IPL (Copyright) - E 1. Lipton vs The Nature Company (1995) “Terms of Venery” Facts:
James Lipton had a copyright copyright over his book titled “n E!altation o" Larks#$ In partic%lar& at iss%e in this case 'as a compilation o" “terms o" vener venery$ y$ colle collecti ctive ve terms terms "or ident identi"y i"ying ing certain animal gro%ps 'hich Lipton gathered in his book# he de"endant& ein& ein& *led "or copyright copyright registration o" a compilation o" animal terms& representing that the 'ork 'as original to him# +e man% man%"a "act ct%r %red ed and and sold sold post poster ers s o" the the compilation to vario%s ,oos& libraries& and other entities# +e approached the at%re Company& a retai retaile lerr speci speciali ali,in ,ing g in prod% prod%cts cts abo%t abo%t the environment& to market his compilation# Lipt Lipton on *led *led a comp compla lain intt "or "or copy copyri righ ghtt in"ringe in"ringement ment and %n"air %n"air competiti competition on against against ein and at%re# ein denies copying any edition o" Lipton.s book and claims that the terms %sed on the ein poster and the /%ltit%des prod%cts 'ere copied "rom a banner or scar" (“the scar"$) that he received in the late 0123.s 'hile 'orking as an advertising e!ec%tive in e' 4ork City# ssue: het hethe herr or not not ther there e is copy copyri righ ghtt in"ringement# !e"#: 4es# s%cce s%ccess" ss"%l %l claim claim o" copyr copyrig ight ht in"ringement p%rs%ant to the Copyright ct& 05 6#7#C# 8 930 et se#& re%ires proo" that (0) the plai plaint nti; i; had had a vali valid d copy copyri righ ghtt in the the 'ork 'ork alle allege gedl dly y in"r in"rin inge ged d and and (<) (<) the the de"e de"end ndan antt in"ringe in"ringed d the plainti; plainti;.s .s copyrigh copyrightt by copying copying protected elements o" the plainti;.s 'ork#
ltho%gh "acts are considered to be in the p%blic p%blic domain domain and there"or there"ore e not protect protectible ible %nder %nder copyrig copyright ht la'& a compi compila latio tion n o" "acts "acts may be protectible in certain instances# hree re%irements m%st be met "or a compilation to %ali"y %ali"y as protect protectible ible:: “(0) the collecti collection on and assembly o" pree!isting data= (<) the selection& coordination& or arrangement o" that data= and (>) a res%lting 'ork that is original& by virt%e o" the selection& coordination& or arrangement o" the data contained in the 'ork#$ ltho%gh ltho%gh the de"endant de"endants s correc correctly tly assert assert that the terms themselves are not original& the %nco %ncont ntra radi dict cted ed evid eviden ence ce is that that Lipt Lipton on.s .s selection and arrangement o" the terms 'ere orig riginal nal# In comp ompiling ing his his 'or 'ork& Lipto ipton n assembled terms "rom vario%s *"teenth cent%ry te!ts te!ts and man%sc man%scri ripts pts## hey hey 'ere 'ere select selected ed "rom "rom n%me n%mero ro%s %s vari variat atio ions ns o" h%nd h%ndre reds ds o"
available terms# ?%rthermore& ?%rthermore& the de"endants o;er nothing nothing to contradic contradictt Lipton.s Lipton.s assertio assertion n that that he selec selected ted the terms terms “based “based on @hisA @hisA s%bBective& in"ormed and creative B%dgment#$ Lipt Lipton on.s .s arra arrang ngem emen entt o" the the ter terms is similarl similarly y protecti protectible# ble# he de"endan de"endants ts do not chall halle enge nge Lip Lipton.s on.s sta stateme tement nt tha that his his compilation does not replicate the se%ence o" terms in any o" the *"teenth cent%ry so%rces that he cons%lted& nor do they contradict his assertion assertion that he repeated repeatedly ly rearra rearranged nged the terms based %pon his o'n aesthetic B%dgment# Inst Instea ead& d& they they arg% arg%e e that that beca beca%s %se e Lipt Lipton on.s .s arra arrang ngem emen entt does does “not not "oll "ollo' o' any any sort sort o" alphabetical& alphabetical& chronological& or other system&$ it is inherently %nprotectible %nprotectible %nder copyright la'# la'# his arg%ment misconstr%es governing case la'# la'# e have have held held that that 'hile 'hile “mech “mechani anical cal$ $ arra arrang ngem emen ents ts&& s%ch s%ch as alph alphab abet etic ical al or chronological order& do not display the re%isite original originality& ity& any minimal minimal level level o" creativ creativity ity is s%cient to render an arrangement protectible# protectible# $. %a"#man &u'"ishin Corp vs Lan#o"" nc (199) Facts:
Plaint Plainti; i; aldman aldman p%bli p%blishe shes s child childre renDs nDs books& 'hile its co-plainti;& Playmore Inc& sells and distrib%tes them# he de"endant& Landoll& p%blishes& prints and sells childrenDs books# aldman aldman p%blishe p%blished d and Playmore Playmore sold a seri series es o" book books s call called ed “rea reatt Ill% Ill%st stra rate ted d Classics$ in both hard and so"t covers# mong the titles incl%ded in the series 'ere FGliver 'ist&F 'ist&F FHobin FHobin +ood&F Fhe /%tiny on oard +#/#7# o%ntyF (the ligh acco%nt& not that o" ordho ordho; ; and +all)& +all)& Flac Flack k ea%ty ea%ty&F &F F7'is F7'iss s ?amily Hobinson&F and Favid Copper*eld#F In ecember ecember 011> Landoll Landoll p%blished p%blished and o;er ;ered "or sale sale so" so"t cove over ill%s l%strat trated ed adap adapta tati tion ons s o" thes these e si! si! book books s in a seri series es called called F?irst F?irst Ill%strate Ill%strated d Classics Classics#F #F In Jan%ary Jan%ary 011K Landoll p%blished and o;ered "or sale the same si! adaptations in hard cover& in a series called FIll%strated Classics#F he plainti;s s%ed the de"endant "or dama damage ges& s& cont conten endi ding ng that that the the te!t te!ts s and and ill% ill%st stra rati tion ons s o" the the Land Landol olll book books s clos closel ely y resembled their o'n# In addition to the claims& plainti;s invoked invoked 7ec# K>(a) o" the Lanham ct& clai claimi ming ng that that the the de"e de"end ndan antt comm commit itte ted d “reverse passing o;#$ ssue: hether or not there is reverse passing o;#
0Page
IPL (Copyright) - E !e"#: 4es# Gne o" the deceptive practices actionable %nder section K>(a) is that "orm o" "alse designation o" origin kno'n as Freverse palming o;F or Freverse passing o;#F
altho%gh both sides disp%te ho' m%ch pro*t 'as act%ally made#F @
In reverse passing o;& the 'rongdoer sells plainti;s prod%cts as its o'n# It contrasts 'ith passing o;& 'here the 'rongdoer sells its prod%cts as the plainti;s# phonograph record alb%m creating the "alse impression that de"endant rather than plainti; 'as the principal per"ormer constit%tes reverse passing o;& actionable %nder section K>(a)#
iley s%ed irtsaeng "or copyright in"ringement and 'on in t'o lo'er co%rts# he 7econd Circ%it Co%rt o" ppeals %pheld the ban on importation o" copyrighted 'orks 'itho%t the a%thority o" the 6#7# copyright o'ner= this set %p a Circ%it split 'ith the hird Circ%it and the inth Circ%it& 'hich had had variant approaches to the same %estion in other cases#
In the case at bar& the evidence demonstrates the likelihood o" plainti;s. s%ccess on their claim that Landoll has committed the Lanham ct tort o" reverse passing o;# I base that concl%sion %pon the similarities bet'een the str%ct%re& te!ts and ill%strations o" the competing adaptations: similarities that are too striking to ascribe to coincidence# he arrangements o" chapters mirror each other in each pair o" books#
irtsaeng then appealed to the 7%preme Co%rt& arg%ing the *rst-sale doctrine& a cla%se in the 6nited 7tates copyright 'hich enables residents o" the 6nited 7tates to resell legally obtained obBects 'itho%t asking "or the copyright o'ner.s permission& 'as more important than the copyright o'ner.s rights to control importation o" the o'ner.s 'orks %nder 67 La'#
he Landoll books do not attrib%te their editorial str%ct%re& te!ts and ill%strations to those individ%als 'ho created them# Gn the contrary: the Landoll books identi"y di;erent individ%als as the adapters and ill%strators= they display on their covers the Landoll logo= and the inner pages contain a Landoll notice o" copyright 'hich& in the circ%mstances o" the case& m%st be regarded as "alse# his cond%ct constit%tes reverse passing o;# Landoll is selling the aldman prod%cts as Landoll.s o'n and %nder Landoll.s name# *. +avi# %oo#s vs ,ourne Co. (1995)
inatamad ako idigest# "%llte!t belo'# hanksM
Pakibasa
na
lang
. -irtsaen vs ohn %i"ey / 0ons ($1*) Facts2
In <33N& John iley O 7ons& Inc# *led s%it against hailand native 7%pap irtsaeng over the sale o" "oreign edition te!tbooks made o%tside o" the 6nited 7tates marked "or sale e!cl%sively abroad 'hich irtsaeng imported into the 6nited 7tates#@0A hen irtsaeng came to merica in 0115 to st%dy at Cornell 6niversity& he discovered that iley te!tbooks 'ere considerably more e!pensive to b%y in the 6nited 7tates than in his home co%ntry# irtsaeng asked his relatives "rom hailand to b%y s%ch books at home and ship them to him to sell at a pro*t# +e sold the imported books on eay& Fmaking Q0#< million in reven%e&
ssue2 hether or not the *rst-sale doctrine is applicable# !e"#2 4es# In <30>& the 6#7# 7%preme Co%rt reversed the 7econd Circ%it and held that irtsaeng.s sale o" la'"%lly-made copies p%rchased overseas 'as protected by the *rstsale doctrine# he Co%rt held that the *rst sale doctrine applies to goods man%"act%red o%tside o" the 6nited 7tates& and the protections and e!ceptions o;ered by the Copyright ct to 'orks Fla'"%lly made %nder this titleF is not limited by geography# Hather& it applies to all copies legally made any'here& not B%st in the 6nited 7tates& in accordance 'ith 6#7# copyright la'# J%stice 7tephen reyer 'rote the opinion o" the co%rt 'hich 'as Boined by *ve J%stices (Hoberts& homas& lito& 7otomayor& and agan)= J%stice Elena agan 'rote a separate conc%rring opinion& also signed by 7am%el lito= and J%stices H%th ader insb%rg& nthony ennedy& and ntonin 7calia dissented# agan and lito.s conc%rrence indicated their belie" that Congress co%ld change the la' in order to strengthen copyright protections# 5. &ear" an# +ean vs 03 ($*)
7ee digests %nder Patent# 4. oauin vs +ri"on (1999) “6hon#a an# 3e” vs “t7s a +ate”
<Page
IPL (Copyright) - E Facts2
