 1983 and being qualified for a database right on 1 January 1998, the said right runs for 15 years from that date.[110]



As regards infringement of database, when all or most or of a database is extracted and reused by any body without having any consent of its owner, or if any minor portion or portions of a database is or are repeatedly extracted and reused without the consent of the owner concerned then the database in any database is infringed.[111]

1.4.15 Fair Dealing and Other Exceptions'

‘Fair dealing’ exceptions to copyright has been set out in British copyright law which is more restricted than the American concept of ‘fair use’ whch is applied mainly in tightly defined situations.



Under the 1998 Act,[112] any fair dealing with any dramatic or any literary or any musical work for any non-commercialresearch purpose if sufficient acknowledgement to that effect is duly made therein[113] and fair dealing with a work for the purpose of review or criticism of any such other work or performance with sufficient acknowledgement to that effect[114] will not be copyright infringement.



A Database right also has a similar set of exceptions. Database right fair dealing applies for the use of databases which have been made available to the public if a person is a lawful user of database and it is extracted for the purpose of teaching or research and not for any commercial use.[115]



Copyright fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is most often encountered in the context of research or private study. Under the 1988 Act, it was originally the case the any research use was fair dealing. However in late 2003 the 1988 Act was amended to exclude commercial use from the definition of fair dealing. Fair dealing for research should be accompanied by acknowledgement if this is possible.[116] Fair dealing with the typographical arrangement of a work for the use in research or private study is also explicitly enabled.[117]



Along with the above, more exceptions covering certain libraries and archivists,[118] for the inclusion of short passages of literary and dramatic works in collections for schools,[119] for copying and photocopying works in the course of instruction and examination and performing , playing or showing works in certain circumstances at schools etc.,[120] and for recrding broadcasts and cable-casts[121] may be included.



Beyond non-commercial research, private study and incidental copying, another common exception to copyright is, for criticism, review or news reporting. Fair dealing for the purposes of criticism or review only applies with sufficient acknowledgement and provided that the work being criticised or reviewed has been made available to the public.[122]



Visually impaired and blind people were granted an exception with the passing of the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002. Where a lawful copy of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a published edition is possessed by a visually impaired person, and the lawful copy of the work is not accessible to the visually impaired person, copies of the work can be made such that the copies are accessible to the visually impaired person. [123]



1.4.16 Moral Rights, Privacy Rights and Performance Rights



1.4.16.1 Moral Rights'

According to the 1988 Act, the moral rights of the author of a copyright literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work and the director of a copyright film include the automatically operative right which must be asserted to be identified as the author or director of a work to object to derogatory treatment and not to be falsely attributed a work.[124]



There are four moral rights, such as:[125] the right of paternity[126] which is the right of the author that has to be asserted and a statement of this assertion takes place on the title page verso of many publications and on the backs of photographs or the mounts of transparencies or slides. Exceptional cases in which this right does not apply include, among others, computer programs, design of typefaces and computer-generated works. Also, it does not apply to works generated in the course of employment;[127] the right of integrity[128] which is the author’s right to prevent or object to derogatory treatment meaning an addition, deletion from, alteration to or adapation of of his/her work;[129] the right of false atribution[130] which is the right of persons not to have a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work falsely attributed to them;[131] and the right of disclosure[132] which is the right of the author, applicable to a person who commissions the work but decides not to have it issued to the public, exhibited or shown in public, or included in a broadcast of cable programme, to withhold certain photographs or films from publication.[133]



The rights to be identified as director or author and to object to derogatory treatment subsist for as long as the copyright term of the work and the right to object to false attribution of a work expires 20 years after a person's death.[134]



1.4.16.2 Privacy Right'

In the case of commissioning a photograph or any film by any person for the purpose of using the same in private and domsetic use, if such photograph or film attracts copyright , the person commissioning the same enjoys the right to preclude others from issuing any copy to the public[135] except anything applicable to copyright is incidentally included in a work, be it artistic, broadcast, cable-cast or film.[136]



1.4.16.3 Rights in Performance '

Being achieved through the Performers Protection Acts,[137] two separate rights in performances were created by the 1988 Act[138] initially: which was for a personal, one for performers non-assignable right;[139] and the other for their exclusive recording contractors transferable by contractual assignments.[140] However, the performance of the work in public being restricted by the copyright in a reading of a literary work, a dramatic performance, a musical performance, or a variety act, over the years, they have been greatly expanded by amendments to that Act.[141]



1.4.16.3.1 Duration of Rights in Performance

From the end of the year of performance, the rights last for 50 years; or if that occurs within the first period, 50 years from the year of release. A national of a non-EEA state will be limited to any lesser term, as with other provisions driving from duration Directive, for protection which he has in his home state.[142] In cases where release does not take place within the same year as the performance, there has been a potential extension of term and the rights under the 1988 Act previously lasted for 50 years from performance and to deal with these cases of equaivalent to those for author’s copyright, there are now provisions for extended and revived rights.[143]



1.4.16.3.2 Qualification for Protection of Rights in Performance

If the performance of qualified individual takes place in a qualified country then performers’ rights exist under in 1988 Act and in such a case the qualification rules being different for the two identical rights namely: first, the own right of performer’s where infringement can occur in respect of a qualifying performance only [144] and second, the exclusive recorder’s right, where, if that person, or one of his licensees,[145] is a qualified person sufficiently connected with a qualifying country, can be infringed only ,.[146]



1.4.16.3.3 Remedies for Infringement of Rights in Performance

For infringement of rights in performance remedies avaialbe are injunction, damages, and account of profits and because of the immediate need of remedy such rights are enforceable as breaches of statutory duty, to engage in seizure against traders without premises and to have orders which include delivery up and disposal, and to proceed by way of prosecution for range of statutory offences, the right owner is given similar powers to those conferred on copyright owners.[147]{C}



1.4.17 Artists' Resale Right'

Being provided by the laws of a number of states, for payment during the copyright period to the artist or his succesors,[148] a droit de suite requires a proportion of resale prices.[149] Having shared the same moral justification, the right of an author is the antethesis of copyright.[150]



This artist’ resale right[151] came into being in UK in 2006 under the European Communities Act.[152]



Only a qualifying individual or a qualifying body can exercise this right,[153] the former being either an EEA national or a national of a country defined in Schedule 2 to the order creating the right[154] and the latter being a charity within the United Kingdom or a charity based within the EEA or a country defined in Schedule 2 to the order.[155] The right being covered original works or limited number of those works where copies have been made under the direction of the author, it is regarded as a resale if the price of the work being sold is not less than €1,000[156] and either the seller or buyer is acting in the capacity of a professional art dealer having a saving provision allowing direct purchase from the author and in this case the sale price does not exceed €10,000 within the period of last three years so that it does not fall under the resale right.[157] To pay the royalty with a relevant person,[158] being defined as one or more of the agent of the seller, the agent of the buyer or the buyer where no agents exist, the seller is jointly liable[159] where in order to be liable to pay the royalty, the relevant person must be a professional art dealer involved in the transaction taking place within three years of the request made.[160] In case of a sale before 2010, the eligible person for the royalty are the living authors only.[161]



1.4.18 Re-use of Public Sector Information

On 1st July 2005, Statutory changes to the licensing of Public Sector Information came into force[162] through the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005.[163] The 2005 regulations impose a duty on public sector bodies to licence relevant intellectual property rights the definition of which includes copyright,[164] database right,[165] publication right,[166] and rights in performances[167] but not trademarks or patents.[168]



While defining public sector body, the 2005 Regulations excluded public service broadcasters, educational, research and cultural establishments from having complied with their provisions.[169] Therefore, the BBC, county council libraries, the British universities and some classes of documents, for example, are immuned from having to comply with the regulations. This immuned provisions include documents which originate or are being supplied from outside the public task of the public sector body or where the relevant intellectual property rights are owned by third parties.[170]



In case of any document available for re-use and not provided to the applicamt for re-use or is accessible to the applicant for re-use by means other than the various British access to information regimes and if such documents are not identified by any public sector body, further exclusions apply.[171]







2. Copyright Law in U.S.A.'



2.1 'History of Development

In the United States of America (U.S.A.), Massachusetts was first to introduce copyright law in 1672 prohibiting the making of reprint without the consent of the owner of the copy, where, as in England, copyright was granted to the printer, not to the creator. Therefore, before 1780s, there being only Licensing Acts in most of other colonies and a formal copyright statute in Massachusetts, in the U.S.A., the printer John Usher received the first copyright with the exclusive right and privilege of publishing the laws of Massachusetts.[172]



The United States adopted the legal basis for copyright in 1787 in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, ratifying the same later in 1788 in the model of the English Statue of Anne empowering Congress “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”[173]



After the adoption of the Constitution, the Congress exercised this authority by enacting the Copyright Act of 1790 for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies[174] in which the basic term of protection was 14 years from the date of filing, with the possibility of renewal for an additional 14 years.[175] In 1831, the U.S.A. extended the 14-year term to 28 years with the renewal possibility for another 14 years and in 1909 again to 28 years with the renewal possibility for another 28 years.[176]



In 1891, the U.S.A. passed the International Copyright Act known as the Chace Act and restricted copyright protection only to its citizens and residents. By the passage of Chace Act the U.S.A. accorded equal treatment of foreign authors whose country of citizenship accorded reciprocal protections to the works of U.S. authors.[177] Denying U.S. copyright protection to works of all English-language authors to U.S. authors unless their work was printed in the U.S., the Chace Act restricted the import of foreign-printed books [178] and until 1984 this restriction on granting copyright to works by American authors printed abroad was not removed[179]



In the U.S.A. copyright law was also passed in 1831 and 1909 before its last major change was made by the Copyright Act of 1976,[180] which is, for works published after January 1, 1978, the exclusive source of copyright law in the United States.[181]



The United States of America is a member of the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) since 1951 as one of its founding member and became a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989. The U.S.A. adopted the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade in 1994.[182]



In U.S.A., in 1997 and 1998, the 105th Congress passed three major copyright laws. These three copyright laws are: the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, the Sonny Bono Term Copyright Extension Act (SBCTEA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[183]



2.2 Current Copyright Law



2.2.1 General

2.2.1.1 Specification of Federal Copyright Act

As per the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 as amended, the current copyright law protects all original works of authorship fixed in a tangible form. Copyright holders have the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, sell or lease works, and to prepare derivative works, and to publicly perform literary, musical, dramatic and choreographic works, pantomimes, motions pictures and other audio visual works, as well as to display these and pictorial, graphic or sculptural works, including individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.[184] In 1980 software was deemed a type of copyrightable work, and in 1984, through the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA),[185] the designs for semiconductors were given sui generis protection.[186]



2.2.1.2 Subsistence of Copyright Protection

Copyright protection in U.S.A. having being fixed in any tangible medium of expression and being subsisted in original works of authorship, either directly or with the help of any machine or device, can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated otherwise from the same.[187] Under the U.S.A. copyright law, authorship of works include literary and musical works including any accompanying words; dramatic works including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic, pictorial,[188] graphic, sculptural and audiovisual works and sound recordings.[189]



2.2.1.3 Protection of U.S. Copyright Law

The copyright law of the U.S.A. extends to all unpublished works regardless of place and person and therefore, a citizen of or a person residing in the United States as an author of any work first published in the United States and any work first published by an author who is a citizen or a person residing in a nation that is party to a copyright treaty to which the United States is also a party is protected under the U.S. copyright law.[190]



2.2.1.4 International Protection[191]

The U.S., as member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and party to the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), and the most of the countries of the world being members of at least one of these conventions as well as the members of the two international copyright conventions having agreed to give nationals of member countries the same level of copyright protection they give their own nationals, U.S. authors automatically receive copyright protection in all countries that are parties to the said conventions. [192]



2.2.2 Standard Requirements for protection'

For copyright protection, there are three requirements: originality, creativity, and fixation.



