| Distribution Rights |
|
| The distribution right grants to the copyright holder the exclusive right to make a work available to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. The owner of a copyright has the right to give away, sell, or withhold any material embodiment of his or her work. In essence, this is the right to control publication of a work because publication without distribution of copies is meaningless. This right allows the copyright holder to prevent the distribution of unauthorized copies of a work. In addition, the right allows the copyright holder to control the first distribution of a particular authorized copy. However, the distribution right is limited by the "first sale doctrine," which states that after the first sale or distribution of a copy, the copyright holder can no longer control what happens to that copy. More... |
|
|
| Right to Perform Copyrighted Work |
|
| Under the Copyright Act, to perform a copyrighted work means "to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process." "Performing" a motion picture or other audiovisual work means "to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible." The Copyright Act defines the term "publicly perform" to mean "to perform or display [a copyrighted work] at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." "To perform or display" includes to broadcast to such place open to the public. Therefore, performances in concert halls, theaters, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other common public facilities are covered by the exclusive right of performance, whether the performance is live or broadcast to the public place, while the viewing of a movie in a private home is not a public performance and thus is not covered by the right of performance. More... |
|
|
| Substantial Similarity |
|
| Plaintiffs may establish copyright infringement by proving that a defendant had access to the copyrighted work prior to the creation of the allegedly infringing work and that the two works are substantially similar. Generally, once a plaintiff demonstrates access and substantial similarity then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the allegedly infringing work is not a copy but was independently created. More... |
|
|
| Economic Espionage Act of 1996 |
|
| The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) provided a broader definition of what constitutes a "trade secret" and what constitutes trade secret theft, effectively replacing the 1948 Trade Secrets Act, which was limited to prosecution of federal employees. The EEA also was passed so as to serve as a universal trade secret theft act, overriding various trade secret acts instituted by individual states. More... |
|
|
| Patentability of Business Methods |
|
| In the latter part of the 20th century, there was a slow realization that the basis for rejecting business method patent applications was not because the invention to be patented was a business method but because the subject matter of the application did not meet the fundamental requirements for patents such as novelty and non-obviousness. With the widespread use of computers and the development of business methods involving computers, courts were forced to reexamine the question of whether a business method could be patented or, as they had been treated by the USPTO, were inherently unpatentable. In 1998, the federal court that hears all appeals of patent decisions ruled once and for all that business methods could be patented if they produce a "useful, tangible, and concrete result." The court concluded that a system that used a computer to calculate a mutual fund share price from a complex set of parameters was not an abstract idea but rather a machine--embodied by the computer--that produced a useful result--the share price. More... |
|
|