J Prod%ctions Inc# (JPI) 'as the holder o" copyright over the sho' Hhoda and /e# It holds rights over the sho'Ds "ormat and style o" presentation# In 0110& JPIDs president ?rancisco Joa%in sa' on R HP 1Ds sho' ItDs a ate& 'hich is basically the same as Hhoda and /e# +e event%ally s%ed abriel Sosa& the manager o" the sho' ItDs a ate# Sosa later so%ght a revie' o" the prosec%torDs resol%tion be"ore the 7ecretary o" J%stice (?ranklin rilon)# rilon reversed the *ndings o" the *scal and directed him to dismiss the case against Sosa# ssue2 hether or not there is copyright in"ringement# !e"#2 o# he essence o" copyright in"ringement is the copying& in 'hole or in part& o" copyrightable materials as de*ned and en%merated in 7ection < o" P# o# K1 (Copyright La')# part "rom the manner in 'hich it is act%ally e!pressed& ho'ever& the idea o" a dating game sho' is a noncopyrightable material# Ideas& concepts& "ormats& or schemes in their abstract "orm clearly do not "all 'ithin the class o" 'orks or materials s%sceptible o" copyright registration as provided in P# o# K1# hat is covered by JPIDs copyright is the speci*c episodes o" the sho' Hhoda and /e#
?%rther& JPI sho%ld have presented the master videotape o" the sho' in order to sho' the linkage bet'een the copyright sho' (Hhoda and /e) and the in"ringing sho' (ItDs a ate)# his is based on the r%ling in <3th Cent%ry ?o! vs C (tho%gh this has been %ali*ed by Col%mbia Pict%res vs C& this is still good la')# ho%gh JPI did provide a lot o" 'ritten evidence and description to sho' the linkage bet'een the sho's& the same 'ere not eno%gh# television sho' incl%des more than mere 'ords can describe beca%se it involves a 'hole spectr%m o" vis%als and e;ects& video and a%dio& s%ch that no similarity or dissimilarity may be "o%nd by merely describing the general copyrightT"ormat o" both dating game sho's# 8. Fi"ipino 0ociety of Composers :uthors an# &u'"ishers nc vs Tan (19;8) Facts:
Plainti; ?ilscap 'as the o'ner o" certain m%sical compositions s%ch as “ahil 7a Iyo&$ “7apagkat Ika' y kin&$ “7apagkat ami y ao lamang$ and “he earness o" 4o%#$ /ean'hile& de"endant 'as the o'ner o" a resta%rant kno'n as “le! 7oda ?o%ndation
and Hesta%rant$ 'here m%sicians played live songs incl%ding those mentioned above# ?ilscap th%s in"ringement#
s%ed
"or
copyright
ssue: Is there copyright in"ringementU !e"#: o# It is admitted that the patrons o" the resta%rant in %estion pay only "or the "ood and drinks and apparently not "or listening to the m%sic# s "o%nd by the trial co%rt& the m%sic provided is "or the p%rpose o" entertaining and am%sing the c%stomers in order to make the establishment more attractive and desirable (Hecord on ppeal& p# <0)# It 'ill be noted that "or the playing and singing the m%sical compositions involved& the combo 'as paid as independent contractors by the appellant (Hecord on ppeal& p#
he 7%preme Co%rt has r%led that FParagraph >> o" Patent Gce dministrative Grder o# > (as amended& dated 7eptember 0N& 01K5) entitled .H%les o" Practice in the Philippines Patent Gce relating to the Hegistration o" Copyright Claims. prom%lgated p%rs%ant to Hep%blic ct 029& provides among other things that an intellect%al creation sho%ld be copyrighted thirty (>3) days a"ter its p%blication& i" made in /anila& or 'ithin the (23) days i" made else'here& "ail%re o" 'hich renders s%ch creation p%blic property#F (7antos v# /cC%llo%gh Printing Company& 0< 7CH ><9 @012KA# Indeed& i" the general p%blic has made %se o" the obBect so%ght to be copyrighted "or thirty (>3) days prior to the copyright application the la' deems the obBect to have been donated to the p%blic domain and the same can no longer be copyrighted# care"%l st%dy o" the records reveals that the song Fahil 7a IyoF 'hich 'as registered on pril <3& 0192 (rie" "or ppellant& p# 03) became pop%lar in radios& B%ke bo!es& etc# long be"ore registration (7& /ay -9= <9) 'hile the song Fhe earness G" 4o%F registered on Jan%ary 0K& 0199 (rie" "or ppellant& p# 03) had become pop%lar t'enty *ve (<9) years prior to 012N& (the year o" the hearing) or "rom 01K> (7& /ay
>Page
IPL (Copyright) - E <5) and the songs F7apagkat Ika' y kinF and F7apagkat ami y ao LamangF both registered on J%ly 03& 0122& appear to have been kno'n and sang by the 'itnesses as early as 0129 or three years be"ore the hearing in 012N# he testimonies o" the 'itnesses at the hearing o" this case on this s%bBect 'ere %nreb%tted by the appellant# (Ibid& pp# 3)# 6nder the circ%mstances& it is clear that the m%sical compositions in %estion had long become p%blic property& and are there"ore beyond the protection o" the Copyright La'# ;. :,0
3u"time#ia
?acts: 7-C is engaged in television and radio broadcasting thro%gh 'ireless and satellite means 'hile Philippine /%lti-/edia 7ystems Inc# (“P/7I$ "or brevity)& the operator o" ream roadcasting 7ystem provides direct-to-home (+) television via satellite to its s%bscribers all over the Philippines# P/7I 'as granted legislative "ranchise %nder H N2>3 to install& operate and maintain a nation'ide + satellite service and is obligated %nder by C /emorand%m Circ%lar o# K-3N-NN& 7ection 2#< o" 'hich re%ires all cable television system operators operating in a comm%nity 'ithin rade “$ or “$ conto%rs to carry the television signals o" the a%thori,ed television broadcast stations (“m%st-carry r%le$)# 7-C *led a complaint 'ith Intellect%al Property Gce (IPG) "or violation o" la's involving property rights# It alleged that P/7IDs %na%thori,ed rebroadcasting o" Channels < and <> in"ringed on its broadcasting rights and copyright and that the C circ%lar only covers cable television system operators and not + satellite television operators# /oreover& C Circ%lar K-3N-NN violates 7ec# 1 o" rt# III o" the Constit%tion beca%se it allo's the taking o" property "or p%blic %se 'itho%t payment o" B%st compensation# P/7I arg%ed that its rebroadcasting o" Channels < and <> is sanctioned by /emorand%m Circ%lar o# 3K-3N-NN= that the m%st-carry r%le %nder the /emorand%m Circ%lar is a valid e!ercise o" police po'er# Iss%e: hether or not there 'as copyright in"ringement# +eld: o# P/7I does not in"ringe on 7-CDs broadcasting rights %nder the IP Code as P/7I
is not engaged in rebroadcasting o" Channels < and <># Hebroadcasting& 'hich is prohibited by the IP Code& is “the sim%ltaneo%s broadcasting by one broadcasting organi,ation o" the broadcast o" another broadcasting organi,ation#$ 7-C creates and transmits its o'n signals= P/7I merely carries s%ch signals 'hich the vie'ers receive in its %naltered "orm# P/7I does not prod%ce& select& or determine the programs to be sho'n in Channels < and <># Like'ise& it does not pass itsel" o; as the origin or a%thor o" s%ch programs# Inso"ar as Channels < and <> are concerned& P/7I merely retransmits the same in accordance 'ith C /emorand%m Circ%lar 3K-3N-NN# he carriage o" 7-CDs signals by virt%e o" the m%st-carry r%le in /emorand%m Circ%lar o# 3K-3N-NN is %nder the direction and control o" the government tho%gh the C 'hich is vested 'ith e!cl%sive B%risdiction to s%pervise& reg%late and control telecomm%nications and broadcast servicesT"acilities in the Philippines# he imposition o" the m%st-carry r%le is 'ithin the CDs po'er to prom%lgate r%les and reg%lations& as p%blic sa"ety and interest may re%ire& to enco%rage a larger and more e;ective %se o" comm%nications& radio and television broadcasting "acilities& and to maintain e;ective competition among private entities# 9. %i""iams an# %i"=ins Co vs >0 Court of C"aims (198*) Facts:
he plainti; (illiams and ilkins) is a maBor p%blisher o" medical Bo%rnals and books& and the de"endant (ational Instit%te o" +ealth) s%bscribes to some o" the Bo%rnals p%blished by the plainti;# he de"endantDs library began r%nning a photocopy service# Its policy 'as that only a single copy o" a Bo%rnal article 'o%ld be made& and each re%est 'as limited to K3-93 pages# ssue2 Is there copyright in"ringementU !e"#2 o# Photocopying done "or research is not a violation o" copyright la' and "alls %nder the "air %se doctrine# 1. Nationa" 6i?e :ssociation of :merica vs !an#un Contro" Fe#eration of @hio (199) Facts:
Plainti; the ational HiVe ssociation o" merica (H)& 'hich lobbies ocials and
KPage
IPL (Copyright) - E ed%cates the p%blic in s%pport o" the o'nership o" *rearms& mailed t'o letters to its membership %rging them to oppose bills pending in the Ghio state legislat%re# ccompanying each letter 'as a three-page list o" all Ghio state legislators and their corresponding contact in"ormation# he list incl%ded asterisks ne!t to the names o" members o" legislative committees relevant to the pending bills# short paragraph e!plaining 'hy certain names had been marked 'ith asterisks 'as at the bottom o" the list# In response& de"endant +andg%n Control ?ederation o" Ghio& 'hich advocated g%n control& mailed a letter to its members %rging them to s%pport the bills plainti; opposed# ttached to de"endantDs letter 'as the photocopied& tho%gh slightly modi*ed& listing o" Ghio 7tate legislators that plainti; %sed in its mailing# e"endant appealed the district co%rtDs r%ling in plainti;Ds "avor# ssue2 hether de"endantDs %na%thori,ed d%plication and %se o" plainti;Ds list o" state legislators constit%tes "air %se# !e"#2 4es# he co%rt held that the de"endantDs %se o" the list o" legislators 'as "air# he co%rt "o%nd that the *rst and "o%rth "actors 'eighed in "avor o" *nding "air %se& reasoning that de"endant& a non-pro*t organi,ation& had made a noncommercial %se o" the legislator list 'ith no attempt to sell it# ?%rther& the co%rt noted that the list contained in"ormation so readily attainable that no market likely e!isted "or it& and "o%nd that the distrib%tionWto only <33 peopleW'as not partic%larly damaging# he co%rt also "o%nd that the doc%ment 'as %sed primarily to e!ercise de"endantDs ?irst mendment speech rights to comment on p%blic iss%es and to petition the government regarding pending legislation# Indicating that the scope o" the "air %se doctrine is 'ider 'hen the %se relates to iss%es o" p%blic concern& the co%rt "o%nd that this "actor 'eighed in de"endantDs "avor#
?inally& "or the second and third "actors& the co%rt "o%nd that the list at iss%e 'as entirely "act%al and that de"endant copied only the list and not the copyrighted H letters& 'eighing in "avor o" "air %se# 11. n the matter of the chares of p"aiarism aainst :ssociate ustice 3ariano C. +e" Casti""o ($1) Facts2