2.2.2.1 Originality

If an work is an independent creation and cannot be copied then it is said to be an original work.[193] This means that for a work to be original it needs to be a work created independently having a minimum element of creativity in it.[194] In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc[195]. it was held that in order to enjoy copyright protection, the U.S. Constitution requires creative expression or originality to be reflected in a work claiming the protection.[196]



2.2.2.2 Creativity

A work will only satisfy the creativity requirement if a de minimis amount of creativity is there in it.[197] Commonplace creations such as label on a box of cake simply depicting pictures of cakes have been found by Courts to be sufficiently original.[198] Besides very low creativity standard, limits are there on what will fulfil the requirement. For example, incomplete words or phrases were not found to be original.[199]



2.2.2.3 Fixation

Finally, the requirement of fixation is also broad since the media which are yet to be developed can have the element of fixation in it.[200]{C}



Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides that for a work to be fixed it has to be sufficiently permanent or stable so that it can be understood, produced again or otherwise communicated for a period of not less than transitory duration. The form, manner, or medium does not make any difference. It rests with the author to fix words, be it, for example, by writing them down, typing them on an old-fashioned typewriter, dictating them into a tape recorder, or entering them into a computer. If recorded simultaneously with the transmission a live television broadcast is fixed.[201]



2.2.2.4 Uncopyrightable Works

There works some works which are not copyrightable. For example, works produced by federal government officers and employees, federal statutes and rules are not protected.[202] Furthermore, an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery is not eligible for copyright protection regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.[203]



2.2.2.4.1 Uncopyrightable Works: Public domain

Public domain works cannot enjoy copyright protection.'[204]' Works are to be considered as public domain works,'[205]' if the legal duration for the work's copyright has expired and the work is composed solely of facts or ideas;'[206]' the work was brought out before 1978 and there was no proper copyright notice and the publication of the work took place between 1978 and 1989, the notice on the work was improper and no adequate attempt was made to mend the impropriety;'[207]' and, the work was placed in the public domain on purpose by the copyright owner by making a statement to that effect and the work was created by the federal government.'[208]'



2.2.5 The Exclusive Rights

In the copyrighted work a copyright owner has five exclusive rights.[209] These are: the right of reproduction,[210] the right to prepare derivative works,[211] the distribution right[212] and public performance and display rights.[213]



2.2.6 Infringement

An infringer is one who violates any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner.[214] It is worth-while to mention that copyright infringement is quite distinct from theft though it is contrary to recent rhetoric on the part of certain parties.[215]



2.2.6.1. Direct Infringement

Copyright infringement can be either direct or indirect. A person who, without the permission of the copyright owner, involves himself in an activity that is exclusively the right of that owner, does so in copyright infringement unless the other person's use fits into one of the limitations on the owner's exclusive rights.[216]



'2.2.6.2. Indirect Infringement

There must be an underlying direct infringement in order for one to be liable for indirect infringement. This was an issue in the Napster case[217] in which a suit was filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) against Napster. RIAA alleged that Napster’s product facilitated copyright infringement on a wide scale and as such was contributorily and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Napster argued that the copies made by the users were for noncommercial purposes and therefore were permitted by the constitution and American Home Recording Act 1992. The trial court ruled against Napster against which Napster has preferred appeal. If the higher court finds in favour of Napster then the company would not be liable for indirect infringement even if its service results in copying of copyrighted materials on a large scale.



2.2.6.2.1 Vicarious Liability

In the landmark case Shapiro Bernstein and Co. v. H. L. Green Co.[218] the concept of vicarious copyright liability was developed for sales of counterfeit recordings. A doctrine being taken from the so-called dance hall cases, in which the operator of an entertainment venue was held liable for infringing performances when he could control the premises and he had financial interest in doing so,[219] the same rule of having ability to control the infringing activity and also the fact of having a direct financial interest in the activity, was later articulated in this case, as being that one may be vicariously liable in a same such situation.[220]



2.2.6.2.2 Contributory Infringement

A person who induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, with knowledge of the infringing activity, may be held liable as a contributory infringer.[221] In the Netcom case[222] the issue of contributory infringement was raised. In this case question arose whether the BBS operator, Netcom, knew that the plaintiff’s work was infringed by its customer. It was held that there will be no liability for contributory infringement where the continued distribution of the works on its system is allowed.[223]



2.2.7 Limitations on the Exclusive Rights

The copyright owner's exclusive rights are subject to a number of exceptions and limitations that give others the right to make limited use of a copyrighted work. Major exceptions and limitations are outlined in this section.



2.2.7.1 Ideas

It is only the unauthorized taking of a protected work's expression that is protected by copyright. Therefore, the work's ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries are not eligible for copyright protection.[224]



2.2.7.2 Facts

As copyright protects originality and not effort, a work’s facts do not get copyright protection even if the author had to spend a large amount of time, effort and money in discovering those facts.[225]



2.2.7.3 Independent Creation

A similar work, created independently, or an exact duplicate of the copyrighted work does not infringe any of the copyright owner's exclusive rights. As such, a copyright owner has no recourse against the creator of such independent works.'[226]'



2.2.7.4 Fair Use

Fair use is a privilege. Under this privilege, authors, scholars, researchers, and educators are permitted to borrow small portions of a copyrighted work free of charge. However, this can only be done for socially productive purposes.[227] In order to use copyright protected works for essentially noncommercial reasons, permission of the copyright owner is not required. By virtue of the Copyright Act 1976, as amended in 1992, any person is authorised to make fair use of a published or unpublished copyrighted work including the making of unauthorised copies in connection with criticism of or comment on the work; in the course of news reporting; for teaching purposes; and as part of scholarship or research activity.



Whether or not a particular scenario of copying without permission falls under the privilege of fair use is decided varies from case to case and depends on four basic factors, such as: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit, educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.



The biggest exception to the copyright protections on a work is fair use. However, this exception may not be available where the copyrighted work is unpublished, the use is commercial in nature and essentially competing in the same market as would the original resulting in having a negative impact on the market of the copyrighted work.[228] That is why, in Harper Row v. Nation Enterprises,[229] the Supreme Court held that Nation Enterprises publication of 1,900 words of a manuscript by former President Gerald Ford did not constitute fair use.



In Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc., two Live Crew's parody of Roy Orbison's song, ‘Pretty Woman’ was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a fair use where the court found that when the markets for an original work and a transformative work are different, a commercial use could be a fair use.[230]



2.2.7.5 Archival copies

When the public has easy access to the collections of the library or archives, a library or archives may reproduce only one copy of a work if there is no purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage behind the reproduction or distribution provided the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright or a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright that appears on the copy.[231]



2.2.7.6 First Sale Doctrine

The owner of a particular copy is allowed, under the First Sale Doctrine, codified in 17 U.S.C. 109, to sell that copy without the permission of the copyright owner,[232] to display that one image of the copy at a time.[233] However, a copy of a computer program or phonorecord may not be leased by that owner of the copy for direct or indirect commercial advantage.[234] However, phonorecords may be lent by a nonprofit library or educational institution.[235] Under certain circumstances, a nonprofit library may, lend computer programs as well.[236]



2.2.7.7 Performances by transmission for educational and religious purposes

In the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils or by transmission for educational purposes, or in the in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly, performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatic-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work is not copyright infringement.[237] Without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, is permissible under some circumstances.[238] The other exceptions are performance for private, home transmissions,[239] small businesses- transmissions,[240] non-dramatic musical works by nonprofit horticultural organizations,[241] music or video stores to promote sales of the audio-video products,[242] designed to aid the handicapped,[243] and for the benefit of non profit veterans.[244]



2.2.7.8 Copies of Computer Programs for Archival Purpose

If any new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the use of the computer program in conjunction with a machine, or any new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only, it will not be infringement for the owner of the copy to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program.[245]



2.2.7.9 Audio Recording Devices and Noncommercial Copying

A technical limitation on the ability of a copyright holder to bring suit is 17 U.S.C. 1008, which provides that “no action may be brought . . . alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.”[246]



2.2.8 Duration of Rights

Under the current law, generally, copyright in a work subsists from its creation for a term of the life of the author plus 70 year after his death.[247] For author’s joint work not for hire, copyright subsists for a life term of the last surviving author plus 70 years after his death.[248] For an anonymous, a pseudonymous, or a work made for hire, the term of copyright for works made for hire is 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first[249] and after 95 years period from the year of its first publication, or a period of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first. In case a certified report indicates to any person that the records of the Copyright Office disclose nothing as to whether the author of the work is living, or died less than 70 years before, he is entitled to the benefit of a presumption that the author has been dead for at least 70 years.[250] Copyright not there before in the public domain or copyrighted, but created before January 1, 1978 subsists from January 1, 1978, for the term of a copyrighted work created on or after January 1, 1978[251] a term of copyright ends at the end of the year in which it expires.[252]



2.2.9 Copyright Ownership'

Initially, copyright in a work vests in the author either independently or jointly to co-owners.[253] The co-owners hold undivided interests and ownership of the entire copyright irrespective of any differences in their contribution[254] and each of a joint work maintains the right to use it subject to remain accountable to the other co-owner.[255]



If nothing is otherwise in the agreement, for a work being made for hire, the person for whom the work is being prepared is the author of the work.[256]



A work for hire can be defined as a work prepared by an employee in course of his or her employment being specially ordered as: (i) a contribution to a collective work, (ii) a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, (iii) a sound recording, (iv) a translation, (v) a supplementary work, (vi) a compilation, (vii) an instructional text, (viii) a test, or (9) an atlas provided the parties agree expressly in a written and signed instrument to the effect that the work shall be considered to be a work for hire.[257]



The copyright in each contribution of a collective work vests initially in the author of the contribution. The owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, unless an express transfer of any of the rights are made there under.[258]



2.2.9.1 Transfer of Copyright Ownership'

Unless it is done by means of a writing signed by the owner of the rights conveyed, a transfer in copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid.[259] Such requirement of writing does not apply to nonexclusive rights, but applies only to transfers of exclusive rights.[260]



It enables the Copyright Office to give constructive notice of the transfer to all persons. In case of two conflicting transfers, the transfer executed first prevails regardless of the order in which the transfers were recorded with the Copyright Office provided the first transfer is recorded within two months and even the same being recorded more than two months after the transfer shall prevail unless the second transfer is recorded first in any good faith and without any knowledge of the earlier transfer even after the passage said period.[261] Over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership, before being recorded the transfer and being noticed, if it is evidenced that it was signed in a written instrument and the license was taken before the transfer or in good faith, a nonexclusive license prevails.[262] In many circumstances, if the work is not made for hire, an author may terminate the grant of any transfer or copyright license executed on or after 1 January 1978.[263]



Beginning 35 years from the date of the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the publication of the work, 35 years from the date of publication or 40 years from the grant, whichever is earlier, the author may terminate the grant during a five year period.[264]



Whether an independent contractor is making a work for hire or merely transferring some rights in the work and whether the contractor is transferring some rights, it is also important to be clear about and important to set forth exactly what those rights are.[265]



2.2.10 Notice, Deposit, & Registration



2.2.10.1 Notice

A defense of innocent infringement will be unavailable to a person who is alleged to have infringed copyright if notice of copyright is provided in a manner that complies with certain specifications.[266] For implementing the Berne Convention, amendments of copyrights law has made the copyright notice provision permissive rather than mandatory and as such failure to place notice of copyright on the work does mot place a work in the public domain.[267] Prior to the infringer having been given notice of copyright, if an infringer is able to prove that (s)he was misled by the lack of notice, the infringer will not be liable for statutory or actual damages sustained by the copyright owner for lack of notice.[268]



2.2.10.2 Deposit

A person owning the exclusive right of publication[269] requires to deposit complete two copies of each work in the Copyright Office for its use or for disposition of the Library of Congress[270] provided the Register of Copyrights, by regulation, may exempt the deposit requirements or require only one copy to be deposited[271] and after any such publication, for failure to comply with the demand may make the copyright owner liable for a fine of up to $250 plus the retail price of the copies or cost to the Library of Congress of obtaining the copies[272] and such being willful, a fine of up to $2,500 may also be levied.[273]



2.2.10.3 Registration

For registration of a work, along with the application,[274] the owner should deposit a fee of $20 plus adjustments made by the Copyright Office[275] one copy in the case of an unpublished work, a work published outside of United States, or a contribution to a collective work, or two copies in the case of a work published in the United States[276] and on receipt of the application after required review of the materials as a prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright[277] the Register is required to issue a certificate of registration. In case of denial by the Register, he is required to notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for doing so.[278] It is mentionable here that before a copyright owner may bring an action for an infringement of a work whose country of origin is the United States, the registration of copyright is required.



