Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What Is 'Distribution'?
Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner has various exclusive rights, including the right 'to distribute copies ' of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending.' The Act does not define the word 'distribute.' 'Copies' of works are defined as 'material objects ' in which a work is fixed and from which the work can be perceived,' thus distribution is clearly limited to some sort of activity involving tangible copies, but the Act is largely silent as to what that activity would be. All the statute says is that it must constitute sale or other transfer of ownership of the tangible copies, or 'rental, lease or lending' of them. Contrary to arguments often made in defense of P2P file sharing, the statute does not require that distribution must involve or result in a physical copy literally moving from one place to another.
The law certainly never required physical movement of copies in the pre-Internet world, as is evident in Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997). In Hotaling, the Fourth Circuit reversed a lower court to hold that a copyright owner's distribution right was violated by the placing of a single, unauthorized copy of a book on the shelf of a library. Whether or not any patron ever checked out the book, the library had made it available to the public, which was enough to violate the distribution right. The Fourth Circuit noted: '[T]he record does not contain any evidence showing specific instances ' in which the libraries loaned the infringing copies to members of the public. But ' proving the libraries held unauthorized copies in their collections, where they were available to the public, is sufficient to establish distribution within the meaning of the statute.' Over a brief and respectful dissent, the court reasoned that 'when a public library adds a work to its collection, lists the work in its index or catalog system, and makes the work available to the borrowing or browsing public, it has completed all the steps necessary for distribution to the public. At that point, members of the public can visit the library and use the work.' Id. (Emphasis added).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?