Gn pril
Isabelita Rin%ya asked the co%rt to compel the Philippine government to have okyo apologi,e to& and provide compensation "or the com"ort 'omen# he r%ling& 'hich 'as penned by el Castillo& denied the plea o" the 'omen& 'ho 'ere victims o" se!%al slavery by Japanese occ%pation "orces d%ring orld ar II# he 'omen later appealed the decision by *ling a motion "or reconsideration in J%ne <303# In J%ly this year& the 'omen *led a s%pplemental motion alleging that el Castillo.s ponencia contains plagiari,ed portions# he so%rces "rom 'here el Castillo allegedly borro'ed 'itho%t proper attrib%tion 'ere “ ?id%ciary o" heory o" J%s CogensF by Evan Criddle and Evan ?o!-ecent& Freaking the 7ilence on Hape as an International CrimeF by /ark Ellis& and FEn"orcing Erga Gmnes Gbligations in International La'F by Christian ams# ssue2 hether committed#
or
not
plagiarism
'as
!e"#2 o# he co%rt also held that plagiarism 'as not committed beca%se there 'as no malicio%s intent to pass o; someone else.s 'ork as one.s o'n#
here 'as also a statement to the e;ect that B%dicial decisions live o; citing precedents& making accidental plagiarism %nderstandable i" not acceptable# In the end& the 7%preme Co%rt passed the blame to the J%sticeDs researcher and /7 ord# 1$. !a'ana vs Fe"ici#a# Aoo#Bi"" Tra#in (1999)
6o'"es
an#
Facts2
Pacita +abana et al#& are a%thors and copyright o'ners o" d%ly iss%ed o" the book& College English ?or oday (CE)# Hespondent ?elicidad Hobles 'as the a%thor o" the book eveloping English Pro*ciency (EP)# Petitioners "o%nd that several pages o" the respondent.s book are similar& i" not all together a copy o" petitioners. book# +abana et al# *led an action "or damages and inB%nction& alleging respondentDs in"ringement o" copyrights& in violation o" P## K1# hey allege respondent ?elicidad C# Hobles being s%bstantially "amiliar 'ith the contents o" petitioners. 'orks& and 'itho%t sec%ring their permission& li"ted& copied& plagiari,ed andTor transposed certain portions o" their book CE# Gn the other hand& Hobles contends that the book EP is the prod%ct o" her o'n intellect%al creation& and 'as not a copy o" any e!isting valid copyrighted book and that the similarities
9Page
IPL (Copyright) - E may be d%e to the a%thors. e!ercise o" the Fright to "air %se o" copyrighted materials& as g%ides#F he trial co%rt r%led in "avor o" the respondents& absolving them o" any liability# Later& the Co%rt o" ppeals rendered B%dgment in "avor o" respondents Hobles and ood'ill rading Co#& Inc# In this appeal& petitioners s%bmit that the appellate co%rt erred in arming the trial co%rt.s decision#
indo's& 0< 'indo's installer Cs packed as /icroso"t prod%cts# he agents 'ere not given the end-%ser license agreements& %ser man%als& and certi*cates o" a%thenticity "or the prod%cts p%rchased# hey 'ere given a receipt 'hich has a header o" “#/##C# (Phils) Inc# ELHG CG/P6EH$# /C stands "or ai'an /achinery isplay and rade Center#
ssue2 hether or not there is copyright in"ringement#
search 'arrant 'as s%bse%ently iss%ed 'here <&N>0 Cs o" indo's installers& among others& 'ere sei,ed# ased on the items sei,ed "rom eltron& /icroso"t *led a case o" copyright in"ringement against eltron and /C as 'ell as their ocers (J%dy +'ang et al) be"ore the epartment o" J%stice (GJ)# eltron& in its co%nter-adavit& arg%ed the "ollo'ing:
!e"#2 4es# per%sal o" the records yields several pages o" the book EP that are similar i" not identical 'ith the te!t o" CE# he co%rt *nds that respondent Hobles. act o" li"ting "rom the book o" petitioners s%bstantial portions o" disc%ssions and e!amples& and her "ail%re to ackno'ledge the same in her book is an in"ringement o" petitioners. copyrights# In the case at bar& the least that respondent Hobles co%ld have done 'as to ackno'ledge petitioners +abana et# al# as the so%rce o" the portions o" EP# he *nal prod%ct o" an a%thor.s toil is her book# o allo' another to copy the book 'itho%t appropriate ackno'ledgment is inB%ry eno%gh# 1*. N,<3icrosoft Corp vs !Ban ($5) Facts2
In /ay 011>& /icroso"t Corporation and eltron Comp%ter Philippines& Inc# entered into a Licensing greement# 6nder 7ection <(a) o" the greement& /icroso"t a%thori,ed eltron& "or a "ee& to: 0# Heprod%ce and install no more than one copy o" indo's on each C%stomer 7ystem hard disk= <# istrib%te directly or indirectly and license copies o" indo's (reprod%ced as per 7ection < o" the greement andTor ac%ired "rom an %thori,ed Heplicator or %thori,ed istrib%tor# heir agreement allo'ed either party to terminate i" one "ails to comply 'ith their respective obligations# /icroso"t terminated the greement in J%ne 0119 by reason o" eltronDs non-payment o" royalties# Later& /icroso"t learned that eltron 'as illegally copying and selling copies o" indo's# /icroso"t then so%ght the assistance o" the ational %rea% o" Investigation# I agents made some p%rchase "rom eltron 'here they ac%ired a comp%ter %nit pre-installed 'ith
0# hat /icroso"tDs iss%e 'ith eltron 'as really B%st to have leverage in "orcing eltron to pay the %npaid royalties= and that /icroso"t sho%ld have *led a collection s%it# <# hat the comp%ter %nit allegedly p%rchased by the I agents "rom them cannot be decisively traced as coming "rom eltron beca%se the receipt iss%ed to the agents did not list the comp%ter %nit as one o" the items bo%ght# ># hat the 0< installers p%rchased by the agents 'hich are act%ally listed in the receipt 'ere not man%"act%red by eltron b%t rather they 'ere gen%ine copies p%rchased by /C "rom an a%thori,ed /icroso"t seller in 7ingapore# K# hat the <&N>0 installers sei,ed "rom them 'ere not a property o" eltron b%t rather they 'ere le"t to them by someone "or sa"ekeeping# he GJ secretary agreed 'ith eltron and dismissed the case# he 7ecretary r%led that the iss%e o" the a%thority o" eltron to copy and sell /icroso"t prod%cts sho%ld *rst be resolved in a civil s%it# /icroso"t appealed the decision o" the GJ secretary be"ore the 7%preme Co%rt# /ean'hile& eltron *led a motion to %ash the search 'arrant be"ore the HC that iss%ed the same# he HC partially granted the %ashal# he Co%rt o" ppeals reversed the HC# +'ang et al did not appeal the C decision# ssue2 hether or not the GJ 7ecretary is correct#
2Page
IPL (Copyright) - E !e"#2 o# o# 7ection 9 o" Presidential ecree K1 en%merates the rights vested e!cl%sively on the copyright o'ner# Contrary to the GJDs r%ling& the gravamen o" copyright in"ringement is not merely the %na%thori,ed “man%"act%ring$ o" intellect%al 'orks b%t rather the %na%thori,ed per"ormance o" any o" the acts covered by 7ection 9# +ence& any person 'ho per"orms any o" the acts %nder 7ection 9 'itho%t obtaining the copyright o'nerDs prior consent renders himsel" civilly and criminally liable "or copyright in"ringement#
eing the copyright and trademark o'ner o" /icroso"t so"t'are& /icroso"t acted 'ell 'ithin its rights in *ling the complaint be"ore GJ on the incriminating evidence obtained "rom eltron# +ence& it 'as highly irreg%lar "or the GJ to hold that /icroso"t so%ght the iss%ance o" the search 'arrants and the *ling o" the complaint merely to press%re eltron to pay its overd%e royalties to /icroso"t# here is no basis "or the GJ to r%le that /icroso"t m%st a'ait a prior “resol%tion "rom the proper co%rt o" 'hether or not the greement is still binding bet'een the parties#$ eltron has not *led any s%it to %estion /icroso"tDs termination o" the greement# /icroso"t can neither be e!pected nor compelled to 'ait %ntil eltron decides to s%e be"ore /icroso"t can seek remedies "or violation o" its intellect%al property rights# ?%rthermore& the articles sei,ed "rom eltron are co%nter"eit per se beca%se /icroso"t does not (and co%ld not have a%thori,ed anyone to) prod%ce s%ch C installers he copying o" the gen%ine /icroso"t so"t'are to prod%ce these "ake Cs and their distrib%tion are illegal even i" the copier or distrib%tor is a /icroso"t licensee# s "ar as these installer C-HG/s are concerned& the greement (and the alleged %estion on the validity o" its termination) is immaterial to the determination o" eltronDs liability "or copyright in"ringement and %n"air competition# eltronDs de"ense that the bo! o" C installers "o%nd in their possession 'as only le"t to them "or sa"ekeeping is not tenable#
1. 3an"y 0portsBear 3anufacturin nc vs +a#otte nterprises an#Dor !ermes 0ports Center ($5) Facts2
Gn /arch 05& <33>& HC- X%e,on City& ranch N> iss%ed a search 'arrant against adodette Enterprises andTor +ermes 7ports Center a"ter *nding reasonable gro%nds that respondents violated 7ections 05< and <05 o" Hep%blic ct (H) o# N<1># Hespondents then moved to %ash and ann%l the search 'arrant claiming that the sporting goods man%"act%red by andTor registered in the name /L4 are ordinary hence& not among the classes protected %nder 7ec# 05< o" H N<1># Gn J%ne 03& <33> the trial co%rt granted the motion to %ash and declared the search 'arrant iss%ed as n%ll and void# /L4 *led a motion "or reconsideration on %g%st 00& <33>& b%t 'as later on denied "or lack o" merit# "ter denial o" the motion "or reconsideration& /L4 *led a petition "or revie' o" certiorari in the Co%rt o" ppeals b%t 'as later on denied# ssue2 T the copyrighted prod%cts o" /L4 are original creations s%bBect to the protection o" H N<1># !e"#2 oM he copyright certi*cates iss%ed in "avor o" /L4 constit%te a prima "acie evidence o" validity and o'nership# +o'ever& pres%mption o" validity is not created 'hen a s%cient proo" or evidence e!ist that may cast a do%bt on the copyright validity# In the case at bar& validity and originality 'ill not be pres%med since the copyrighted prod%cts o" /L4 are not original creations considering that these prod%cts are readily available in the market %nder vario%s brands# /oreover& no copyright accr%es in "avor o" /L4 despite the iss%ance o" the copyright certi*cate this p%rely serves as a notice o" recording and registration o" the 'ork and is not a concl%sive proo" o" copyright o'nership as provided in 7ec# <& H%le 5 o" the Copyrights 7a"eg%ards and Heg%lations#
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. David D. WOODS, Florence L. Woods, Kristine Woods and Benjamin Woods, d!a Callicoon "usic, #laintiffs$Appellees, v. BOU%&' CO., Defendant$Appellant, American Societ( of Composers, Aut)ors and #u!lis)ers, Defendant. &o. *+, Doc-et /$+/0. Decided1 2ul( 0*, *