2.2.11 Remedies

For infringement of copyright, a copyright owner may avail the remedies such as an order of injunction from a court restraining infringement,[279] the action being pending, an order of court to make infringing copies impounded,[280] to claim damages and the infringer's profits or, statutory damages of between $750 and $30,000 and also for awarding costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee.[281]



Persons who willfully infringe a copyright either for commercial advantage criminal penalties [282] or by reproducing or distributing copies of one or more works within 180 days period with a value of more than $1,000 are also available against them, [283] For fraudulent placing of a copyright notice or for fraudulent removing of a copyright notice, or for falsely representing a material fact in a copyright application, a person will be liable to pay a fine of $2,500.[284]



With regard to civil actions of copyright infringement, there is a three years statutory limitation while, with regard to criminal actions, there is a statutory limitation of five years.[285]



2.2.12 The NET Act

Prior to the enactment of The NET Act[286] copyright infringement was a civil matter. This Act extended the concept of copyright infringement to be criminal offence such as financial gain to receive anything having a total value of more than $1,000, even if the infringer does not profit.[287]



For infringement of copyright, the penal provisions of the NET Act requires stoppage of copying and payment of fine and to go jail to escape a technological protection.[288]



2.2.13 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

Extending the term of copyright by 20 years, this Act extended the term of copyright to match that of the European Union, so that the basic term of copyright is now the life of the author plus 70 years.



To the renewal terms of pre-1978 copyrights, this Act added 20 years, making them effective 95 years from first publication, life plus 70 years for individual authors and 95 years from publication for corporate authors and thus works published in 1922 went into public domain on January 1, 1998, but works published in 1923 that were still protected in 1998 will remain protected until January 1, 2019. The only exception is previously unpublished old works which remain unpublished until 2003 and fall into the public domain and they will under copyright until 2047 if they are published prior to 2003.[289]



2.2.14 The DMCA[290]

The key issues and changes in The DMCA are allowing three copies of covered work to be made such as: one for archival purposes, one as a master and a third as a use copy, from which other allowable copies may be made of covered to be made; eliminating the limitation requirement of permissible copying to facsimile only copies; and providing preservation of copying which had been limited to instances where a copy of work has been damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen and a replacement copy is not available at a fair price and if the copy's format has become obsolete.[291]



Having contained provisions designed to protect copyright management information[292] as well as provisions that limit the liability of online service providers,[293] the DMCA contained provisions prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or use of devices or services that circumvent measures preventing unauthorised access to copyrighted materials and unauthorised copying of copyrighted materials[294]



2.2.14.1 Anti Circumvention Provision

Because of a concern that this would diminish the ability of the public to take advantage of fair use and other limitations on a copyright owner's exclusive rights[295] although the actual circumvention of measures designed to control copying is not prohibited, and although the Governmental activities such as law enforcement and intelligence activities are not subject to the anti circumvention provisions,[296] the DMCA prohibits making, selling, or using devices or services that are primarily used to circumvent technological measures designed to control access to copyrighted material.[297]



2.2.14.2 Copyright Management Information

The information that identifies the work, the author, the copyright owner, and terms and conditions of use, the DMCA prohibits a person from knowingly providing or distributing such copyright management information.[298] For violating the anti circumvention provisions or copyright management information provisions for commercial gain, the person guilty of such willful first offense can be fined for an amount of $500,000 and can be sentenced to jail up to a five years.[299]



2.2.14.3 Limitation on Liability for Online Service Providers

The four new limitations on liability for copyright infringement by online service providers the DMCA creates are: transitory communications, system caching, storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users and information location tools.[300]



2.2.14.3.1 General Qualification Requirements

As a general qualification requirement, where those measures meet certain specifications, a service provider must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers and accommodate and not interfere with measures copyright owners use to identify or protect works.[301]



2.2.14.3.2 Transitory Communications Limitation

The liabilities of service provider in transmitting data information limited by the provision include conditions that the transmission should be initiated by a person other than the provider; the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying should be carried out by an automatic technical process by the service provider; the service provider should not determine the recipients of material; no intermediate copies be ordinarily accessible to any body other than anticipated recipients, and should not be retained for longer than necessary; and the material should be transmitted to its content with no modification.[302]



2.2.14.3.3 Limitation for System Caching

For service providers for caching copies and for the purpose of making the material available to subscribers who subsequently request it, when carried out through an automatic technical process, limitation applies to acts of intermediate and temporary storage.[303]



2.2.14.3.4 Limitation for Information Residing on a System at the Direction of Users

For infringing material stored on a system at the direction of a user, for eligibility, this provision limits the liability of a service provider to the effect that if the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity and must expeditiously take down or block access to material, a service provider must have less than a requisite amount of knowledge and must not have a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringement and upon being notified in the specified manner of an alleged infringement[304] with the Copyright Office, the service provider must also have filed a designation of an agent to receive notice of claimed infringement.[305]



2.2.14.3.5 Limitation for Information Location Tools

If the provider lacks a certain requisite knowledge that the material is infringing, and has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, then upon receiving notification, the provider must expeditiously block or remove access to the material[306] guarding against fraudulent or counter notification,[307] so that this provision is applied.



2.2.14.3.6 Special Rules for Nonprofit Educational Institutions

For nonprofit educational institutions, the DMCA makes an exception in the case of system caching and transitory communications limitation so that a faculty member or graduate student is considered to be a person other than the institution, while the knowledge of any faculty member or a graduate student is not attributed to the educational institution, in the case of other limitations.[308]{C}



3. Copyright Law in Bangladesh



3.1. Brief History of Development

In Bangladesh, the first legislation on copyright was introduced in 1914, during the time of the then British regime. This legislation was mainly based on the British Copyright law of 1911. After the independence of 1947 from the British rule, when Bangladesh became the East Pakistan province of the then Pakistan State, a new copyright law as being the Copyright Act, 1962 was promulgated and thereafter the Copyright Rules, 1967 was framed. After a historic bloody war of nine months in 1971, the then East Pakistan Province of Pakistan State obtained full independence and emerged as an independent and sovereign Bangladesh State. After 1971, Bangladesh, as a sovereign state, has done so many changes in its legal arena that in the meantime, taking into account the prevailing situation in Bangladesh and around the world, the Copyright Act, 1962 has been replaced in 2000 by the Bangladesh Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000).



Besides, in Bangladesh, in respect of registered designs, the legislative provisions of copyright inherited from the British rule are also available in Part II of The Patents and Designs Act 1911. [309]



3.2 International Laws for Protection of Copyrights and Membership of Bangladesh

The major international laws for protection of copyrights where Bangladesh has obtained memberships (accession / acceptance etc. by Bangladesh on April 15, 1994) are the following:

  • The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1994.
  • WIPO Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on July 14, 1967.
  • Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) 1886-96.
  • Universal Copyright Convention, 1952.[310]



3.3 Bangladesh’s Compliance of International Copyright Obligations

As a signatory of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) including the GATT Uruguay Round and World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements,[311] Bangladesh was obligated to bring its laws and enforcement efforts into TRIPS compliance[312] and therefore, to help writers, artists, filmmakers, musicians, producers, publishers and computer software companies to protect their copyrights, on 9 July, 2000, after seven months of the TRIPS due date, the Copyright Act 2000[313] as a new copyright legislation was passed in Bangladesh. The Act provides for maximum punishment of four years' imprisonment and fine in cash of TK 200,000[314] (approx. USD $3,933.14) in cash for violation of the copyright rules,[315] although, the legislation being proclaimed as a positive step onward and the Bangladesh government sees this law as being in line with the conventions of the World Trade Organization, according to the computer programmers and software developers in Bangladesh the Act does not prohibit songs, writing or computer programs from being reproduced without permission for non-commercial purposes.[316]



3.4 Current Copyright Law



3.4.1 Nature and Scope of Protection

Under the current copyright law in Bangladesh, [317] copyright relates to the expression of thought and subsists in all original artistic, dramatic, literary and musical works etc. At the time of granting copyright, some issues are relevant in respect to the work, such as, it must be original meaning not taken from any other work; in respect of two same but independently created work they will have copyright in respect to their own ones; and more importance to be given on hard work, proper adjudication and the capital spent in creating the same.



The broad scope of copyright as laid down in sections 14 and 15 of the 2000 Act include acts, such as: to publish and to reproduce the work in any material form, to perform it in public, to produce, reproduce, perform or publish any translation of the same, to make any cinematographic film or a record in respect of work and including making any adaptation to communicate the work by broadcast or to communicate to the public by loud-speaker or any other similar instrument the broadcast of the work etc.[318]



3.4.2 First ownership

Under the Copyright Act 2000, the author of the work is the first owner'[319]'{C} provided: in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, if the author is employed under service or apprenticeship by any newspaper, magazine or journal under a contract of service, the employer will be the first owner of copyright;[320] if a painting or portrait is drawn or a photograph is taken, or, or an engraving or a film is produced at the instance of any person for any valuable consideration, the said person is the first owner of the copyright; [321] unless delivered on behalf of another person, the person delivering the address or speech is the first owner of copyright;[322] in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, in case of any government work, the government shall be the first owner of copyright;[323] in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, if any work is published or made by or under any local authority, the local authority shall be the first owner of copyright;[324]and in absence any agreement to the contrary, in case of any computer programme, the employer or the employer’s farm shall be owner of the copyright.[325]



3.4.3 The Copyright Office

In Bangladesh, the Copyright Office is headed by the Registrar of Copyrights. He has a fixed number of Deputy Registrars under him and their functions are under the functions and supervision of the Government of Bangladesh.[326]



3.4.4 The Copyright Board

The provisions for the Copyright Board have been laid down in section 11 of the 2000 Act. The Board consists of a Chairman and two or more, but not exceeding six other members.[327] Either a sitting or retired district judge or a civil servant having the status of Additional Secretary or an experienced lawyer having the qualifications to be a judge of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh shall be the Chairman of the Board.[328]



3.4.5 The Registrar of Copyrights

The Registrar of Copyrights in Bangladesh shall be the Ex-Officio Secretary of Copyright Board of Bangladesh and he will perform his as being fixed.[329]



3.4.6 The Powers and Functions of Copyright Board

Subject to the provisions and rules framed under the Copyright Act 2000, the Copyright Board in Bangladesh has the power to fix place and time of meeting and working procedures of the Board,[330] including its functions to dispose of appeals against any decision or order of the Registrar of Copyright of Bangladesh;[331] to dispose of applications for correction of entries in the copyright register;[332] to pronounce judgments upon disputes on assignment of copyright;[333] to grant licenses to works both published or republished;[334] after a period of one, five or seven years as the case may be, from the first publication of the work, to issue license to create and to bring out any dramatic or literary work which is rendered into any language ;[335] to adjudicate upon disputes as to whether a work has been published or about the date of publication or about the term of copyright of a work in another country;[336] as for sound recordings, to fix royalty rate;[337]and for fixation of the resale share right of manuscripts of a dramatic or literary or musical work or copies of a drawing, a painting or a sculpture in original form.[338]{C}



3.4.7 Procedure to Obtain Copyright

In order to be eligible for copyright protection, the works should be original[339] and should satisfy some conditions[340] such as: the first publication of the work should take place in Bangladesh[341] and at the date of first publication outside Bangladesh, the author should be a citizen of Bangladesh and if at the date of publication, the author was dead, at the time of his death, the author was a citizen of Bangladesh.[342] In case of a work which is yet to be published, the author, when making the work, should be a citizen of Bangladesh or a permanent resident in Bangladesh.[343] Architectural works of art should also be located in Bangladesh in order to enjoy copyright protection.[344] However, foreign works do not have to satisfy any of the above conditions in order to qualify for copyrights.[345]{C}



