Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
State Law Requiring Offer to License Conflicts With Copyright Act
A federal judge has sided with the Association of American Publishers (AAP), finding in June that a recently enacted Maryland library e-book law conflicts with federal copyright laws. Association of American Publishers Inc. v. Frosh, 21-3133 (D. Md. 2022). The AAP, the national trade association for the publishing industry, filed a lawsuit against Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh in his official capacity following the passing of legislation, Md. Code Ann., Educ. §§23-701 and 23-702, requiring publishers to offer to license copyrighted electronic literary products, like e-books and audiobooks, to Maryland public libraries and to ensure the terms of such licenses to be fair.
The AAP challenged the law, including on conflicts and express preemption with the U.S. Copyright Act, in its complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 9, 2021, just weeks shy of the law going into effect on Jan. 1. Public libraries supported the legislation as a way for the public to gain access to copyrighted materials that publishers have previously withheld from libraries or offered on "economically unfavorable terms." A book on the New York Times Best Sellers list in December 2020 cost an individual consumer $22.05, but a license for the same product cost libraries $95, according to Maryland Federal District Judge Deborah L. Boardman's opinion in February that granted the AAP's motion for a preliminary injunction — concluding the state law likely conflicted with federal copyright law.
The state opposed the motion and moved to dismiss the complaint, noting that the Maryland law requires "only an 'offer to license' and does not explicitly require publishers to grant licenses to libraries." However, a publisher who does not offer a license to libraries could face steep civil or criminal penalties under Maryland's Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §13-401, the February opinion said.
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?