5Page
IPL (Copyright) - E Before1 F'3&B'%4, CA%DA"O&' and "cLAU45L3&, Circuit 2ud6es. %o!ert C. Oster!er6, &e7 8orCit( 9A!eles Clar- Oster!er6 and #ra6er, of counsel:, for defendant$appellant. Frederic- F. 4reenman, &e7 8or- Cit( 9Deutsc) Kla6s!run ; Blas!and, Alvin Deutsc), David Blas!and, of counsel:, for plaintiffs$ appellees. <)is appeal re=uires us to address conflictin6 claims to ro(alties 6enerated !( various uses of t)e son6 >W)en t)e %ed, %ed, %o!in Comes Bo!, Bo!, Bo!!in? Alon6@ 9t)e Son6: durin6 7)at is -no7n in cop(ri6)t la7 as an etended rene7al term. #laintiffs, )eirs of son6 composer 5arr( Woods, and defendant Bourne Co., Woods?s music pu!lis)er, !ot) claim t)e ri6)t to receive certain ro(alties 6enerated durin6 t)is period. 'ssentiall(, plaintiffs claim t)at t)e( are entitled to t)e ro(alties !ecause t)e( )ave eercised t)eir statutor( ri6)t to terminate t)e pu!lis)er?s interests in t)e Son6 pursuant to + U.S.C. /9c:. Bourne maintains t)at t)e ro(alties !elon6 to it !ecause all t)e disputed post$ termination uses of t)e Son6 are attri!uta!le to so$called derivative 7or-s, 7)ic) 7ere prepared under its aut)orit( prior to termination and 7)ic) t)erefore do not revert to t)e aut)or. + U.S.C. /9c:9E:9A:. <)e ro(alties at issue 7ere 6enerated !( several different uses of t)e Son6 follo7in6 termination. <)ese uses include 9: television performances of movies and television pro6rams t)at incorporate t)e Son6 9)ereafter sometimes referred to collectivel( as >audiovisual 7or-s@: 90: radio performances of sound recordin6s of t)e Son6 and 9: sales of reprints of pu!lis)ed arran6ements. Follo7in6 a !enc) trial !efore 2ud6e %ic)ard O7en in t)e United States District Court for t)e Sout)ern District of &e7 8or-, jud6ment 7as entered in "arc) / 6rantin6 all t)e disputed ro(alties to plaintiffs$appellees. <)e opinion of t)e district court is reported at G/ F.Supp. G. <)e district court essentiall( reac)ed its determination !( anal(Hin6 7)et)er an( of t)e musical arran6ements of t)e Son6 contained in t)e movies, television s)o7s, sound recordin6s and printed arran6ements 7ere sufficientl( ori6inal to =ualif( as derivative 7or-s. Findin6 t)at, 7it) one minor eception, no version of t)e Son6 7as sufficientl( ori6inal, t)e district court 6ranted jud6ment for t)e plaintiffs. <)e district court did not consider it relevant t)at some of t)e disputed ro(alties 7ere 6enerated !( performances of audiovisual 7or-s, suc) a s movies containin6 t)e Son6, 7)ic) are conceded to !e ori6inal enou6) to =ualif( as derivative 7or-s. For reasons set fort) !elo7, 7e )old t)at 7)en a musical arran6ement is contained 7it)in an audiovisual 7or- produced under license from a pu!lis)er prior to termination, t)e pu!lis)er is entitled to receive ro(alties from post$termination performances of t)e audiovisual 7or- under t)e terms of pre$termination licenses 6overnin6 performance ri6)ts. 3t is irrelevant to disposition of t)ose ro(alties 7)et)er t)e musical arran6ement in t)e audiovisual 7or- 7ould =ualif( independentl( as a derivative 7or-. We reverse t)e rulin6 of t)e district court in t)is respect and direct pa(ment of ro(alties to Bourne for t)ese performances in accordance 7it) t)e terms of t)e licenses 6overnin6 performance of t)e Son6 immediatel( prior to termination. W)et)er a particular musical arran6ement prepared under t)e aut)orit( of t)e pu!lis)er is a derivative 7or- is relevant, )o7ever, to most ot)er disputed cate6ories of ro(alties !efore us. We essentiall( affirm t)e jud6ment 7it) respect to t)ose cate6ories. For reasons set fort) !elo7, 7e affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for furt)er proceedin6s consistent 7it) t)is opinion. 3. Bac-6round A. <)e 4rant 5arr( Woods 9Woods: 7rote t)e 7ords and music to >W)en <)e %ed, %ed, %o!in Comes Bo!, Bo!, Bo!!in? Alon6@ in 0E. <)at same (ear, Woods entered into a Son67riter?s A6reement 7it) t)e pu!lis)in6 compan( of 3rvin6 Berlin, 3nc. 9Berlin:. <)e )eirs of Woods, doin6 !usiness as Callicoon "usic 9Callicoon:, are plaintiffs$appellees in t)is matter. At some point in t)e /s, t)e Bourne Compan( 9Bourne:, defendant$appellant )erein, succeeded to Berlin?s interests in t)e Son6. B( t)e Son67riter?s A6reement, Woods transferred to Berlin t)e ori6inal musical composition \ includin6 t)e pu!lis)in6 ri6)ts, t)e performin6 ri6)ts, t)e ri6)ts to use t)e same for mec)anical reproduction, t)e ri6)t to ma-e, pu!lis) and perform an( arran6ement or adaptation of t)e same, and all cop(ri6)ts and t)e ri6)ts to secure cop(ri6)ts and etensions and rene7als of cop(ri6)ts in t)e same, or in an( arran6ements or adaptations t)ereof. 3n April 0E, Berlin o!tained a certificate of re6istration of cop(ri6)t for t)e ori6inal unpu!lis)ed musical composition. <)e cop(ri6)t certificate indicates t)at Woods is t)e aut)or of t)e 7ords and music. Berlin also pu!lis)ed a piano$vocal arran6ement, and Berlin o!tained a certificate of cop(ri6)t for t)at
NPage
IPL (Copyright) - E arran6ement one mont) after re6isterin6 t)e unpu!lis)ed Son6. <)e cop(ri6)t certificate for t)e piano$ vocal arran6ement also names Woods as t)e aut)or of t)e 7ords and music. Berlin is listed as t)e cop(ri6)t o7ner on !ot) certificates. <)e certificates do not indicate t)at an(one ot)er t)an Woods acted as arran6er. B. <)e 'tended %ene7al recapture@ ri6)ts in t)e cop(ri6)ted 7or- and ma( t)ere!( !e relieved >of t)e conse=uences of ill$advised and unremunerative 6rants t)at )ad !een made !efore t)e aut)or )ad a fair opportunit( to appreciate t)e I7or-?sJ true value.@ "ills "usic, 3nc. v. Sn(der, /E U.S. *, +0$+, * S.Ct. EG, E/, G L.'d.0d **E 9G*:. <)ere is an important eception to t)e reversion ri6)ts of t)e aut)or or )eirs for derivative 7or-s produced !( an aut)oriHed part( durin6 t)e ori6inal and rene7al cop(ri6)t terms. <)e Cop(ri6)t Act of +E provides t)at IaJ derivative 7or- prepared under aut)orit( of t)e 6rant !efore its termination ma( continue to !e utiliHed under t)e terms of t)e 6rant after its termination, !ut t)is privile6e does not etend to t)e preparation after t)e termination of ot)er derivative 7or-s !ased upon t)e cop(ri6)ted 7or- covered !( t)e terminated 6rant. + U.S.C. /9c:9E:9A: 9referred to )ereafter as >t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception@ or simpl( >t)e 'ception@:. <)e Act defines a derivative 7or- as a 7or- !ased upon one or more preeistin6 7or-s, suc) as a translation, musical arran6ement, dramatiHation, fictionaliHation, motion picture version, sound recordin6, art reproduction, a!rid6ment, condensation, or an( ot)er form in 7)ic) a 7or- ma( !e recast, transformed, or adapted. A 7orconsistin6 of editorial revisions, annotations, ela!orations, or ot)er modifications 7)ic), as a 7)ole, represent an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip, is a >derivative 7or-.@ + U.S.C. . <)e rene7al term for Bourne?s cop(ri6)t in t)e Son6 came to an end in April G0, and Callicoon terminated Bourne?s ri6)ts immediatel( t)ereafter. C. %e6istration and Commercial 'ploitation of t)e Son6 Durin6 t)e ori6inal and rene7al cop(ri6)t terms, Berlin, and t)en its successor Bourne, successfull( eploited t)e Son6 for its commercial value. As alread( noted, Berlin pu!lis)ed a piano$vocal arran6ement of t)e Son6 in 0E, s)ortl( after receivin6 t)e 6rant from Woods. Berlin re6istered t)e piano$vocal arran6ement 7it) t)e Cop(ri6)t Office, namin6 Woods as t)e aut)or. Berlin or Bourne eventuall( prepared and pu!lis)ed approimatel( ot)er arran6ements of t)e Son6 for various
1Page
IPL (Copyright) - E com!inations of voices and musical instruments. Bourne o!tained E different re6istrations of cop(ri6)t for different arran6ements of t)e Son6. <)e cop(ri6)t re6istrations for t)ese arran6ements indicate t)at Woods is t)e aut)or of t)e 7ords and music. Ot)er people are listed as arran6ers or aut)ors of ne7 material. Bourne aut)oriHed t)e 5al Leonard #u!lis)in6 Compan( 9Leonard: to reprint arran6ements of t)e Son6 in assorted s)eet music compilations. Bourne also issued numerous licenses 9-no7n as mec)anical licenses:, often t)rou6) its a6ent, t)e 5arr( Fo A6enc(, to record companies to ma-e sound recordin6s of t)e Son6 as performed !( popular artists. Bourne also issued licenses 9-no7n as s(nc)roniHation licenses or s(nc) licenses:, fre=uentl( t)rou6) t)e 5arr( Fo A6enc(, to motion picture and television studios to incorporate t)e Son6 in movies and in television pro6rams. After terminatin6 Bourne?s ri6)ts in t)e Son6, Callicoon !e6an to commerciall( eploit t)e Son6. Bourne claims, and Callicoon does not dispute, t)at Callicoon licensed Leonard to reprint pu!lis)ed arran6ements of t)e Son6 formerl( licensed !( Bourne, simpl( c)an6in6 t)e cop(ri6)t notice to read >Callicoon@ instead of >Bourne.@ W)en Leonard announced t)at it 7ould continue to pa( Bourne t)e ro(alties for t)ese reprints, Callicoon licensed Warner Brot)ers #u!lications instead to reprint arran6ements of t)e Son6. Callicoon 9or t)e 5arr( Fo A6enc( as Callicoon?s a6ent: also issued s(nc) licenses for use of t)e Son6 in various ne7 television pro6rams. Callicoon also 6ranted ne7 s(nc) licenses, similar to an epired license ori6inall( issued !( Bourne prior to termination, for use of t)e Son6 in an episode of ><)e Luc( S)o7.@ Furt)er, Callicoon licensed use of t)e Son6 in a television advertisement for Delta Faucet. D. #erformance %i6)ts <)e principal issues in t)is case concern ri6)ts to perform t)e Son6 pu!licl(. Under t)e Cop(ri6)t Act, >ItJo perform a 7or- means to recite, render, pla(, dance, or act it, eit)er directl( or !( means of an( device or process\@ + U.S.C. . As relevant )ere, performances include television !roadcasts of t)e Son6 as captured in movies and television pro6rams and radio !roadcasts of t)e Son6 as captured in sound recordin6s. <)e ri6)t to perform a 7or- pu!licl( )as !een descri!ed as >IoJne of t)e 6reatest sources of revenue in t)e music industr(.@ Sidne( S)emel ; ". William Krasilovs-(, <)is Business of "usic E 9: see also 0 &immer G. at G$0E/. 5o7ever, 6iven t)e ep)emeral nature of performance, it is difficult for t)e o7ners of t)is ri6)t to monitor and enforce it. perform@ music pu!licl(.
