United States Code

8511

§ 511. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright (a) IN GENERAL.-Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 119, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

(b) REMEDIES.-In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any public or private entity other than a State, instrumentality of a State, or officer or employee of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Such remedies include impounding and disposition of infringing articles under section 503, actual damages and profits and statutory damages under section 504, costs and attorney's fees under section 505, and the remedies provided in section 510.

(Added Pub. L. 101-553, § 2(a)(2), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2749.)

§ 601. Manufacture, importation, and public distribution of certain copies

(a) Prior to July 1, 1986, and except as provided by subsection (b), the importation into or public distribution in the United States of copies of a work consisting preponderantly of nondramtic literary material that is in the English language and is protected under this title is prohibited unless the portions consisting of such material have been manufactured in the United States or Canada.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) do not apply

(1) where, on the date when importation is sought or public distribution in the United

1 So in original. Probably should be “nondramatic".

States is made, the author of any substantial part of such material is neither a national nor a domiciliary of the United States or, if such author is a national of the United States, he or she has been domiciled outside the United States for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding that date; in the case of a work made for hire, the exemption provided by this clause does not apply unless a subsustantial 2 part of the work was prepared for an employer or other person who is not a national or domiciliary of the United States or a domestic corporation or enterprise;

(2) where the United States Customs Service is presented with an import statement issued under the seal of the Copyright Office, in which case a total of no more than two thousand copies of any one such work shall be allowed entry; the import statement shall be issued upon request to the copyright owner or to a person designated by such owner at the time of registration for the work under section 408 or at any time thereafter;

(3) where importation is sought under the authority or for the use, other than in schools, of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State;

(4) where importation, for use and not for sale, is sought

(A) by any person with respect to no more than one copy of any work at any one time;

(B) by any person arriving from outside the United States, with respect to copies forming part of such person's personal baggage; or

(C) by an organization operated for schol· arly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to copies intended to form a part of its library;

(5) where the copies are reproduced in raised characters for the use of the blind; or (6) where, in addition to copies imported under clauses (3) and (4) of this subsection, no more than two thousand copies of any one such work, which have not been manufac tured in the United States or Canada, are publicly distributed in the United States; or

(7) where, on the date when importation is sought or public distribution in the United States is made

(A) the author of any substantial part of such material is an individual and receives compensation for the transfer or license of the right to distribute the work in the United States; and

(B) the first publication of the work has previously taken place outside the United States under a transfer or license granted by such author to a transferee or licensee who was not a national or domiciliary of the United States or a domestic corporation or enterprise; and

So in original. Probably should be "substantial".

copies were manufactured in the United States; and

(D) the copies were reproduced under a transfer or license granted by such author or by the transferee or licensee of the right of first publication as mentioned in subclause (B), and the transferee or the licensee of the right of reproduction was not a national or domiciliary of the United States or a domestic corporation or enterprise.

(1) in the case where the copies are printed directly from type that has been set, or directly from plates made from such type, the setting of the type and the making of the plates have been performed in the United States or Canada; or

(2) in the case where the making of plates by a lithographic or photoengraving process is a final or intermediate step preceding the printing of the copies, the making of the plates has been performed in the United States or Canada; and

(3) in any case, the printing or other final process of producing multiple copies and any binding of the copies have been performed in the United States or Canada.

(d) Importation or public distribution of copies in violation of this section does not invalidate protection for a work under this title. However, in any civil action or criminal proceeding for infringement of the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies of the work, the infringer has a complete defense with respect to all of the nondramatic literary material comprised in the work and any other parts of the work in which the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies are owned by the same person who owns such exclusive rights in the nondramatic literary material, if the infringer proves

(1) that copies of the work have been imported into or publicly distributed in the United States in violation of this section by or with the authority of the owner of such exclusive rights; and

(2) that the infringing copies were manufactured in the United States or Canada in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c); and

(3) that the infringement was commenced before the effective date of registration for an authorized edition of the work, the copies of which have been manufactured in the United States or Canada in accordance with the provisions of subsection (c).

(e) In any action for infringement of the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies of a work containing material required by this section to be manufactured in the United States or Canada, the copyright owner shall set forth in the complaint the names of the persons or organizations who performed the processes specified by subsection (c) with respect to that material, and the places where those processes were performed.

(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2588; Pub. L. 97-215, July 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 178.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

The Requirement in General. A chronic problem in efforts to revise the copyright statute for the past 85 years has been the need to reconcile the interests of the American printing industry with those of authors and other copyright owners. The scope and impact of the "manufacturing clause," which came into the copyright law as a compromise in 1891, have been gradually narrowed by successive amendments.

Under the present statute, with many exceptions and qualifications, a book or periodical in the English language must be manufactured in the United States in order to receive full copyright protection. Failure to comply with any of the complicated requirements can result in complete loss of protection. Today the main effects of the manufacturing requirements are on works by American authors.