3.4.8 Registration of Copyright

For registration of copyright in Bangladesh a person, or an owner, or an author, or a publisher having interest in copyright, along with required fees may apply to the Registrar of Copyright in prescribed form[346] and after receipt of any application and after holding inquiry as required, unless anything is decided in writing to the effect that the entry of such particulars to be improper, the register of copyright and shall issue a certificate of registration to the petitioner.[347]{C}



3.4.9 Assignment and License

In an existing work or in a future work, the owner of the copyright or the prospective owner of the copyright can assign or grant license to any person the copyright of the work which may be applicable either for the whole or any portion of work provided assignment or license may be either in general or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof.[348]{C}



3.4.9.1 Mode of Assignment

According to the provisions of ss. 18-23 of the 2000 Act,[349] the nature, procedure and mode of the assignment of copyright[350] is as such that, it shall be put in black and white and the assignor or his authorised agent shall sign on it.[351] The specific works should be identified by the assignment and the assignment should mention particularly the rights assigned as well as the territorial scope and duration of such assignment.[352] The assignment, during its existence, should specifically mention whether or not any amount of royalty is payable to the author or his legal heirs[353] and it can be revised, extended or terminated with mutual agreement between the parties.[354]



Unless otherwise specified in the assignment, where the assignee does not exercise the rights assigned to him within a period of one year from the date of assignment, the assignment in respect of such rights shall be deemed to have lapsed after the expiry of the said period;[355] and unless specified, the period of assignment shall be deemed to be five years from the date of assignment[356] and in the case of unspecified territorial extent, it shall be presumed to extend within the whole of Bangladesh.[357]



Furthermore, by giving notice in the prescribed form to the Registrar of Copyrights, the author of a work may also relinquish all or any of the rights comprising the copyright in the work[358] and the Copyright Board being authorised to deal with any such dispute regarding the assignment of copyright[359] is also empowered to cancel any assignment after 5 years.[360]{C}



3.4.9.2 License

A license of copyright, which can be limited in terms of either the scope or the duration or both, will be in writing.[361] Due to unreasonable price, non-publication as per demand and necessity, it also provides for issuing of compulsory licenses in respect of works withheld from the public.[362] For the purpose of promoting teaching, scholarship and research etc., compulsory license is also granted for reproduction or translation of original works of foreign origin, provided, such foreign works and their translation can then be published in Bangladesh.[363]{C}



3.4.10 Term of Protection

According to ss. 24-32 of the Copyright Act,[364] the term of protection as available are:

  • other than a photograph, in the case of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, if published during the lifetime of the author, copyright subsists during the lifetime of the author plus sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies;[365]
  • as for joint authorship the period of sixty years will start after the death of the lastly dying author;[366]
  • the terms of copyright in the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works is until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published and copyright shall subsist until sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies, if the identity of the author is disclosed before the expiry of the sixty years period;[367] and
  • in the case of posthumous publications, [368] photograph, [369] cinematography film and sound record, [370] where the Government or a public undertaking is the first owner of copyright[371] and works of international organization[372] the period of copyright will have a term of sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the work is first published.[373]



The Copyright Act 2000 in Bangladesh also provides for the protection of broadcast reproduction rights for a term of twenty five years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the broadcast is made.[374] Under this Act, protection of performers' rights is for a term of fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the performance is made.[375]



3.4.11 Author's Special Right

The Copyright Act 2000 in Bangladesh without using the term moral rights it has given the authors similar rights as author’s special rights.[376] Under such rights, the authors, even after the assignment or revocation of their copyright will enjoy the special rights to claim authorship of the work;[377] and to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work, if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation.[378]



3.4.12 Copyright Society

Having a separate legal entity to safeguards the interests of the owners of the works in which a copyright subsists, a copyright society is a registered collective administration for commercial management of his/her work[379] about which the 2000 Act has included provisions for the formation and management of the such society in Bangladesh[380] as registered society to do business in respect of the same class of work.[381]

3.4.13 Functions of a Copyright Society

The functions of a copyright society includes issuing of licenses in respect of the rights administered by the society, collecting fees in pursuance of such licenses, and distributing such fees among owners of copyright after making deductions for the administrative expenses.[382]



3.4.14 Infringement of Copyright

The works deemed to be copyright infringement includes:[383] doing anything, the exclusive right to do which is conferred upon the owner of the copyright;[384] or permitting for profit any place to be used for communicating the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright[385] by a person without a license from the owner of the copyright, or the Registrar of the copyright, or in contravention of the conditions of a license granted or any conditions imposed by a competent authority under Act. [386] Such other works also includes as infringement of copyright[387] are those makes for sale or hire, or sells or lets hire or by way of trade displays or offers for sale or hire any infringed copies of the work;[388] distributes, either for the purpose of trade or to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, any infringed copies of the work;[389] or exhibits to public by way of trade any infringed copies of the work;[390] or imports into Bangladesh any infringed copies of the work;[391] and in general the commercial exploitation of the work in any form by a person without authority.[392]

3.4.15 Exceptions to Infringement

For the encouragement of private study and research and promotion of education, the 2000 Act[393] provides some exceptions to infringement in respect of fair dealing in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works as laid down in the Act[394] under the categories, such as: reproduction for use of private study or private use with research;[395] or reproduction for use in academic discussion, review or criticism;[396] reproduction for use in judicial proceedings[397] and for use of members of Parliament;[398] publication of short passages, restricted reproduction or performance for educational purposes;[399] making of records under license from Copyright Board on payment of royalty;[400] playing of records or performance by a club or society for the benefit of the members of religious institutions;[401] reproduction of an article on current economic, political, social or religious matters in newspapers, magazines etc;[402] reproduction of copies (not more than 3) for use in libraries or for research or private study;[403] subject to certain conditions, matters published in official gazettes including Act of Parliament or its translation;[404] making of a drawing, engraving or photograph of an architectural work of art, or a sculpture kept in a public place;[405] use of artistic work in a cinematography film;[406] use of an artistic work (author not the owner of copyright) by the author of any mould, cast, sketch, plan, model, etc., made by him for the work;[407] and reconstruction of a building in accordance with architectural drawings.[408]



3.4.16 Suit for Infringement

Where in any work, different persons own many rights being conferred by a copyright , the owner, to the extent of his/her any such right, may enforce such right by a civil or criminal proceeding on issues that may arise in a suit or a criminal proceeding.[409]{C}



3.4.17 Remedies Against Copyright Infringement

The remedies as available against infringement of copyright in Bangladesh includes: Civil Remedies,' [410]' Criminal Remedies[411] and Administrative Remedies.[412]{C}



3.4.17.1 Civil Remedies

As civil remedies for infringement of copyright in Bangladesh, the owner of copyright can bring civil action in injunction, accounts and damages.[413] in the Court of District Judge, under whose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides or carries on business or the cause of action arose irrespective of the defendant’s place of residence or place of business.[414]{C}



3.4.17.2 Criminal Remedies

The copyright infringement being a cognizable offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period extending from six months to four years and a fine ranging from Tk. 50,000/- to Tk. 2,00,000/-. The 2000 Act also provides for seizure of infringed copies and confiscation of all duplicated equipments used for manufacturing counterfeit copies, and if the court is satisfied that an infringement has been committed without having an intention for profit or non-commercial purpose, the court may give lesser punishment, such as, imprisonment for less than six months and fine for less than 50, 000 taka.[415] In case of piracy of computer programs, the amount of fine is now minimum Tk 1, 00,000 and maximum Tk. 5, 00,000, if it has been committed for commercial purpose, provided, for committing infringement for non-commercial purpose, the court may impose lesser punishment and lesser fine.[416]



3.4.17.3 Administrative Remedies

When the infringement is by way of such importation and the delivery of the confiscated infringed copies to the owner of the copyright, to ban the import of infringed copies into Bangladesh, for administrative remedies one can move to the Registrar of copyrights.[417]{C}



3.4.18 Appeal

Under the 2000 Act, any order made by the Registrar of Copyright in Bangladesh is subject to appeal to the Copyright Board.[418] Against any order made by the Board, any aggrieved person may, according to section 96, prefer appeal to the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.[419]



3.5 Copyright in Registered Designs

3.5.1. Copyright on Registration

The Patents and Designs Act 1911 provides copyright to the proprietor of registered designs[420] for five years from the date of registration;[421] an extension of second period of five years;[422] and further extension of copyright for a third period of five years on application to be made to the Controller in the same prescribed manner.[423]



3.5.1.1. Registration of the Design Ensures the Right of the Design

“So long as the registration certificate (regarding design) exists the plaintiff gets protection u/s 47 & 52 of Patent & Design Act to guard against piracy of its registered design.”[424]



3.5.1.2 Lawful User of Registered Design

Under section 53(1) of the 1911 Act, “during the existence of copyright in any design it shall not be lawful for any person other than the registered proprietor to use it for the purpose of setting his goods.”[425]



3.5.1.3 Duration of Copyright of Registered Design

A registered proprietor shall, have copyright “of a design during five years from the date of registration and it is unlawful for any person during the existence of copyright in any design to make any obvious imitation thereof as long as registration is not cancelled by injunction against one who initials his registered design.”[426]



3.5.2 Piracy of Registered Design and Their Protection

Except with the licence or written consent of the registered proprietor, in any design, during the existence of copyright, it shall not be lawful for any person to apply or cause to be applied to any article for the purpose of sale in any class of goods in which the design is registered; or to publish or expose or cause to be published or exposed for sale that article, without the consent of the registered proprietor;[427] if any person acts in contravention of such provision he shall be liable to pay to the registered proprietor of the design a sum not exceeding five hundred 24 taka recoverable as a contract debt, or for an injunction against the repetition thereof and to pay such damages as may be awarded;[428] and the above statutory provisions having being available under the 1911 Act, in this regard, it has also been decided by Hon’ble the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh that: “A copyright in a design registered under the Act be protected by an order of injunction against any other person who is found to infringe upon such copyright. As long as the register of design is not rectified or registration is not cancelled by following the procedure in the Act, an ordinary Court has no other alternative than enforcing the copyright.”[429]








PART III



1. Future and Reform



1.1 UK Copyright Law



1.1.1. Reform of Crown Copyright Law

“The UK government produced in the 1990’s a green paper and a white paper on the Future Management of Crown Copyright. In consequence of the White Paper, the government materials on non-governmental websites should be significantly easier than the previous.”[430] This was said by Mark Wing and Ewan Kirk about reform of Crown Copyright law while suggesting, “If the Crown Copyright were to be abolished there is also issue of ensuring quality control of non government reproductions of Crown Copyright material. Without restricting the people’s right in someway, it could not be achieved directly. One possibility is that the future role of HMSO could be limited to an integrity protection, with a provision similar to the moral right of integrity found in many European copyright laws being extended explicitly to cover government information. If this used the same format as the existing moral right in the Copyright Design and patent Act 1988 then an inaccurate or otherwise misleading reproduction of government material could be actionable as a breach of statutory duty, a statutory tort.”[431]



Comment: UK Government’s above green paper and a white paper and the view suggested by Mark Wing and Ewan Kirk is agreeable in that easy access of government materials on non-governmental websites would lead to low quality non-government reproduction of such materials. Therefore, Crown Copyright, being in crying need of being in existence, should not be abolished. Also, any penalty imposed on an inaccurate or otherwise misleading reproduction of government material might, on the face of it, seem to go against people, but it is also those same people who will enjoy the fruition at the end of the day.



1.1.2 Two Recent Related Development

Regarding the above government back reform proposals, Mark Wing and Ewan Kirk further suggested, “Two recent related developments in copyright are now casting doubt on the future ability of electronic document delivery to survive outside a collective licensing scheme. The two developments are 1996 WIPO[432] Copyright Treaty (hereafter WCT) and the proposed EU Copyright Directive.[433] Both developments are direct response by international organizations to the perceived threat to copyright owners interests by the advent of digital age, and in particular the internet and adopt a very stringent position in relation to digital copyright.” [434]



Comment: About such suggestion, it is submitted that, though the above developments cast doubt on the future ability of electronic document delivery to exist outside a collective licensing scheme and adopt a very stringent position in relation to digital copyright, the monopoly resulting from the directive should not be taken to be undesirable. This is because, one of the main purposes of copyright law is to give exclusive rights to publication, production or sale of some recognized rights. Hence, there seems to be no urgency to retreat from a scheme which will help create any information monopoly.