03 P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E #u!lic performances of t)e Son6 as contained in movies, television pro6rams and sound recordin6s continue to 6enerate su!stantial ro(alties. Since Callicoon eercised its termination ri6)t in April G0, Callicoon )as continued to receive from ASCA# t)e aut)or?s *M s)are of performance ro(alties, 7)ic) s)are is not disputed. W)at is disputed is t)e pu!lis)er?s s)are of ro(alties for several cate6ories of post$termination pu!lic performances of t)e Son6. <)e first cate6or( concerns post$termination television !roadcasts of audiovisual 7or-s produced under licenses issued !( Bourne !efore termination. <)e second cate6or( concerns radio performances durin6 t)e etended rene7al term of t)e Son6 t)rou6) sound recordin6s t)at 7ere produced !efore termination under licenses issued !( Bourne. Anot)er cate6or( concerns post$termination television and radio !roadcasts of t)e Son6 for 7)ic) source material is not identified in ASCA# records. 3n a fourt) cate6or( !( itself is a television commercial for Delta Faucet licensed !( Callicoon after termination accordin6 to Bourne, t)e commercial contains a G Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ement of t)e Son6 t)at is a derivative 7or-. #rior to Callicoon?s termination of Bourne?s ri6)ts, Bourne notified ASCA# of Bourne?s contention t)at it > continued to !e possessed of t)e ri6)t to receive income from all derivative 7or-s retained !( it. @ ASCA# t)en deemed t)at a dispute eisted !et7een t)e parties as to ri6)ts to pu!lis)er?s ro(alties from post$termination performances of t)e Son6. 3n accordance 7it) ASCA# polic(, suc) ro(alties )ave !een )eld in escro7 pendin6 resolution of t)e dispute. <)e parties )ave stipulated t)at t)e pu!lis)er?s s)are of post$termination ro(alties 7it))eld !( ASCA# from t)e fourt) =uarter of G0 to t)e first =uarter of 0 is NG*,/0.E. <)is s)are is comprised of t)e follo7in6 components1 9: N0+,*+.+G from television performances of audiovisual 7or-s created !efore termination 90: N,*G.*E from radio performances of t)e Son6 in sound recordin6s created !efore termination 9: N+,G*.0G from television and radio performances for 7)ic) source materials 7ere not identified in ASCA# records and 9/: NG,G/.+ from television performances of audiovisual 7or-s created after termination 9includin6 N,E*.+G from t)e Delta Faucet advertisement:. As of Octo!er , 0, an additional N0,G in t)e escro7 account 7as attri!uta!le to accrued interest and miscellaneous special distri!utions. 3n addition to performance ro(alties, t)e parties dispute ri6)ts to ro(alties from sales of reprints of pu!lis)ed arran6ements of t)e Son6 in s)eet music compilations produced and distri!uted !( L eonard and Warner Brot)ers durin6 t)e etended rene7al term. 3n Septem!er G, Callicoon filed an amended complaint a6ainst Bourne and ASCA# in t)e district court see-in6 principall( a declaration t)at Callicoon is entitled to t)e pu!lis)er?s ro(alties 7it))eld !( ASCA#. Callicoon also sou6)t a determination of ri6)ts to reprint ro(alties. <)e district court )eld a !enc) trial in &ovem!er 0, and rendered its decision in 2anuar( /. 2ud6ment in favor of Callicoon 7as entered in "arc) /. F. <)e Decision Belo7 <)e district court determined t)at Callicoon 7as entitled to all of t)e ro(alties 6enerated !( post$ termination performances of t)e Son6, includin6 performances contained in pre$termination derivative audiovisual 7or-s. <)e court ac-no7led6ed, and t)e parties do not dispute, t)at t)e 7or-s in 7)ic) t)e Son6 7as incorporated$for eample, movies$7ere !( definition derivative. &evert)eless, t)e court found t)e controllin6 issue, as to all cate6ories of performance, to !e 7)et)er t)e underl(in6 arran6ement of t)e Son6 itself is a derivative 7or-. Onl( t)en 7ould performance ro(alties continue to 6o to Bourne durin6 t)e etended rene7al term. G/ F.Supp. at 0. <)e court t)en considered 7)et)er an( of t)e printed or performed arran6ements of t)e Son6 7ere derivative 7or-s. 3t found, first, t)at t)e ori6inal piano$ vocal arran6ement pu!lis)ed !( Berlin 9Bourne?s predecessor in interest: 7as not a Berlin$created derivative 7or-. <)e court t)en found t)at none of t)e printed or performed arran6ements of t)e Son6, 7it) t)e eception of one arran6ement performed !( Fred Warin6, could !e called a derivative 7or-. 3d. at 0. Since Bourne claimed an eception to t)e 6eneral rule in t)e +E Act permittin6 termination of t)e pu!lis)er?s ri6)ts, t)e court placed t)e !urden on Bourne to identif( performances of derivative arran6ements. Since Bourne offered no evidence of performances of t)e Fred Warin6 arran6ement, t)e court )eld t)at all of t)e 7it))eld ASCA# ro(alties s)ould !e paid to Callicoon. 3d. <)e district court also found t)at none of t)e printed arran6ements made after t)e piano$vocal arran6ement 7ere derivative 7or-s. Accordin6l(, it ordered all reprint ro(alties to !e paid to Callicoon. 3d. <)is appeal !( Bourne follo7ed.
00 P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E 33. Discussion <)e appeal poses t7o principal issues. <)e first is t)e !asis for determinin6 7)et)er a pu!lis)er is entitled to receive ro(alties for post$termination performances of t)e Son6 in p re$termination audiovisual 7or-s, suc) as movies, t)at are concededl( derivative 7or-s.0 As alread( indicated, t)e district court found t)e relevant in=uir( to !e 7)et)er t)e arran6ement of t)e Son6 7it)in a derivative 7or- is itself a derivative 7or-. We disa6ree 7it) t)e district court in t)is respect. W)et)er t)e arran6ement of t)e Son6 is itself a derivative 7or- is not relevant to t)is cate6or( of ro(alties. <)e derivative 7or- status of an arran6ement of t)e Son6, )o7ever, is relevant to several ot)er -inds of ro(alties at issue in t)is suit. <)ese include ro(alties from performances of pre$termination sound recordin6s, performances of post$termination audiovisual 7or-s and sales of s)eet music reprints. <)e second principal issue in t)is appeal can !e !ro-en into t7o parts1 7)et)er t)e district court invo-ed t)e correct standard for determinin6 7)et)er arran6ements of t)e Son6 are sufficientl( ori6inal to !e derivative 7or-s and, if so, 7)et)er t)e court correctl( applied t)at standard to t)e facts !efore it. A. %o(alties from under t)e terms of t)e 6rant,@ as used in t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception. We =uote its tet a6ain for convenience1 A derivative 7or- prepared under aut)orit( of t)e 6rant !efore its termination ma( continue to !e utiliHed under t)e terms of t)e 6rant after its termination, !ut t)is privile6e does not etend to t)e preparation after t)e termination of ot)er derivative 7or-s !ased upon t)e cop(ri6)ted 7or- covered !( t)e terminated 6rant. + U.S.C. /9c:9E:9A: 9emp)asis supplied: see "ills "usic, /E U.S. at *E, * S.Ct. at E/. "ills "usic posed circumstances similar to t)ose of t)e instant case. Sn(der, treated for purposes of t)at case as t)e sole aut)or of t)e son6 >W)o?s Sorr( &o7,@ )ad assi6ned rene7al ri6)ts in t)e son6 to a pu!lis)er, "ills, in / in ec)an6e for, amon6 ot)er t)in6s, a *M s)are in mec)anical ro(alties, t)at is, ro(alties from sales of copies of sound recordin6s. "ills in turn licensed record companies to produce copies of sound recordin6s of t)e son6. Upon termination of t)e 6rant from Sn(der to "ills, Sn(der?s )eirs claimed t)e ri6)t to M, rat)er t)an just *M, of future mec)anical ro(alties. 5arr( Fo A6enc(, 3nc. v. "ills "usic, 3nc., */ F.Supp. G//, G* 9S.D.&.8.G0:, rev?d, +0 F.0d + 90d Cir.G:, rev?d su! nom. "ills "usic, 3nc. v. Sn(der, /E U.S. *, * S.Ct. EG, G L.'d.0d **E 9G*:. "ills claimed t)at t)e sound recordin6s at issue 7ere derivative 7or-s created under t)e terms of t)e 6rant from Sn(der to "ills and t)at, t)erefore, "ills s)ould continue to s)are in mec)anical ro(alties accordin6 to t)e terms of t)at 6rant. */ F.Supp. at G*. 3n t)e district court, 2ud6e 'd7ard Weinfeld )eld t)at t)e sound recordin6s produced !efore termination 7ere derivative 7or-s and t)at t)e terms of t)e 6rant re=uired pa(ment of mec)anical ro(alties to "ills. 3d. at G*0. <)is court reversed, )oldin6 t)at upon termination onl( t)e 6rant from "ills to t)e record companies remained in effect. Since t)e !asis for "ills?s retention of )alf t)e mec)anical ro(alties 7as
0< P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E t)e 6rant from Sn(der, and since t)at 6rant 7as no7 terminated, all mec)anical ro(alties s)ould revert to Sn(der?s )eirs. +0 F.0d at +. <)e Supreme Court reversed. 3t found t)at t)e p)rase >terminated 6rant,@ t)e last t7o 7ords in t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception, must refer to t)e ori6inal 6rant from aut)or to pu!lis)er. <)e Court reasoned t)at t)e ot)er t7o uses of t)e 7ord >6rant@ in t)e sin6le sentence of t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception must lo6icall( refer to t)e same 6rant. /E U.S. at E/$E*, * S.Ct. at E/*. <)e Court noted t)at >ItJ)e / 6rant from Sn(der to "ills epressl( 6ave "ills t)e aut)orit( to license ot)ers to ma-e derivative 7or-s.@ 3d. at E*, * S.Ct. at E/E. 3t t)en concluded t)at >a fair construction of t)e p)rase under t)e terms of t)e 6rant as applied to an( particular licensee 7ould necessaril( encompass !ot) t)e Iori6inalJ 6rant Ifrom aut)or to pu!lis)erJ and t)e individual license Ito record producersJ eecuted pursuant t)ereto.@ 3d. at EE$E+, * S.Ct. at E/E. Because t)e com!ination of t)e t7o 6rants directed record companies to pa( ro(alties to "ills, and "ills in turn to pa( *M of t)e amount collected to Sn(der, t)e Court )eld t)at "ills 7as entitled to retain its *M s)are of mec)anical ro(alties on sales of records produced !efore termination !ut sold durin6 t)e etended rene7al term. 3d. at +G, * S.Ct. at E*0. "ills "usic is, of course, !indin6 upon us./ "ills "usic appears to re=uire t)at 7)ere multiple levels of licenses 6overn use of a derivative 7or-, t)e >terms of t)e 6rant@ encompass t)e ori6inal 6rant from aut)or to pu!lis)er and eac) su!se=uent 6rant necessar( to ena!le t)e particular use at issue. See 5o7ard B. A!rams, W)o?s Sorr( &o7 preservIin6J t)e entire paper c)ain t)at defines t)e entire transaction@:. 