Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
States Win Some and Lose Some on Copyright Front at Supreme Court This Term
The Supreme Court decided two copyright cases this term, both involving states. In the first, Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 (2020), the Court dealt the states a victory by holding that, despite an act of Congress to the contrary, states retain their sovereign immunity from copyright infringement actions — for now, anyway. In the second case, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 140 S.Ct. 1498 (2020), the Court dealt states a loss by holding that the state of Georgia could not claim copyright ownership in statutory annotations it created. The Court thus expanded the rights of states as copyright infringers but restricts states' rights as copyright owners. This article discusses the cases and their likely impact on copyright law going forward.
In Allen, the Supreme Court followed its own precedent to hold that the Copyright Remedy and Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA) failed to effectively deprive states of sovereign immunity in copyright infringement actions, punting to Congress to try again if it chooses. Unless and until Congress acts, states are therefore free to infringe copyrights with no threat of being held liable for copyright infringement.
The background of Allen is just as interesting as its outcome. In 1718, a pirate ship, dubbed Queen Anne's Revenge, sank off the coast of North Carolina after wreaking months of havoc in Atlantic and Caribbean waters. The ship's infamous captain, Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard, escaped and the ship's remnants remained undiscovered for nearly 300 years. Then, in 1996, Intersal, Inc., a salvage company, discovered the shipwreck and contracted with the state of North Carolina, which owns the shipwreck as a matter of law, to recover the contents. As part of the project, Intersal retained videographer Frederick Allen to document the recovery operation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?