1.1.3. UK Government’s Reform Proposals

As available at www.out-law.com/page-8782, “The UK Government has proposed allowing private copying of music and films and relaxed restrictions on copyright for schools and libraries in a major intellectual property consultation launched on 08.01.2008.”[435]



Comment: The above proposal regarding relaxation of restrictions for schools and libraries is very likely to prove effective if acted upon. About allowing private copying of music and film, although it may allure the audience into borrowing the CD/DVD of the music or film from friends or acquaintences thereby aversing themselves from buying the actual copy resulting in small quantity sale of the actual musical or film work, it is likely to have a minor impact compared to the benefit that it may confer to the users.



As avaialble at www.out-law.com/page-8782, some recommendations from Andrew Gowers' report in 2006[436] are included in the Government consultation paper suggesting: “New exceptions to copyright would be introduced for caricature, parody or pastiche under the proposals and parody would be allowed without any requirement to acknowledge the source material;”[437]



“The proposals expand the scope of a library or archive to make a copy of a work for preservation or replacement from written works to sound and film files as well;”[438] and “Schools and universities can currently show copyrighted works to students in a room, and the consultation proposes extending that right over computer networks to allow for more efficient distance learning. A similar extension will apply to electronic whiteboards for written works.”[439]



Comment: Gower’s recommendations regarding expansion of the scope of a library or archive and schools and universities to make copy of a work or to show copyrighted works sound to be really helpful. Also, caricature, parody or pastiche, seeming unable to have any immense positive effect in the society, are better off being kept outside the realm of copyright law.



1.2 U.S.A. Copyright Law



1.2.1 Future of U.S.A. Copyright Law'

According to a most notable view of William Gibson, the near future of copyright “is one in which copyright, copyright protection and intellectual property rights in general runs wild,”[440] but, “this future is a logical extension of trends in copyright law and technology current in the Present.”[441] By the accession of the United States to the Berne convention in 1989, such extension of term and scope of Anglo-American copyright has been given to the rights of the Creators and Users an alternative future to benefit its corporate copyright Proprietors by extending the term of copyright protection for existing works to the life of the author plus 75 years and also additional 25 years for Disney to protect Mickey Mouse and thus “the Berne Convention has entered the gates of the American copyright citadel and may prove to be a Trojan horse for Creators.”[442]



1.2.2 U.S.A. Copyright Law Reform Proposals

As available at www.copyrightreform.us, “According to advocates of copyright law reforms in the U.S.A. there is something wrong with a country’s copyright laws when a private citizen can get more time in jail for copyright infringement then someone guilty of attempted murder. According to them, the Constitution places clear limits on Copyright and they believe the laws of the 21st century need to realigned with the Constitution”[443] The web[444] suggests:



“Problem 1) Copyright is automatic, you do not need to register a piece in order to have copyright on it. Simply replying to an email could be a copyright violation for many thousands of dollars. Suggestion 1) Require copyrights to be registered and renewed by their owners like the system was originally setup.



Problem 2) All copyright infringement of more then $1,000.00 for more then 180 days is a felony. Suggestion 2) All copyright infringement cases should be strictly limited to civil court like it was originally intended unless the prosecution can prove the defendant profited from the crime by selling intellectual property.



Problem 3) Copyrights are not only automatic but currently (in the US), an individuals copyright is good for life plus 70 years! Suggestion 3) Society doesn’t benefit from a near endless copyright period.”[445]



The web[446] further suggest: “The copyright limit should be reduced to a more reasonable number of years. It was originally limited to 14 years once it was registered and could be extended another 14 years if applied for. Even for the 21st century that is a just and reasonable period.”[447]



Comment: The above reform proposals requiring registration and renewal of copyright instead of being automatic seem to be very useful for the future of copyright if acted upon. Placing a period of copyright limit as per the constitution is also necessary. However, the period of copyright limit to 14 years once registered and extending to another 14 years falls short of a just and reasonable period. To meet the need of the hour, it is submitted that, at least 20 years be fixed for the period before extension.



As for the nature of copyright law, it is worth noting that there are even some intangible rights the importance of which, at times, outweigh those of bodily harms so that the might be no wonder that the punishment of the former is more severe than the latter. As such, in some cases, where it is very serious, infringement of copyright law can attract criminal liability under the former category and the punishment can even exceed those imposed on accused(s) guilty of attempted murder. In other cases, copyright seems to be better off being a pure civil matter.



1.2.3 Proposal for Revisit and Redraft of U.S.A. Copyright Law

According to Pam Samuelson, the copyright law “should be revisited and redrafted it from the start”[448] and “a model copyright law should also be written in plain English so ordinary people, and not just the high priests of copyright, can understand what it means.” She suggests, “A model copyright law should also articulate the purposes that it seeks to achieve and offer some guidance about how competing interests should be balanced, perhaps through a series of comments on the model law or principles.”[449]



Comment: As the proposal is for a model copyright law to be written in plain language so that even an ordinary people can understand its meaning and as it also seeks to achieve and offer some guidance about the competing interests to be balanced through comments on the model law or principles, so the proposal is in a prospective line of thinking and consideration for future reform of U.S.A. copyright law. However, materialization of such a reform is a long term process and therefore falls short of quick remedy.



1.3 Reforms and Future of Copyright Law in Bangladesh

Although the recent Copyright Act 2000 in Bangladesh has been enacted to cover the rules and to cope with the international copyright system and it seems to have “fulfilled the need of the time”[450] and “though computer programmes, tables complications including data base are recognised to have the copyright protection in Bangladesh, there is no legal recognition for transaction carried out by means of electronic data or other means ‘e-commerce’ which involves the use of alternatives to paper based method of communication and storage of information to facilitate filling of documents with government agencies”[451] as these have been observed by Md. Murtaja Islam and Johanjeb Tareq.[452] They suggest, “The growing global importance of the cyber law is posing new challenges and in view of the peculiarity involved in the fields, the understanding between the nations of the world by treaties or covenants, may be of considerable importance in the absence of which the implementation of the legislation would be a near impossibility. Therefore present act should be amended to fulfill the shortage.”[453]



Comment: It cannot be firmly said that the current copyright law in Bangladesh meets the standard of international copyright system. Rather, there has been a fair try to do so. Reform therefore seems to be imperative in some areas. Digital technology, databases, unpublished works, rights in performance, right to privacy, international organization should be, as in England, eligible for copyright protection. Moral rights in guise of author’s special rights should include the right to object to derogatory treatment and not to be falsely attributed a work. Exceptions to copyright infringement should include fair dealing, idea, facts and independent creation. As for infringement, the concepts of vicarious liability and contributory infringement, if included, as in U.S.A., canenrich the area of copyright law in Bangladesh.






PART IV



Conclusion

This project is the outcome of the study made with the aims and objectives set out at the end of Part I out of total four Parts to examine the development of copyright law in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh and the accessibility of foreign laws, and international laws and treaties and to have an idea about copyright law development scenario and to find out the existing legal frameworks, the future prospects and reform agenda of copyright law in each of the jurisdictions.



To address the issues, in the introduction, at the beginning of Part I, the term ‘copyright’ has been defined; the early development, the worldwide basis for modern copyright law and international development and background of the study have been discussed; and thereafter, the aims and objectives have been put forward; Part II has come out with detailed discussion of the historical background and current national and international copyright laws and bilateral treaties including statutory provisions and judicial interpretations of respective jurisdictions; Part III deals with the future and reforms of copyright laws of respective jurisdictions containing proposals and comments; and finally, analysis is also made herein below in this concluding Part IV.



Historically, and in legal definition, within the respective jurisdictions of England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh, and also within the rest jurisdictions and frameworks of international developments around the world, the copyright law, as evident in the above, is strictly a monopoly of authors and inventors which rests on the general sentiment that a man should be protected in the enjoyment of the fruits of his own labour and therefore, it is a comprehensive law and it confers a bundle of exclusive rights in relation to the form and manner in which ideas and information are expressed and manifested and its principles are substantially the same in all countries with little variation to meet the national requirements of each of the countries. The above study also shows that, currently, within the respective jurisdictions, this law is drafted in tune with international system of protection i.e., fully compatible with the provisions of the Berne convention and TRIPS Agreement as well.



Now, as per the present copyright laws of respective jurisdictions, England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh each has almost one of the most modern copyright protection laws in the world.



In England, until 1709 when the Statute of Anne was enacted, there were only licensing acts to protect the rights of authors and the Statute of Anne offered to respect the rights of authors and growing economic opportunity of their creation, but it was also confined to literary works and the duration of the protection term was not longer. Moreover, it permitted importing books in foreign languages without recognising the rights of the foreign authors. Later on, the 1988 Act,[454] offered protection to a wide variety of works with longer protection term and to give more protection and in 1995, the Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations[455] introduced a more longer term of protection then the 1988 Act.[456]



Under the British Law, as soon as an individual’s work leaves his or her mind and is placed in any physical form, it gains protection qualificatins and copyright in the work is automatically vested in the person who put it in the material form with exceptions depending on the nature whether it was created in course of employment. In order to qualify for such copyright, a work must meet minimal standards of originality and a set period of time for its expiry, although, some jurisdictions may allow this to be extended and in this regard although generally the requirements are low, yet, different countries impose different tests. In the United Kingdom, there has to be some skill, originality and work which has gone into it, even fairly trivial amounts of these qualities are sufficient for determining whether a particular act of copying constitutes an infringement of the author's original expression.



As in England, initiated by Licensing Act in most colonies, in U.S.A., the Copyright Acts of 1790,[457] 1831,[458] 1909[459] and the last major revision adopted in 1976[460] are the exclusive sources of copyright law in U.S.A. The membership of the Universal Copyright Convention in 1951,[461] becoming a signatory to the Berne Convention in 1989, adoption of the TRIPs agreement[462] and adoption of three major copyright laws, the NET Act,[463] the SBCTEA[464] and the DMCA[465] enriched the enforcement of copyright law in U.S.A.



The U.S. copyright law provides for protection of a broad category of works giving the copyright owner some exclusive rights in the copyrighted work. The requirements for protection are broad and standard but not stringent. Though the exclusive rights are subject to exceptions and bringing of civil and criminal actions are subject to limitation period, the duration of protection term, as in England, is longer and the remedies for infringement are very effective.



The NET Act[466] made willful copyright infringement of works having a total value of more than $1000 a criminal offence while the DMCA[467] has made substantial changes to existing copyright law for being the first law over 20 years to provide for preservation of copying if the copy’s format has become obsolete. Besides preventing unauthorised copying of copyrighted materials, it includes anti-circumvention provision, protects copyright management information, limits liability of online service providers and provides special rules for non-profit education institutions.



Under the Chace Act,[468] the foreign authors are allowed to enjoy the same protection of law in U.S.A. provided the American authors are given the same protection in the author’s country as well.[469]



In U.S.A,, copyright has been made automatic in the style of the Berne Convention since March 1, 1989, which has had the effect of making it appear to be more like a property right. Thus, as with property, a copyright need not be granted or obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example, by securing it in a fixed medium such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape or a letter, the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, although a copyright need not be officially registered for the copyright owner to begin exercising his exclusive rights, registration of works does have benefits serving as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and enabling the copyright holder to seek statutory damages and attorney's fees.



In U.S.A., the original holder of the copyright may be the employer of the actual author rather than the author himself if the work is a Work for Hire. Again, this principle is widespread in English law, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988,[470] which provides that where a work in which copyright subsists is made by an employee in the course of that employment, the copyright is automatically owned by the employer which would be a Work for Hire.



Like both England and U.S.A., in Bangladesh, copyright subsists in original, literary, dramatical, musical and artistic work and relates to expression of thought provided the work is first published in Bangladesh or outside Bangladesh by a citizen[471] of Bangladesh or in case of the archtectural work, the work is located in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, the owner of the Copyright work has the exclusive right to do cetain acts in respect of the work and if anybody does anything without authority, he or she will be liable for the infringement of copyright.