3f one of t)ose 6rants re=uires pa(ment of ro(alties !( licensees to an intermediar(, suc) as a pu!lis)er, t)en continued utiliHation of derivative 7or-s >under t)e terms of t)e 6rant@ re=uires continued pa(ments to t)e intermediar(. See "ills "usic, /E U.S. at E+, * S.Ct. at E/E. <)e effect of "ills "usic, t)en, is to preserve durin6 t)e post$termination period t)e panopl( of contractual o!li6ations t)at 6overned pre$termination uses of derivative 7or-s !( derivative 7or- o7ners or t)eir licensees. 0. Appl(in6 t)e "ills "usic Decision <)e derivative 7or-s involved in "ills "usic 7ere sound recordin6s, and t)e use t)ere 7as t)e sale of copies. <)e concededl( derivative 7or-s 7e no7 address are audiovisual 7or-s and t)e use in =uestion is pu!lic performance. We !elieve t)at t)e reasonin6 of "ills "usic also applies in t)is situation. <)ere is no =uestion t)at t)e o7ners of t)e cop(ri6)ts in audiovisual 7or-s )ave t)e ri6)t to perform t)e 7or-s pu!licl(. <)e( t(picall( eercise t)is ri6)t !( licensin6 television stations to !roadcast t)eir 7or-s. 3n t)is case, t)e terms of t)e s(nc) licenses issued !( Bourne to t)e producers re=uired t)e television stations performin6 t)e audiovisual 7or-s to o!tain a second 6rant from eit)er Bourne or ASCA#, licensin6 t)e stations to perform t)e Son6 contained in t)e audiovisual 7or-s. 3n practice, t)is license is al7a(s o!tained from ASCA#, 7)ic) t)en remits t)e pu!lis)er?s s)are of fees to Bourne pursuant to t)e a6reement !et7een Bourne and ASCA#. Under our readin6 of "ills "usic, t)e >terms of t)e 6rant@ include t)e provisions of t)e 6rants from Bourne to ASCA# and from ASCA# to television stations. <)is pair of licenses is contemplated in t)e 6rant of t)e s(nc) licenses from Bourne to film and television producers. Callicoon contends t)at neit)er t)e terms of t)e 6rants from Bourne to audiovisual 7or- producers nor t)e terms of t)e 6rant from Bourne to ASCA# identif( Bourne as t)e pa(ee of performance ro(alties. B( contrast, Callicoon points out t)at t)e mec)anical licenses to record companies in "ills "usic eplicitl( named "ills as pa(ee, and t)e Supreme Court vie7ed t)is fact as dispositive. <)erefore, Callicoon ar6ues, termination in t)is case >simpl( su!jects distri!ution of t)e ro(alties to ASCA#?s usual procedures, under 7)ic), a!sent an( specific direction to t)e contrar(, ro(alties are distri!uted to current cop(ri6)t o7ners.@ We do not a6ree. <)e fact t)at t)e performance ri6)t in t)e Son6 is conve(ed separatel( t)rou6) ASCA# is simpl( an accommodation dictated !( t)e practical pro!lem of enforcin6 performance ri6)ts and s)ould not control anal(sis of t)e distri!ution of performance ro(alties. 3t ma( !e true t)at no license specificall( identif(in6 audiovisual 7or-s containin6 >%ed, %ed, %o!in@ re=uires pa(ment of performance ro(alties to Bourne. 5o7ever, as eplained a!ove, performance ro(alties are 6enerall( traded >in !ul-,@ 7it) a pu!lis)er 6rantin6 ASCA# non$eclusive performance ri6)ts in all of its son6s, 7)et)er contained in derivative 7or-s or not.
0> P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E <)us, even if t)e terms of a 6rant to perform an( sin6le 7or- ma( !e some7)at o!scured !( t)e !ultradin6 of performance ri6)ts, t)e terms are necessaril( contained 7it)in t)e overarc)in6 6rants 9from Bourne to ASCA# and from ASCA# to t)e television !roadcast stations: and ma( !e reconstructed !( reference to t)em. <)e relevant terms, accordin6 to "ills "usic, 7ould !e t)ose t)at 7ere in place >at t)e time of termination.@ /E U.S. at +/, * S.Ct. at E*. We t)erefore reverse t)e decision of t)e district court as to ro(alties from post$termination performances of pre$termination audiovisual 7or-s. On remand, t)e court s)ould enter jud6ment orderin6 defendant ASCA# to pa( t)ese ro(alties to Bourne in accordance 7it) t)e terms of t)e 6rants in effect immediatel( prior to t)e effective date of Callicoon?s termination. B. %o(alties from Sound %ecordin6s and Ot)er Wor-s <)e anal(sis in #art A a!ove, 7)ic) applies to post$termination performances of pre$termination movies and television pro6rams, does not appl( to certain ot)er post$termination uses of t)e Son6. <)e various post$termination uses 7)ic) 7e no7 consider )ave little in common ecept t)at for eac), t)e =uestion 7)et)er t)e arran6ement of t)e Son6 itself is a derivative 7or- is relevant to t)e allocation of post$ termination ro(alties. <)e first cate6or( to 7)ic) 7e turn is post$termination radio performances of pre$termination sound recordin6s. At first !lus), it ma( seem anomalous t)at sound recordin6s s)ould !e su!ject to a different anal(sis t)an t)e audiovisual 7or-s considered a!ove. Li-e audiovisual 7or-s, sound recordin6s are clearl( derivative 7or-s, 7)ic) at least for some pu rposes fall 7it)in t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception. See 6enerall( "ills "usic, /E U.S. *, * S.Ct. EG 9addressin6 sales of copies of sound recordin6s:. 5o7ever, 7)ile t)e Act confers a ri6)t of pu!lic performance on t)e o7ner of a cop(ri6)t in an audiovisual 7or-, it specificall( denies suc) a ri6)t to t)e o7ner of a cop(ri6)t in a sound recordin6. + U.S.C. /9a: see 6enerall( A6ee v. #aramount Communications, 3nc., * F.d +, 0 90d Cir.*:. 3nstead, t)e ri6)t to perform a son6 contained in a sound recordin6 !elon6s to t)e o 7ner of t)e cop(ri6)t in t)e son6. + U.S.C. E9/: see A!rams at 0*. <)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception provides for continued utiliHation of a derivative 7or-. As t)e Supreme Court noted in "ills "usic, ><)e purpose of t)e 'ception 7as to preserve t)e ri6)t of t)e o7ner of a derivative 7or- to eploit it, not7it)standin6 reversion. @ /E U.S. at +, * S.Ct. at E* 9=uotin6 statement of Bar!ara %in6er in Furt)er Discussions and Comments on #reliminar( Draft for %evised U.S. Cop(ri6)t La7 , GGt) Con6., 0d Sess., Cop(ri6)t La7 %evision, #art / 95.2udiciar( Comm.#rint E/:: 9emp)asis supplied:. <)us, t)e 'ception protects onl( aut)oriHed uses made !( derivative 7or- cop(ri6)t o7ners, or t)eir licensees. <)erefore, even t)ou6) a sound recordin6 is concededl( a derivative 7or-, t)at fact alone does not justif( application of t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception to performances of sound recordin6s$as it did 7it) t)e performances of audiovisual 7or-s discussed in #art A a!ove. We must still consider, )o7ever, 7)et)er a different anal(sis re=uires application of t)e 'ception. Since t)e o7ner of t)e cop(ri6)t in t)e Son6 )olds t)e pu!lic performance ri6)t for sound recordin6s, t)at ri6)t 7ould o rdinaril( revert to Callicoon durin6 t)e etended rene7al term. 5o7ever, if t)e particular Son6 arran6ements contained in t)e sound recordin6s are t)emselves Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s, as Bourne contends, t)en Bourne s)ould retain t)e performance ri6)t under t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception and receive t)e ro(alties t)erefrom. <)e same anal(sis applies to t)e ro(alties from t)e remainin6 post$termination uses of t)e Son6, since Bourne ar6ues 7it) respect to all of t)em t)at t)e( utiliHe arran6ements of t)e Son6 t)at are Bourne$ aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s. <)ese cate6ories of uses are t)e reprintin6 and sellin6 of s)eet music of pre$termination arran6ements, t)e performance of a television commercial for Delta Faucet, 7)ic) 7as produced after termination, and post$termination radio and television performances for 7)ic) ASCA# records do not identif( source material. 3n t)e district court and a6ain on appeal, Bourne )as ar6ued t)at all of t)e pre$termination arran6ements prepared under its aut)orit( =ualif( as derivative 7or-s. <)is ar6ument stems from t)e premise t)at t)e first pu!lis)ed piano$vocal arran6ement of t)e Son6 7as itself a Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-. <)e ori6inal 6rant from Woods to Berlin, accordin6 to Bourne, 7as just a >lead s)eet@$a ver( simple, )and$ 7ritten renderin6 of t)e l(rics and melod( of t)e composition 7it)out )armonies or ot)er em!ellis)ments. Bourne ar6ues t)at Berlin modified t)e lead s)eet !( addin6 )armonies and ot)er elements to create a commerciall( eploita!le piano$vocal arran6ement t)at =ualifies as a derivative 7or-. Bourne also
0K P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E ar6ues t)at t)e G arran6ement alle6edl( used in t)e Delta Faucet commercial, as 7ell as all ot)er Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements, 7ere derivative 7or-s. Because onl( t)e first piano$vocal arran6ement, t)e G arran6ement and ot)er Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements 7ere ever commerciall( eploited, Bourne concludes t)at an( 6iven performance of t)e Son6 is >more li-el( t)an not@ a performance of a Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-. <)e district court rejected !ot) aspects of t)is ar6ument$t)at t)e piano$vocal or an( ot)er Bourne$ aut)oriHed arran6ements 7ere derivative 7or-s and t)at all relevant performances 7ere in fact performances of Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements. 3n findin6 t)at t)e piano$vocal arran6ement is not a derivative 7or-, t)e court relied on a close readin6 of t)e statutor( definition of a derivative 7or- and inferences re6ardin6 industr( practice. G/ F.Supp. at 0. For convenience, 7e repeat t)e Cop(ri6)t Act?s definition of a derivative 7or- as a 7or- !ased upon one or more preeistin6 7or-s, suc) as a \ musical arran6ement \ motion picture version, sound recordin6 \ or an( ot)er form in 7)ic) a 7or- ma( !e recast, transformed, or adapted. A 7or- consistin6 of editorial revisions, annotations, ela!orations, or ot)er modifications 7)ic), as a 7)ole, represent an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip, is a >derivative 7or-.@ + U.S.C. . <)e district court found t)at t)e first sentence of t)at definition, 7)ic) plainl( identifies a >musical arran6ement@ as one t(pe of derivative 7or-, must !e read in conjunction 7it) t)e second sentence?s re=uirement of >modifications 7)ic), as a 7)ole, represent an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip.@ G/ F.Supp. at 0. <)erefore, accordin6 to t)e district court, not ever( musical arran6ement is entitled to derivative 7or- status. <)e arran6ement must !e an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip. <)e court t)en asserted t)at Bourne?s claim t)at Berlin?s arran6ers some)o7 eercised aut)ors)ip !( turnin6 t)e lead s)eet into a commerciall( eploita!le piano$vocal arran6ement 7as >contrar( to t)e 7a(s of t)e trade.@ 3d. <)e court inferred t)at Woods >dou!tless pla(ed t)e son6 for Berlin 7)en )e !rou6)t it into t)e firm,@ id., and t)at, at t)e ver( least, )e must )ave approved t)e piano$vocal arran6ement !efore it 7as pu!lis)ed and made availa!le to t)e pu!lic. <)e court concluded t)at, >IaJccordin6l(, t)e ver( first piano and voice version t)at 7as sold could not possi!l( !e a musical arran6ement ma-in6 it a derivative 7or- of t)e lead s)eet.@ 3d. <)e court 7ent on to find t)at none of t)e printed or 97it) one minor eception: performed arran6ements 7ere derivative 7or-s. 3d. at 00$0. . <)e Standard of Ori6inalit( 3n order for a 7or- to =ualif( as a derivative 7or- it must !e independentl( cop(ri6)ta!le. Weissmann v. Freeman, GEG F.0d , 0$0 90d Cir.:, cert. denied, / U.S. GG, S.Ct. 0, + L.'d.0d +0 9G:. <)e !asis for cop(ri6)t protection contained in !ot) t)e constitution and t)e Cop(ri6)t Act is ori6inalit( of aut)ors)ip. L. Batlin ; Son, 3nc. v. Sn(der, *E F.0d /GE, / 90d Cir.: 9in !anc:, cert. denied, /0 U.S. G*+, + S.Ct. *E, * L.'d.0d * 9+E:. W)ile a certificate of cop(ri6)t re6istration, suc) as t)e one t)at Berlin o!tained for t)e piano$vocal arran6ement, creates a presumption of cop(ri6)ta!ilit(, t)e eistence of a re6istration certificate is not dispositive. Weissmann, GEG F.0d at 0. We t)orou6)l( discussed t)e standard of ori6inalit( in a derivative 7or- in our in !anc decision in Batlin. <)ere 7e )eld t)at >t)ere must !e at least some su!stantial variation Ifrom t)e underl(in6 7or-J, not merel( a trivial variation.@ Batlin, *E F.0d at / accord Dur)am 3ndus., 3nc. v. It)e re=uirement of ori6inalit( IcannotJ !e satisfied simpl( !( t)e demonstration of p)(sical s-ill or special trainin6\@ Batlin, *E F.0d at / see also ItJo etend cop(ri6)ta!ilit( to minuscule variations 7ould simpl( put a 7eapon for )arassment in t)e )ands of misc)ievous copiers intent on appropriatin6 and monopoliHin6 pu!lic domain 7or-.@ *E F.0d at /0. At least one ot)er circuit, rel(in6 on t)is court?s opinion in Batlin, )as advised special caution in anal(Hin6 ori6inalit( in derivative 7or-s, since too lo7 a t)res)old 7ill >6ivIeJ t)e first Iderivative 7or-J creator a considera!le po7er to interfere 7it) t)e creation of su!se=uent derivative
09 P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E 7or-s from t)e same underl(in6 7or-.@ 4racen v. Bradford 'c)an6e, EG F.0d , * 9+t) Cir.G:. As t)e 4racen court eplained in discussin6 t)e ori6inalit( re=uirement for a paintin6 derived from a p)oto6rap), t)ere must !e >sufficientl( 6ross difference !et7een t)e underl(in6 and t)e derivative 7or- to avoid entan6lin6 su!se=uent artists depictin6 t)e underl(in6 7or- in cop(ri6)t pro!lems.@ EG F.0d at *. <)is o!servation ma( !e particularl( relevant in t)e musical contet. W)ile it is eas( enou6) to descri!e t)e t)res)old of ori6inalit( as !ein6 lo7, it is difficult to translate t)is standard from one medium to anot)er. See Itendenc( to re=uire a some7)at 6reater de6ree of ori6inalit( in order to accord cop(ri6)t in a musical arran6ement@:. But see William F. #atr(, Cop(ri6)t La7 and #ractice 0+ 9/:. Bourne ar6ues t)at t)e district court overstated t)e de6ree of ori6inalit( re=uired for an arran6ement of a son6 to merit derivative 7or- status. Bourne focuses on t)e court?s statement t)at >ItJ)ere must !e suc) t)in6s as unusual vocal treatment, additional l(rics of conse=uence, unusual altered )armonies, novel se=uential uses of t)emes\@ G/ F.Supp. at 0. We a6ree t)at t)e sentence t)at Bourne =uotes does overstate t)e standard for derivative 7or- ori6inalit(. As 7e )ave o!served on several occasions, t)e re=uirement of ori6inalit( is not t)e same as t)e re=uirement of novelt(, t)e )i6)er standard usuall( applied to patents. '.6., Batlin, *E F.0d at / 9>It)e modification to t)e composition to !e an ori6inal 7or- of aut)ors)ip.@ G/ F.Supp. at 0. Follo7in6 its apparent ea66eration of t)e standard for derivative 7or- ori6inalit(, t)e court eplained t)at It)ere must !eJ somet)in6 of su!stance added ma-in6 t)e piece to some etent a ne7 7or- 7it) t)e old son6 em!edded in it !ut from 7)ic) t)e ne7 )as developed. 3t is not merel( a st(liHed version of t)e ori6inal son6 7)ere a major artist ma( ta-e li!erties 7it) t)e l(rics or t)e tempo, t)e listener )earin6 !asicall( t)e ori6inal tune. 3t is, in s)ort, t)e addition of suc) ne7 material as 7ould entitle t)e creator to a cop(ri6)t on t)e ne7 material. 3d. <)is, 7e !elieve, is a correct statement of t)e ori6inalit( standard as set out in Batlin. <)e first and t)ird sentences simpl( reiterate Batlin ? s >su!stantial variation@ re=uirement. <)e second sentence, dis=ualif(in6 >st(liHed versionIsJ of t)e ori6inal son6,@ as 7ell as t)e district court?s earlier dismissal of >coc-tail pianist variations of t)e piece t)at are standard fare in t)e music trade !( an( competent musician,@ id., merel( epress, in terms relevant to t)e musical contet, our eplanation in Batlin t)at >t)e demonstration of p)(sical s-ill or special trainin6, @ *E F.0d at /, is insufficient to satisf( t)e re=uirement of ori6inalit(. Because 7e conclude t)at t)e district court articulated t)e correct standard of ori6inalit(, 7e turn to consider t)e application of t)e standard to t)e facts of t)is case. 0. Application of t)e Ori6inalit( Standard
02 P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E a. <)e piano$vocal arran6ement 5arr( Woods is t)e sole person identified as aut)or of t)e 7ords and music on cop(ri6)t certificates for !ot) t)e lead s)eet and t)e piano$vocal arran6ement t)at Berlin o!tained in 0E. &o one else is listed as t)e arran6er of eit)er of t)ese 7or-s, !ut later Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s do list different arran6ers. Alt)ou6) t)e district court did not rel( )eavil( on t)ese uncontested facts, 7e vie7 t)em as evidence supportin6 t)e district court?s conclusion t)at Woods, not Berlin, composed t)e Son6 represented !( !ot) t)e lead s)eet and t)e piano$vocal arran6ement or at least t)at at t)e time of t)e 6rant, Berlin credited Woods 7it) suc) aut)ors)ip. A reasona!le inference could !e made t)at t)e piano$vocal arran6ement closel( approimated t)e composition conve(ed from Woods to Berlin in 0E. <)us, re6ardless of 7)et)er t)e piano$vocal arran6ement ma( !e considered ori6inal as compared 7it) t)e lead s)eet, an( ori6inal creativit( t)at 7ent into producin6 it 7as t)e result of Woods?s effort and occurred !efore t)e ri6)ts in t)e composition 7ere 6ranted to Berlin. <)is t)eor(, apparentl( adopted !( t)e district court, is supported !( t)e trial testimon( of Bee!e Bourne, t)e current president of Bourne, 3nc. and t)e dau6)ter of one of Berlin?s founders. S)e testified to t)e operatin6 procedure at Berlin in 0E, statin61 a 5arr( Woods 7ould come in t)en and in su!se=uent (ears and !rin6 in 7)at 7e call a lead s)eet\ And t)e( 7ould often 7or- at t)e piano. Some of t)e musicians \ could not even read and 7rite music as 7e -no7 it, !ut )ad a tremendous ear for sound. <)e( 7ould come in and it 7ould !e revie7ed \ to determine t)e merits of it insofar as t)e commercial sala!ilit( for t)ose times. Later s)e eplained t)at in$)ouse editors, 7)om s)e referred to as >tec)nicians,@ 7ould >actuall( 7rite t)e piano vocal\@ <)ese statements, t)at t)e Berlin emplo(ees 7)o p)(sicall( 7rote out t)e musical notes 7ere >tec)nicians,@ and t)at t)e composers >7ould often 7or- at t)e piano@ 7)en t)e( came in to sell a son6, certainl( lend additional support to t)e district court?s vie7 t)at an( act of independent creation distin6uis)in6 t)e lead s)eet from t)e piano$vocal arran6ement 7as attri!uta!le to Woods !efore )e sold t)e Son6 to Berlin. G/ F.Supp. at 0 9notin6 t)at Woods >dou!tless pla(ed t)e son6 for Berlin 7)en )e !rou6)t it into t)e firm.@:. <)e scant record evidence t)us su66ests t)at t)e lead s)eet and t)e piano$vocal arran6ement 7ere simpl( t7o different renderin6s of a sin6le composition, t)e ri6)ts in 7)ic) Woods 6ranted to Berlin. Upon termination, t)e )eirs recovered ri6)ts in t)e composition, rendered in !ot) forms, and an( su!se=uent Bourne arran6ements t)at 7ere not sufficientl( ori6inal to !e considered derivative 7or-s. 3n addition to findin6 t)at t)e piano$vocal arran6ement essentiall( represents t)e composition 6ranted from Woods to Berlin, t)e district court found t)at t)e piano$vocal arran6ement is not sufficientl( ori6inal compared 7it) t)e lead s)eet to !e considered a derivative 7or-. A side$!($side comparison of t)e t7o printed documents =uic-l( reveals t)at t)e( are not literall( identical. But it is not readil( apparent 7)et)er t)e differences !et7een t)e t7o documents are >su!stantial.@ At trial, !ot) Callicoon and Bourne presented epert testimon( on 7)et)er t)e differences 7ere >su!stantial variations@ reflectin6 deli!erate aest)etic c)oices or merel( >trivial@ c)an6es dictated, for instance, !( appl(in6 conventional rules of )armon( to t)e melod( in t)e lead s)eet. <)e district court 7as ultimatel( persuaded !( Callicoon?s epert, <)omas S)epard, t)at t)e variations in t)e piano$vocal arran6ement 7ere insu!stantial. We )ave considered t)e record !efore t)e district court, and 7e cannot sa( t)at on t)e particular facts !efore it t)e court erred in ma-in6 t)is determination. Accordin6l(, even if all t)e disputed performances 7ere !ased upon t)e piano$vocal arran6ement, as Bourne contends, t)is 7ould not compel jud6ment for Bourne. "oreover, even if t)e piano$vocal arran6ement could fairl( !e descri!ed as a derivative 7or-, t)ere is little if an( evidence in t)e record to su66est t)at t)e versions of t)e Son6 in sound recordin6s and audiovisual 7or-s 7ere !ased upon t)e piano$vocal arran6ement.