In England, remedies for infringement include injunction, damages and account of profits and such rights are enforceable as breaches of statutory duty and in U.S.A., for infringement of copyright, other than the concepts of direct and indirect infringements, there are also comcepts of vicarious copyright liabilty and liability for contributory infringement and several remedies such as injunctions, impoundments of copies, actual damges, infringer’s profits or statutory damages in the alternative, or awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fee for the prevailing party, fine etc. are available while in Bangladesh, for copyright infringements, there are three kinds of remedies available, namely, civil remedies, criminal remedies and administrative remedies.



However, the UK and the U.S.A. copyright law exceptions known as ‘fair dealing’ and ‘fair use’ have relaxed the so called strict monopoly of copyright in many extent. In UK, database right has also such exceptions.



In U.S.A, the ‘fair use’ exception is the biggest exception to the copyright protection on a work. It is said that ‘fair dealing’ exception of UK is much more restricted than the American concept of ‘fair use’ as it only applies in tightly defined situation. Recently, Andrew Gowers’ proposals for relaxing copyright and the UK Government’s proposal allowing a private copying of music and film and relaxation of restriction on copyright for schools and libraries are further developments towards relaxing copyright in UK, while there is also hue and cry for copyright reforms in U.S.A. demanding revisit for the U.S.A. copyright law.



Therefore, for a fair balance as well as a good future, when UK is inching towards necessary reforms of the copyright law, it seems, the U.S.A. will also understand fair needs for reform and to relax restrictions. In this regard, as a developing country, Bangladesh has to emphatically follow the better way of every solution as well.



Following Berne Convention, WIPO and TRIPS agreement, recent copyright legislations in UK, U.S.A. and Bangladesh have made significant changes in respective copyright law jurisdictions. Specially the 1988 Act,[472] the 1995 Regulations,[473] the 1997 Regulations,[474] the 2003 Regulations[475] and the 2005 Regulations[476] of UK and The 1976 Act[477] and The 1998 Act[478] of U.S.A. and the Copyright Act 2000[479] of Bangladesh are major outcome of changes and reforms.



So, the aims and objectives of this study, put forward in Part I, subsequent discussions and analysis made in Part II, III and this concluding Part IV clearly show that the aims to examine the development of copyright law in England, U.S.A. and Bangladesh and the accessibility of foreign laws, and international laws and treaties in each of these jurisdictions and the objectives to have an idea about the copyright law development scenario and to find out the existing legal frameworks, the future prospects and reform agenda within the said jurisdictions have been clearly met.





BIBLIOGRAPHY




TEXT BOOKS:



  1. A. Birrell, The Law and History of Copyright 124-28 (1899)
  2. Background Reading Material on Intellectual Property, Published By World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO Publication No. 659(E), ISBN 92-805-0184-4, WIPO 1988, Geneva
  3. Copyright in Public Libraries, Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Fourth Edition 1999, Published By Library Association Publishing, London
  4. Copyright, Interpreting the Law for Libraries, Archives and Information Services, By Graham P Cornish, Revised Third Edition 2001, Published By Library Association Publishing, 7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE
  5. Intellectual Property Law By P. Narayanan, Third Edition 2001, Published By Eastern Law House, Calcutta, New Delhi, India
  6. Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights By W.R. Cornish, Third Edition 1996, Published By Sweet & Maxwell, London
  7. Jassin, Lloyd J., and Schechter, Steven C. "The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers." New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. 26.
  8. Laws of Trade Marks, Copyright, Patents and Designs & Pure Food By Anser Ali Khan, Second Edition 2007, Published By New Warsi Book Corporation, Bangabandhu Avenue, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  9. Laws on Intellectual Property By Md. Altaf Hossain, Second Edition 2006, Published by Bangladesh Law Book Company, Banglabazar, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  10. Major International Laws for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights By A. B. M. Badrud Doulah and A. B. M. Shamsud Doulah and Dr. Mariam Khatoon, First Edition 1999, Published By Society for Information and Research on Business Intellectual Inventions (SIRBII), Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh
  11. Understanding Copyright Law, Third Edition By Marshall A. Leaffer, Professor of Law, University of Toledo, Legal Text Series 1999, Published By Matthew Bender & Co., Inc, USA.







ARTICLES/JOURNALS {C}{C




{C}1. A History of Copyright in the United States: TIMELINE: http://www.arl.org/info

{C}2. Copyright, From Love To Know 1911: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Copyright

{C}3. Copyright Fundamentals By Ian Jay Kaufman : www.ladas.com

{C}4. Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson  :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm

{C}5. Copyright Law and Practice by William F. Patry : digital-law-online.info/patry/patry2.html

{C}6. Copyright Reform and Legal Education on the Internet by Wing, Mark and Kirk, Ewan, available at http://www.bileta.ac.uk/00papers/wing.html

{C}7. Copyright Reform in the United States of America available at www.copyrightreform.us

{C}8. Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S., www.guardster.com

{C}9. Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/

{C}10. {C}Intellectual property laws and reform proposal By Md. Murtaja Islam and Johanjeb Tareq, The Independent, August 25, 2006

{C}11. {C}Looking U.K. Copyright Holders : tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfm

{C}12. {C}Major International Laws for Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, A.B.M. Badrud Doulah, A.B.M. Shamsud Doulah and Dr Mariam Khatoon, Published by SIRBII, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1999

{C}13. {C}Mathew R. P. Perrone, Jr.:www.perronepatents.com/Intellectual_Property.shtml:

{C}14. {C}Proposal to reboot and de-cruft US Copyright Law by Preliminary made in Thoughts on Copyright Reform By Pam Samuelson: www.boingboing.net/2007/08/02/proposal-to-reboot-a.html

{C}15. {C}Some Thoughts on the Political Economy of Intellectual Property: A Brief Look at the International Copyright Relations of the United States: David G. Post, Temple University Law School, Philadelphia, U.S.A.: Available at www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/chinapaper.html

{C}16. {C}THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html

{C}17. {C}Update to Researching Intellectual Property Law in the International Context By Stefanie Weigmann, LLRX.Com, Copyright 1996-2007, Published November 2000




{C}{C

CASES {C}{C




Aberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc., 466 F.2d 705 (7th Cir. 1972)

Accusoft Corp v. Palo, 923 F.Supp 290 (D. Mass 1996) {C}{C

A&M Records v. Napster, Case No. 99-5183 (N.D.Ca 2000). {C}{C

Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 238 U.S. 191, 198-199 (1931)

Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc. {C}{C

Donaldson v Becket 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (H.L. 1774) {C}{C

Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Dreamland Ballroom, Inc. v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1929)

Effects Associates v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1990). {C}{C

Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 1994) {C}{C

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) {C}{C

Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971)

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) {C}{C

Kaplan v. Vincent, 937 F. Supp. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). {C}{C

Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc. v. Nifty Foods Corp., 266 F.2d 541, 545 (2d Cir. 1959) {C}{C

Miller v Taylor 4 Burr. 2303 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B. 1769) {C}{C

Respect Inc. v. Committee on Status of Women, 815 F.Supp 1112 (N.D. Ill. 1993). {C}{C

Roy Export Co., v. Trustees of Columbia University, 344 F. Supp. 1350, 1353 (S.D.N.Y. 1972)

RTC v. Netcom, supra note 43. {C}{C

Shapiro Bernstein and Co. v. H. L. Green Co. 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963) {C}{C

Universal Studios v. Remeirdes, et. al. at 87 (S.D.N.Y 2000)




Decisions




4 BLD (HCD) 179 {C}{C

36 DLR 59 {C}{C

79 PLK 1963 {C}{C




STATUTES



England

{C}{C

Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 {C}{C

SI 1995/3297 {C}{C

SI 1997:3032 {C}{C

Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2501 {C}{C

The British Copyright Law 1911

The Colonial Copyright Act 1847

{C}{C The Copyright Act 1790

The Copyright Act 1976

The Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002

{C}{C The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

{C}{C The European Communities Act 1972 {C}{C

The English International Copyright Act 1886

{C}{C The Patents and Designs Act 1911

The Performers Protection Acts 1958-1972 (initially the Musical Performers’ Protection Act 1925) {C}{C

The Statute of Anne 1709





USA



Act of May 31, 1790, 1st Cong., 2d sess., 1 stat. 124.

The American Home Recording Act 1992

The Copyright Act of 1790

The Chace Act 1891

The Copyright Act of 1976

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 1998

The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act 1997

The Sonny Bono Term Copyright Extension Act (SBCTEA)

The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA) 1984

The United States Constitution (U.S.C.) {C}{C





Bangladesh



Act No. II of 1911

The Bangladesh Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)


Conventions {C}{C



Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886

Convention establishing the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), 1967

Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms (Geneva) 1971

Rome Convention 1961

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1994.

Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) 1952



Regulations and Directives



Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC

EU Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC


The Artists’ Resale Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

The Copyright and Related Regulations 1996

{C}{C The Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations 1995 {C}{C

The Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997

{C}{C The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 {C}{C

The Copyright and Rights in Databases (Amendment) Reguations 2003


The Copyright Related Rights Regulations 2003 (2003 No. 2498)

The European Council Directive No. 96/9/EC

{C}{C The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515 {C}{C

{C}{C























































































{C}{C










[1] Act No. II of 1911

[2] Understanding Copyright Law, Third Edition By Marshall A. Leaffer, Professor of Law, University of Toledo, Legal Text Series 1999, Published By Matthew Bender & Co., Inc, USA

[3] Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 08.03.2008)

[4] Update to Researching Intellectual Property Law in the International Context By Stefanie Weigmann, LLRX.Com, Copyright 1996-2007, Published November 2000 (Accessed on 01.03.2008)

[5]{C} Mathew R. P. Perrone, Jr.:www.perronepatents.com/Intellectual_Property.shtml:(Accessed on 01.03.2008)

[6] Understanding Copyright Law, Third Edition By Marshall A. Leaffer, Professor of Law, University of Toledo, Legal Text Series 1999, Published By Mathew Bender & Co., Inc, USA

[7]{C} Copyright Fundamentals By Ian Jay Kaufman : www.ladas.com (Accessed on 01.03.2008)

[8] Ibid

[9] Page 5, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[10] Ibid {C}{C [11] Ibid {C}{C [12] Ibid {C}{C [13] Ibid {C}{C [14]{C} Ibid, page 6-7

[15]{C} On April 26, 1970:

[16]{C} On May 19, 1972

[17] On Decenber 5, 1987:

{C}[18] Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[19]{C} On 25 August 1970

[20]{C} On September 18, 1972

[21]{C} On March 1, 1989

{C}[22] Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[23]{C} On May 11, 1985

[24]{C} May 5,1975 {C}{C [25]{C} May 4, 1999

[26]{C} On April 15, 1994

[27]{C} Para 5, Page 33, Background Reading Material on Intellectual Property published by World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO PUBLICATION No. 659(E), ISBN 92-805-0184-4, WIPO 1988, Geneva

[28] Ibid

[29]{C} Intellectual property laws and reform proposal By Md. Murtaja Islam and Johanjeb Tareq, The Independent, August 25, 2006

[30] Update to Researching Intellectual Property Law in the International Context By Stefanie Weigmann, LLRX.Com, Copyright 1996-2007, Published November 2000 (Accessed on 01.03.2008)


{C}{C [31] Act for the Encouragement of Learning, 1709, 8 Anne, ch. 21 (Eng.).

[32] The Charter of the Company of Stationers of London, reprinted in 1 EDWARD ARBER, A TRANSCRIPT OF THE REGISTERS OF THE COMPANY OF STATIONERS OF LONDON, 1554-1640 A.D. xxviii-xxxii (Peter Smith ed., 1950) (1875)

{C}[33]{C} Katsh, supra note 1, at 173-74. The English monarchy chartered the Stationers' Company, a guild with an exclusive monopoly on printing. Only a member of the guild had the right to make copies of a manuscript. Beholden as it was to the monarchy, the creation of the Stationers' Company was an effective means of governmental surveillance of the press. Mark Rose, Authors and Owners--The Invention of Copyright 12 (1993). In fact, the preamble to the Stationers' Company Charter explicitly states the royal purpose: “[K]now ye that we, considering and manifestly perceiving that certain seditious and heretical books rhymes and treatises are daily published and printed by divers scandalous malicious schismatical and heretical persons, not only moving our subjects and leiges to sedition and disobedience against us, our crown and dignity, but also to renew and move very great and detestable heresies against the faith and sound catholic doctrine of Holy Mother Church, and wishing to provide a suitable remedy in this behalf.”