05 P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E !. <)e G arran6ement A ne7 arran6ement of t)e Son6 7as made under license from Bourne in G. <)is arran6ement is potentiall( si6nificant !ecause, accordin6 to Bourne, it is t)is arran6ement t)at is performed in t)e post$ termination Delta Faucet commercial, 7)ic) )as earned approimatel( N, in performance ro(alties. <)e district court found t)at t)e G arran6ement >in no 7a( e)i!its t)e de6ree of creativit( re=uired to ma-e it a derivative 7or-.@ 3d. at 0. Accordin6 to !ot) parties? eperts, t)e principal variation in t)e G arran6ement as compared 7it) t)e piano$vocal arran6ement concerns t)e !ass line in t)e piano part. W)ile t)e !ass line in t)e first piano$ vocal arran6ement consists primaril( of =uarter notes on t)e first and t)ird !eat of eac) measure, t)ere is a so$called >movin6 !ass line@ in t)e G arran6ement. As 7it) t)e piano$vocal arran6ement, 7e )ave considered t)e record !efore t)e district court, and 7e are una!le to conclude t)at t)e court erred in findin6 t)e G arran6ement, 7)ic) Bourne contends 7as used in t)e Delta Faucet commercial, insufficientl( ori6inal to !e called a derivative 7or-. Accordin6l(, Bourne is not entitled to post$termination ro(alties from t)e Delta Faucet commercial. <)e jud6ment of t)e district court is affirmed to t)e etent t)at it a7ards ro(alties from t)e Delta Faucet commercial to Callicoon. c. Ot)er printed and performed arran6ements We )ave revie7ed t)e evidence concernin6 ot)er recorded and printed arran6ements and find t)at t)e district court did not err in its determinations re6ardin6 t)e ori6inalit( of an( of t)ese arran6ements. As 7e stated a!ove, Bourne 7ould not !e entitled to ro(alties 6enerated !( post$termination radio performances of pre$termination sound recordin6s unless t)e arran6ements in t)ose recordin6s 7ere t)emselves Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s. Since 7e are una!le to conclude t)at t)e district court erred in findin6 none of t)e Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements 97it) t)e eception of one performance !( Fred Warin6: to !e derivative 7or-s, 7e affirm t)e jud6ment of t)e district court to t)e etent t)at it a7ards Callicoon ro(alties from post$termination performances of pre$termination sound recordin6s. We also affirm t)e court?s jud6ment to t)e etent t)at it orders Bourne to remit to Callicoon reprint ro(alties t)at Bourne continued to receive after termination. C. %o(alties from #erformances W)ere Source "aterial 7as not 3dentified We are left 7it) t)e cate6or( of ro(alties, 7ort) a!out NG,, pertainin6 to radio and television performances monitored !( ASCA# for 7)ic) source materials 7ere not sufficientl( identified. <)e district court placed t)e !urden on Bourne, as t)e part( claimin6 an eception to t)e )eirs? ri6)t of termination to prove t)at an( post$termination performances 7ere !ased upon pre$termination derivative arran6ements of t)e Son6. G/ F.Supp. at 00 9citin6 United States v. Allen, E U.S. /, E S.Ct. +, / L.'d. 0/0 9GE::. Findin6 t)at Bourne failed to meet t)is !urden, t)e court a7arded t)e ro(alties to Callicoon. On appeal, Bourne claims t)at t)e recapture ri6)t and t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception are t7o parts of a le6islative compromise, and t)at t)e t7o parts s)ould !e placed >on a level pla(in6 field.@ On t)at vie7, Bourne contends t)at t)e usual rule, re=uirin6 a part( claimin6 an eception to !ear t)e !urden of proof, does not appl(. Bourne t)en ar6ues t)at !ecause it is >more li-el( t)an not@ t)at post$termination performances are performances of Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s, t)e !urden of proof s)ould in fact !e on Callicoon. 3n t)e alternative, Bourne su66ests t)at ro(alties from unidentified performances !e allocated in proportion to ro(alties for all identified performances. We are unpersuaded !( Bourne?s ar6ument t)at t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception s)ould not !e treated li-e an( ot)er eception to a statutor( rule. 3t is clear from t)e statutor( sc)eme t)at it is indeed an eception to t)e 6eneral rule of reversion of ri6)ts to t)e aut)or?s )eirs upon termination, and it 7as t)us descri!ed !( t)e Supreme Court in "ills "usic, /E U.S. at E0, * S.Ct. at E//. <)erefore, 7e )old t)at t)e district court properl( placed t)e !urden on Bourne to prove t)at particular performances 7ere !ased upon Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s. Because, as t)e parties stipulated, t)e >source materials@ for t)ese performances 7ere unidentified, it is impossi!le to determine from t)e record 7)et)er t)e 7or-s performed 7ere created !efore or after termination. As to t)e unidentified television performances, Bourne )as introduced no evidence t)at an( of t)ese disputed performances 7ere of pre$termination audiovisual 7or-s, 7)ic) 7ould entitle it to ro(alties under t)e anal(sis of #art A a!ove. 3n addition, in li6)t of our affirmance of t)e district court?s rulin6 t)at virtuall( none of t)e Bourne$aut)oriHed arran6ements are derivative 7or-s, it is not more li-el(
0N P a g e
IPL (Copyright) - E t)an not t)at unidentified performances are performances of Bourne$aut)oriHed derivative 7or-s. <)us, t)e district court did not err in findin6 t)at Bourne )ad failed to satisf( its !urden of proof. Accordin6l(, 7e affirm t)e jud6ment to t)e etent t)at it a7arded Callicoon approimatel( NG, attri!uta!le to post$ termination performances of unidentified material. D. "iscellaneous 3ssues <)e !riefs raise t7o additional issues t)at s)ould !e decided on remand. First, t)e parties dispute entitlement to certain ro(alties from a musical 7or-, >Frec-les,@ t)at alle6edl( infrin6ed t)e cop(ri6)t in t)e Son6. Durin6 t)e rene7al term, Bourne entered into a settlement a6reement 7it) t)e pu!lis)er of >Frec-les.@ <)e district court apparentl( determined t)at Callicoon is entitled to receive ro(alties from >Frec-les@ durin6 t)e etended rene7al term, !ut t)e ! asis of t)e rulin6 is not clear in t)e opinion. Second, Bourne raises a =uestion concernin6 an episode of ><)e Luc( S)o7@ for 7)ic) Bourne )ad issued a s(nc) license in +. <)e s(nc) license )ad a five$(ear term, and Bourne apparentl( never rene7ed t)e license. 5o7ever, durin6 t)e etended rene7al term, in GG and a6ain in , Callicoon issued rene7al licenses for t)e same >Luc( S)o7@ episode, for 7)ic) it received a total of N,+. Bourne no7 contends t)at !( issuin6 t)ese rene7al licenses Callicoon 7as encroac)in6 on Bourne?s ri6)t to utiliHe durin6 t)e etended rene7al term derivative 7or-s prepared !efore termination. 3n its opinion, t)e district court did not address Bourne?s contention. We remand to t)e district court to decide !ot) t)e >Frec-les@ and >Luc( S)o7@ issues in accordance 7it) t)e principles set fort) in t)is opinion. 333. Conclusion Frec-les@ and >Luc( S)o7@ issues and enter jud6ment consistent 7it) t)is opinion.* FOO<&O<'S . Cf. #ierre &. Leval ; Le7is Liman, Are Cop(ri6)ts for Aut)ors or <)eir C)ildren, 2. Cop(ri6)t Soc?( U.S.A. 9:. 0. For reasons discussed in #art B !elo7, 7e address pre$termination sound recordin6s separatel(, even t)ou6) sound recordin6s are derivative 7or-s. . A sound recordin6 is defined !( t)e Cop(ri6)t Act as a fiation of sounds. + U.S.C. . <)is is distinct from a p)onorecord, 7)ic) is t)e tan6i!le t)in6 on 7)ic) t)e sounds 9ot)er t)an sounds accompan(in6 an audiovisual 7or-: are fied. <)e term >p)onorecords@ t)us includes records and cassettes, etc. W)ile 7e ta-e note of t)e distinction, for simplicit( 7e refer eclusivel( to >sound recordin6s@ t)rou6)out t)is opinion, even 7)ere it ma( !e tec)nicall( more precise to refer to p)onorecords. /. We realiHe, )o7ever, t)at its interpretation of t)e le6islative )istor( of t)e Derivative Wor-s 'ception )as !een criticiHed. See #aul 4oldstein, Cop(ri6)t, /.. at /G$* 9G: William F. #atr(, Latman?s <)e Cop(ri6)t La7 9Et) ed. GE: 5o7ard B. A!rams, W)o?s Sorr( &o7 o!jectivel( unreasona!le@ position. Woods v. Bourne Co., G*G F.Supp. 9S.D.&.8./:. Alt)ou6) Bourne as-s us to address t)e a7ard of attorne(s? fees, t)at jud6ment 7as not t)e su!ject of Bourne?s notice of appeal and t)e issue is not properl( !efore us. We assume t)at, in vie7 of our disposition of t)is appeal, t)e district court 7ill reconsider its rulin6 on attorne(s? fees. F'3&B'%4, Circuit 2ud6e1 $
01 P a g e