[34] Katsh, supra note 1, at 174.

[35]{C} Id. at 174-75.

[36] Statute of Anne, supra note 4.

[37]{C} Copyright Law and Practice by William F. Patry : digital-law-online.info/patry/patry2.html (Accessed on 15.11.2006)

[38] (this provision was repealed in 1739 after it proved unworkable)

[39]{C} Copyright Law and Practice by William F. Patry : digital-law-online.info/patry/patry2.html (Accessed on 15.11.2006)

[40]{C} Ibid

{C}[41]{C} 4 Burr. 2408, 98 Eng. Rep. 257 (H.L. 1774). Considerable confusion over the House of Lords’ judgment in Donaldson v. Becket regarding the existence of a common law right has been caused by the failure to distinguish between the advisory opinions of the judges of the King’s Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer to five questions submitted to them by the House of Lords, and by apparent inaccuracies in reporting the votes of the judges. This topic is explored in A. Birrell, The Law and History of Copyright 124-28 (1899) and in H.R. Rep. No. 7083, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1907).

[42] 4 Burr. 2303, 98 Eng. Rep. 201 (K.B. 1769), See A. Birrell, The Law and History of Copyright 106-10, 124-28 (1899).

[43]{C} Copyright, From Love To Know 1911: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Copyright (Accessed on 2.7.2005)

[44]{C} Ibid

[45]{C} Ibid

[46]{C} The 1988 Act

[47]{C} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[48]{C} Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[49]{C} Section 1(1)(a) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[50]{C} Section 1(1)(c) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[51]{C} Section 1(1)(b) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[52]{C} Section 7 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[53]{C} Section 11(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[54]{C} (in the sense of not having been copied from an existing work, rather than in the sense of being novel or unique)

[55]{C} Section 1(3), Section 153(a) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[56]{C} Section 153(b) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[57]{C} Section 154(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[58]{C} Section 155(1)(a)b) of Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 [59]{C} Section 156(1)(a)(b) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[60]{C} Section 9(4), Section 9(5) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[61] SI 1995/3297 [62]{C} Ibid

[63]{C} Section 163(2) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[64]{C} Section 165(2) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[65]{C} Section 164(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[66]{C} Section 168 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[67]{C} Section 153(3)(b) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[68]{C} Section 165(3)(a) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[69]{C} Section 165(3) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[70]{C} Section 164(2) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[71]{C} Section 168(3) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[72]{C} Section 15 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[73]{C} Section 14(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[74]{C} Section 14(2) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[75]{C} Section 13A of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[76]{C} Section 13B of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [77]{C} Section 12 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[78]{C} Looking U.K. Copyright Holders : tyler.hrc.utexas.edu/uk.cfm (Accessed on 6.3.2008) [79]{C} Section 12, of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[80]{C} Ibid, Sch.1 Section 12(4)

[81] Page 70, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[82]{C} Ibid

[83]{C} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[84]{C} Page 28, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[85]{C} Council Directive No. 93/98/EEC

[86] Page 28, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[87]{C} Section 11(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[88]{C} Section 11(2) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[89]{C} Section 9(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[90]{C} Section 9(2)(d) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [91]{C} Section 9(2)(a) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[92]{C} Section 9(2)(a) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[93]{C} Section 9(2)(b) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[94]{C} Section 9(3) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[95]{C} Section 10(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[96]{C} SI 1997:3032.

[97]{C} Section 3(1), Amendment of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[98]{C} Section 3A(2), Amendment of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[99]{C} Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 2501

[100]{C} Section 15, The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[101]{C} Section 14(2), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[102]{C} Section 14(3), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[103]{C} Section 14(4), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[104]{C} Section 14(5), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[105]{C} Section 18(1)(a), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[106]{C} Section 18(1)(b)(c) The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[107]{C} Section 17(1), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[108]{C} Section 17(2), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[109]{C} Section 17(3), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[110]{C} Section 30, The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[111]{C} Section 16(1), Section 16(2), The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[112]{C} The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [113]{C} Section 29(1) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [114]{C} Section 30(1) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [115]{C} Section 20, The Copyrights and Rights in Databases Regulations, 1997

[116] Amendment of provision [substituted (1)] relating to research and private study, The Copyright Related Rights Regulations 2003 (2003 No. 2498)

[117]{C} Section 29(2), Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [118]{C} Ss. 37-44, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [119]{C} Section 33, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [120] Ibid, Ss. 32, 34, 36. [121] Ibid, Section 35 [122]{C} Section 30(1), Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [123]{C} Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002.

[124]{C} Ss 77-78, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[125] Page 12, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[126] Ibid [127]{C} Ss. 77-79, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[128] Page 12, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[129]{C} Section 80, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[130] Page 13, Ibid, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[131]{C} Section 84, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[132] Ibid Page 13, Copyright in Public Libraries (Fourth Edition:1999) Revised and Updated By Sandy Norman, Library Association Publishing London

[133]{C} Section 85, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [134]{C} Section 85, Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[135]{C} Section 85(1) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [136]{C} Section 85(2) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[137] Initially, the Musical Performers’ Protection Act 1925; subsequently the Performers Protection Acts 1958-1972.

[138]{C} Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 [139]{C} see generally, CDPA 1988, ss. 181-184, 192.

[140]{C} Ibid, ss. 185-188, 192.

[141]{C} Section 19 of Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988

[142]{C} CDPA 1988, s. 191, as amended by the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, S.I. 1995 No. 3297, reg. 10. “Released” means first published, played or shown in public, broadcast or cable-cast with authority.

[143] 195 Regs., regs. 27-35; cf. for authors, regs.; 13-62, Page 29: Copyright in public libraries (Fourth Edition) Revised and updated by Sandy Noman, Library Association Publishing, London (1999).

[144]{C} CDPA 1988, s.181.

[145]{C} Ibid., s.185(3).

[146]{C} Ibid., s. 206(1)

[147]{C} See general, Ibid., ss. 194-202.

[148]{C} See generally, Price 91960) 77 Yale L.J. 1333; Plaisant 91969) 5 Copyright 15; Lahore, Copyright and the Arts in Australia (1974), pp. 83-86.

[149]{C} Frequently there is a minimum value by way of starting point

[150]{C} Hence it is attain a place in the Berne Convention (Brussels, Art. 14bis; Paris, Art. 14ter); but it is left to Member States to decide whether to confer it

[151]{C} The Artists Resale Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[152]{C} European Communities Act 1972

[153]{C} Section 10(3), The Artists Resale Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No.346

[154]{C} Ibid

[155]{C} Section 7(4), The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[156]{C} Section 12(3), The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[157]{C} Section 12(4), The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[158]{C} Section 13(1), The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[159]{C} Section 13(1)(b)(2)(b), The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[160]{C} Explanatory Note, Regulation 13, The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[161]{C} Regulation 17, The Artists Resal Rights Regulations 2006: Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 346

[162]{C} The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[163]{C} (the 2005 Regulations)

[164]{C} Section 2(a), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[165]{C} Section 2(b), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[166]{C} Section 2(c), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[167]{C} Section 2(d), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[168]{C} Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[169]{C} Section 5(3), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[170]{C} Section 5(1), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[171]{C} Section 5(1), The Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005: Statutory Instrument 2005 No. 1515

[172]{C} Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S., www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02.07.2005)

[173] (Patterson, 1968; Rose, 1993); Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[174]{C} Act of May 31, 1790, 1st Cong., 2d sess., 1 stat. 124. [175]{C} Ibid

[176]{C} Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S., www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02.07.2005) [177]{C} Boyd 1991: Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S., www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02.07.2005) [178]{C} Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S., www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02.07.2005) [179] Ibid [180] 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq.

[181]{C} Elias, Stephen. "Patent, Copyright, and Trademark." Berkeley, Nolo Press, 1997. 90-1; Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[182] Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[183]{C} Ibid

[184]{C} U.S.C. 17 §106)

[185]{C} The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, 1984: On November 8, 1984, the SCPA was enacted as title III of Pub. L. No. 98-620, 98 Stat. 3335-3347.

[186] Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[187]{C} 17 U.S.C 102 (a)

[188]{C} (including motion pictures)

[189]{C} 17 U.S.C. 102 (a)

[190]{C} 17 U.S.C. 104.

[191]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[192] Ibid [193]{C} 17 U.S.C. 102(a).

[194] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) [195]{C} 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991)

[196]{C} A History of Copyright in the United States: TIMELINE: http://www.arl.org/info (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[197] Feist, supra note 22, at 345 (stating that "even a slight amount will suffice.").

[198] Leaffer, supra note 24, at 42 (citing Kitchens of Sara Lee, Inc. v. Nifty Foods Corp., 266 F.2d 541, 545 (2d Cir. 1959)).

[199]{C} Id. (citing Aberto-Culver Co. v. Andrea Dumon, Inc., 466 F.2d 705 (7th Cir. 1972) (holding that the phrase "most personal sort of deodorant" is not copyrightable)).

[200] H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 47, 52 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5665 [hereinafter House Report]

[201]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[202]{C} 17 U.S.C. 105

[203]{C} 17 U.S.C. 102(b).

[204]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[205]{C} Jassin, Lloyd J., and Schechter, Steven C. "The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers." New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. 26.; Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[206] (facts and ideas are not protected by copyright, although the means used to express them may be protected to some extent)

{C}[207]{C} (copyrights by non-U. S. authors covered by the Berne Convention that expire for this reason can be restored under GATT)

[208]{C} Jassin, Lloyd J., and Schechter, Steven C. "The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers." New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. 26; Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm. (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[209]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[210]{C} 17 U.S.C. 106(1).

[211]{C} 17 U.S.C. 106(2).

[212]{C} 17 U.S.C. 101.

[213]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[214]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

{C}[215] Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) ("It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, is an infringer of the copyright." [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)."). The district court of the Southern District of New York either was unaware or unmindful of Dowling in the DeCSS case when it asserted that its decsion would "contribute to a climate of appropriate respect for intellectual property rights in an age in which the excitement of ready access to untold quantities of information has blurred in some minds the fact that taking what is not yours and not freely offered to you is stealing." Universal Studios v. Remeirdes, et. al. at 87 (S.D.N.Y 2000) available at http://www.2600.com/dvd/docs/2000/0817-decision.pdf).

[216]{C} 17 U.S.C. 505.

[217] A&M Records v. Napster, Case No. 99-5183 (N.D.Ca 2000). {C}{C [218]{C} 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963).

{C}[219]{C} See e.g. Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 238 U.S. 191, 198-199 (1931); Dreamland Ballroom, Inc. v. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 36 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1929). For example, a landlord who has the right and ability to supervise the tenant's activities is vicariously liable for the infringements of the tenant where the rental amount is proportional to the proceeds of the tenant's sales. Shapiro, Bernstein, 316 F.2d at 306. However, where a defendant rents space or services on a fixed rental fee that does not depend on the nature of the activity of the lessee, courts usually find no vicarious liability because there is no direct financial benefit from the infringement. See, e.g., Roy Export Co., v. Trustees of Columbia University, 344 F. Supp. 1350, 1353 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (finding no vicarious liability of university because no financial benefit from allowing screening of bootlegged films); Fonovisa, 847 F. Supp. at 1496 (finding swap meet operators did not financially benefit from fixed fee).

{C}[220]{C} Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159, 1162 (2d Cir. 1971).

[221]{C} Gershwin, 443 F.2d at 1162.

[222] RTC v. Netcom, supra note 43. {C}{C [223]{C} Ibid

[224]{C} THOMSON FINDLAW By Mark F. Radcliffe and Diane Brinson of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary: library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241478.html (Accessed on 8/3/2008)

[225] Ibid {C}{C [226] Ibid

[227]{C} Jassin, Lloyd J., and Schechter, Steven C. "The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook: A Step-by-Step Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers." New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998. 26.; Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson :libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[228] Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985). {C}{C [229]{C} 471 U.S. 539 (1985) {C}{C

[230]{C} A History of Copyright in the United States: TIMELINE: http://www.arl.org/info (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[231]{C} 17 U.S.C. 108.

[232]{C} 17 U.S.C. 109(a).

[233]{C} 17 U.S.C. 109(c).

[234]{C} 17 U.S.C. 109(b).

[235]{C} Ibid

[236]{C} 17 U.S.C. 109(b)(2)(A).

[237]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(1)-(3)..

[238]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(4).

[239]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(5).

[240]{C} Ibid

[241]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(6).

[242]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(7).

[243]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(7).

[244]{C} 17 U.S.C. 110(10).

[245]{C} 17 U.S.C. 117(a).

[246]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1008.

[247]{C} 17 U.S.C. 302(a).

[248]{C} 17 U.S.C. 302(b).

[249]{C} 17 U.S.C. 302(c).

[250]{C} 17 U.S.C. 302(e).

[251]{C} 17 U.S.C. 303.

[252]{C} 17 U.S.C. 305.

[253]{C} 17 U.S.C. 201(a).

[254] Erickson v. Trinity Theatre, Inc., 13 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 1994); Respect Inc. v. Committee on Status of Women, 815 F.Supp 1112 (N.D. Ill. 1993).

[255] Kaplan v. Vincent, 937 F. Supp. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). {C}{C [256]{C} 17 U.S.C. 201(b).

[257]{C} Ibid

[258]{C} 17 U.S.C. 201(c).

[259]{C} 17 U.S.C. 204.

[260] Effects Associates v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1990). {C}{C [261]{C} 17 U.S.C. 205.

[262]{C} Ibid

[263]{C} 17 U.S.C. 203.

[264]{C} Ibid

[265] Accusoft Corp v. Palo, 923 F.Supp 290 (D. Mass 1996). {C}{C [266]{C} 17 U.S.C. 401, 402. {C}{C [267]{C} Ibid

[268]{C} 17 U.S.C. 405.

[269] (or person owning the exclusive right of publication)

[270]{C} 17 U.S.C. 407(a).

[271]{C} 17 U.S.C. 407(c).

[272]{C} 17 U.S.C. 407(d).

[273]{C} Ibid

[274]{C} 17 U.S.C. 409.

[275] 17 U.S.C. 708, (The fee is currently set at $30: United States Copyright Office, ìCircular 1î, p. 7, found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ01.pdf, (2000).

[276]{C} 17 U.S.C. 408.

[277]{C} 17 U.S.C. 410.

[278]{C} Ibid

[279]{C} 17 U.S.C. 412.

[280]{C} 17 U.S.C. 503.

[281]{C} 17 U.S.C. 505.

[282]{C} 17 U.S.C. 506.

[283] 17 U.S.C. 506; this provision was added by the "No Electronic Theft Act", Pub.L. 105-47, sec. 2(b) (adopted December 16, 1997.)

[284]{C} Ibid

[285]{C} 17 U.S.C. 507.

[286] The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 {C}{C [287]{C} Ibid

{C}[288] Is Copyright Ethical? An Examination of the Theories, Laws and Practices Regarding the Private Ownership of Intellectual Work in the United States By Shelly Warwick fnA, June 4-5, 1999: bc. edu/bc_org /avp/ law/st_org/ (Accessed on 11.08.2007)

[289] Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[290] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998

{C}[291]{C} Copyright Issues in Special Libraries by Steve Davidson libsci.sc.edu/BOB/class/clis724/SpecialLibrariesHandbook/copyright.htm (Accessed on 8.3.2008)

[292]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1202.

[293]{C} 17 U.S.C. 512.

[294]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1201.

[295]{C} DMCA Summary at 4.

[296]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1201(e).

[297] 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2); 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A); United Copyright Office, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, US Copyright Office Summary (hereinafter DMCA Summary), December 1998 at 4. Available at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf.

[298]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1202(c)

[299]{C} 17 U.S.C. 1204.

[300] DMCA Summary at 8; 17 U.S.C. 512. {C}{C [301]{C} 17 U.S.C. 512(i).

[302] 17 U.S.C. 512(a); DMCA Summary at 10. {C}{C [303]{C} DMCA Summary at 11.

[304] DMCA Summary at 11; 17 U.S.C. 512(c). {C}{C [305]{C} 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(2).

[306]{C} 17 US.C. 512(d).

[307]{C} 17 U.S.C. 512(f).

[308]{C} 17 U.S.C. 512(e).

[309]{C} Act No. II of 1911

[310] Page 1-2, Major International Laws for Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, A.B.M. Badrud Doulah, A.B.M. Shamsud Doulah and Dr Mariam Khatoon, Published by SIRBII, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1999

[311]{C} Bangladesh's Copyright Law 2000, www.ipfrontline.com (Accessed on 7.6.2007)

[312]{C} Ibid

[313] Act 28 of 2000 {C}{C [314] Section 82(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[315]{C} Ibid

[316]{C} Ibid

[317] Copyright Act, 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [318]{C} Ibid

[319] Section 17 of The Copyrights Act 2000 (Act 28 of (2000) {C}{C [320]{C} Ibid

[321]{C} Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[322]{C} Section 17(d) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[323]{C} Section 17(e) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[324]{C} Section 17(f) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[325]{C} Section 17(h) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000); Amended vide Act 14 of 2005

[326]{C} Section 9 and 10 (Chapter II )of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [327]{C} Section 11 (Chapter II )of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[328]{C} Section 11(4) (Chapter II )of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[329]{C} Section 11(5) (Chapter II )of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[330]{C} Section 12(1) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[331]{C} Section 95 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[332]{C} Section 59 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[333]{C} Section 20 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[334]{C} Section 50 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[335]{C} Ibid

[336]{C} Section 5 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[337]{C} Section 72 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[338]{C} Section 23 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[339]{C} Section 15(1) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[340]{C} Section 15(2) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[341]{C} Section 15(2)(a) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[342]{C} Ibid

[343]{C} Section 15(2)(b) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[344]{C} Section 15(2)(c) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[345]{C} Section 15(2) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [346]{C} Section 56(1) of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[347]{C} Ibid

[348]{C} Section 18 and Section 48 of The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000)

[349]{C} Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[350]{C} Section 19 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[351]{C} Section 19(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[352]{C} Section 19(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[353]{C} Section 19(3) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[354]{C} Ibid

[355]{C} Section 19(4) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) [Amended vide Act No.14 2005]

[356]{C} Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) [Amended vide Act No.14 2005]

[357]{C} Section 19(6) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) [Amended vide Act No.14 2005]

[358]{C} Section 22 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[359]{C} Section 20 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) [Amended vide Act No.14 2005]

[360]{C} Section 20 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[361]{C} Section 48 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[362]{C} Section 51(a) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[363]{C} Section 52(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[364]{C} Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) {C}{C [365]{C} Section 24 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[366]{C} See Explanation of Section 24 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[367]{C} Section 25(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[368]{C} Ss. 25(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[369]{C} Section 28 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[370]{C} Ss. 26 and 27 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[371]{C} Ss. 30 and 31 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[372]{C} Ss. 32 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[373]{C} Ss. 25(2); 28; 26 and 27; 30 and 31; and 32 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[374]{C} Section 33(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[375]{C} Section 35(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[376]{C} Section 78 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[377]{C} Section 78(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[378]{C} Ibid

[379]{C} Ibid

[380]{C} Section 41-47 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[381]{C} Section 41(3) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000)

[382]{C} Section 42(3) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 0f 2000) {C}{C [383] Section 71 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [384] Section 71(1)(a) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [385] Section 71(1)(b) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [386] Section 71(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [387] Section 71(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [388] Section 71(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [389] Section 71(2)(b) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [390] Section 71(2)(c) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [391] Section 71(2)(d) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [392] Explanation : Section 71(2)(b) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [393] The Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [394] Section 72 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [395] Section 72(1)(a)(i) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [396] Section 72(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) [Amended vide Act 14 of 2005] {C}{C [397] Section 72(1)(c) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [398] Section 72(1)(d) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [399] Section 72(1)(g) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [400] Section 72(1)(j)(ii) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [401] Section 72(1)(l) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [402] Section 72(1)(m) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [403] Section 72(1)(o) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) [Amended vide Act 14 of 2005] {C}{C [404] Section 72(1)(q)(i) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [405] Section 72(1)(t) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [406] Section 72(1)(u) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [407] Section 72(1)(v) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [408] Section 72(1)(u) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [409] Ibid {C}{C [410] Chapter 15 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [411] Chapter 16 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [412] Section 76 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [413] Section 76 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [414] Section 81 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [415] Section 82(1) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [416] Section 82(2) of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [417] Section 76 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [418] Section 95 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [419] Section 96 of the Copyright Act 2000 (Act 28 of 2000) {C}{C [420]{C} Section 47 of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[421]{C} Section 47(1) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[422]{C} Section 47(2) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[423]{C} Section 47(3) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[424] 36 DLR 59 {C}{C [425] 79 PLK 1963 {C}{C [426] 4 BLD (HCD) 179 {C}{C [427]{C} Section 53(1) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[428]{C} Section 53(2) of the Patents and Designs Act, 1911

[429] 4 BLD (HCD) 179

[430] Copyright Reform and Legal Education on the Internet by Wing, Mark and Kirk, Ewan, available at http://www.bileta.ac.uk/00papers/wing.html (Accessed on 26/02/2008)

[431]{C} Ibid

[432]{C} World Intellectual Property Organisation

[433]{C} Available at http://europa,eu.int/comm/dg 15/en/index.htm

[434] Copyright Reform and Legal Education on the Internet by Wing, Mark and Kirk, Ewan, available at http://www.bileta.ac.uk/00papers/wing.html (Accessed on 26/02/2008)

[435]{C} Available at www.out-law.com/page-8782 (Accessed on 26/02/2008) {C}{C [436]{C} Ibid

[437]{C} Ibid

[438]{C} Ibid

[439] Ibid {C}{C [440]{C} Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S.A., available at www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02/07/2005) {C}{C [441] Ibid {C}{C [442]{C} Guardster, Copyright Law in the U.S.A., available at www.guardster.com (Accessed on 02/07/2005)

[443]{C} Copyright Reform in the United States of America available at www.copyrightreform.us (Accessed on 26/02/2008)

[444]{C} www.copyrightreform.us (Accessed on 26/02/2008)

[445]{C} Ibid

[446]{C} Ibid

[447]{C} Ibid

[448] Proposal to reboot and de-cruft US Copyright Law by Preliminary made in Thoughts on Copyright Reform By Pam Samuelson: www.boingboing.net/2007/08/02/proposal-to-reboot-a.html (Accessed on 27/2/2008)

[449]{C} Ibid

[450] Intellectual property laws and reform proposal by Md. Murtaja Islam, Johanjeb Tareq, Published in The Independent, Page 10 on Friday, August 25, 2006

[451]{C} Ibid

[452]{C} Ibid

[453] Ibid {C}{C [454]{C} The Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988

[455] The Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations, 1995 {C}{C [456]{C} The Copyright Design and Patent Act 1988

[457]{C} Act of May 31, 1780, 1st Cong, 2d sess., 1 stat. 124.

[458] The 1831 Act {C}{C [459]{C} The 1909 Act

[460] The 1976 Act {C}{C [461]{C} UCC

[462] Agreements on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights {C}{C [463]{C} The No Electronic Theft Act 1997

[464] Sonny Bono Term Extension Act {C}{C [465]{C} The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998

[466] The No Electronic Theft Act 1997 {C}{C [467]{C} The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998

[468]{C} The Chace Act 1891

[469]{C} Some Thoughts on the Political Economy of Intellectual Property: A Brief Look at the International Copyright Relations of the United States: David G. Post, Temple University Law School, Philadelphia, U.S.A.: Available at www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/chinapaper.html (Accessed on 10.3.2008)

[470] The 1988 Act {C}{C [471] (at the date of publication) {C}{C [472]{C} The Copyright , Design and Patents Act 1988

[473] The Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations, 1995

[474] The Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations, 1997

[475] The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations, 2003

[476] The Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations, 2005

[477]{C} The Copyright Act of 1976 as amended

[478]{C} The Digital Millennium Act of 1998

[479]{C} Act 28 of 2000

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.