The first and most important question here is whether the manufacturing requirement should be retained in the statute in any form. Beginning in 1965, serious efforts at compromising the issue were made by various interests aimed at substantially narrowing the scope of the requirement, and these efforts produced the version of section 601 adopted by the Senate when it passed S. 22.

The principal arguments for elimination of the manufacturing requirement can be summarized as follows:

1. The manufacturing clause originated as a response to a historical situation that no longer exists. Its requirements have gradually been relaxed over the years, and the results of the 1954 amendment, which partially eliminated it, have borne out predictions of positive economic benefits for all concerned, including printers, printing trades union members, and the public.

2. The provision places unjustified burdens on the author, who is treated as a hostage. It hurts the author most where it benefits the manufacturer least: in cases where the author must publish abroad or not at all. It unfairly discriminates between American authors and other authors, and between authors of books and authors of other works.

3. The manufacturing clause violates the basic principle that an author's rights should not be dependent on the circumstances of manufacture. Complete repeal would substantially reduce friction with foreign authors and publishers, increase opportunities for American authors to have their works published, encourage international publishing ventures, and eliminate the tangle of procedural requirements now burdening authors, publishers, the Copyright Office, and the United States Customs Service.

4. Studies prove that the economic fears of the printing industry and unions are unfounded. The vast bulk of American titles are completely manufactured in the United States, and U.S. exports of printed matter are much greater than imports. The American book manufacturing industry is healthy and growing, to the extent that it cannot keep pace with its orders. There are increasing advantages to domestic manufacture because of improved technology, and because of the delays, inconveniences, and other disadvantages of foreign manufacture. Even with repeal, foreign manufacturing would be confined to small editions and scholarly works, some of which could not be published otherwise.

The following were the principal arguments in favor of retaining some kind of manufacturing restriction. 1. The historical reasons for the manufacturing clause were valid originally and still are. It is unrealistic to speak of this as a "free trade" issue or of tariffs as offering any solution, since book tariffs have been removed entirely under the Florence Agreement. The

85-008 - 95-34: QL3

manufacturing requirement remains a reasonable and justifiable condition to the granting of a monopoly. There is no problem of international comity, since only works by American authors are affected by section 601. Foreign countries have many kinds of import barriers, currency controls, and similar restrictive devices comparable to a manufacturing requirement.

2. The differentials between U.S. and foreign wage rates in book production are extremely broad and are not diminishing: Congress should not create a condition whereby work can be done under the most degraded working conditions in the world, be given free entry, and thus exclude American manufacturers from the market. The manufacturing clause has been responsible for a strong and enduring industry. Repeal could destroy small businesses, bring chaos to the industry, and catch manufacturers, whose labor costs and break-even points are extremely high, in a costprice squeeze at a time when expenditures for new equipment have reduced profits to a minimum.

3. The high ratio of exports to imports could change very quickly without a manufacturing requirement. Repeal would add to the balance-of-payments deficit since foreign publishers never manufacture here. The U.S. publishing industry has large investments abroad, and attacks on the manufacturing clause by foreign publishers, show a keen anticipation for new business. The book publishers arguments that repeal would have no real economic impact are contradicted by their arguments that the manufacturing requirement is stifling scholarship and crippling publishing; their own figures show a 250 percent rise in English-language book imports in 10 years.

After carefully weighing these arguments, the Committee concludes that there is no justification on principle for a manufacturing requirement in the copyright statute, and although there may have been some economic justification for it at one time, that justification no longer exists. While it is true that section 601 represents a substantial liberalization and that it would remove many of the inequities of the present manufacturing requirement, the real issue is whether retention of a provision of this sort in a copyright law can continue to be justified. The Committee believes it cannot.

The Committee recognizes that immediate repeal of the manufacturing requirement might have damaging effects in some segments of the U.S. printing industry. It has therefore amended section 601 to retain the liberalized requirement through the end of 1980, but to repeal it definitively as of January 1, 1981. It also adopted an amendment further ameliorating the effect of this temporary legislation on individual American authors.

In view of this decision, the detailed discussion of section 601 that follows will cease to be of significance after 1980.

Works Subject to the Manufacturing Requirement. The scope of the manufacturing requirement, as set out in subsections (a) and (b) of section 601, is considerably more limited than that of present law. The requirements apply to "a work consisting preponderantly of nondramatic literary material that is in the English language and is protected under this title," and would thus not extend to: dramatic, musical, pictorial, or graphic works; foreign-language, bilingual, or multilingual works; public domain material; or works consisting preponderantly of material that is not subject to the manufacturing requirement.

The term "literary material" does not connote any criterion of literary merit or qualitative value; it includes catalogs, directories and "similar materials."

A work containing "nondramatic literary material that is in the English language and is protected under this title," and also containing dramatic, musical, pictorial, graphic, foreign-language, public domain, or other material that is not subject to the manufacturing requirement, or any combination of these, is not considered to consist "preponderantly" of the copyright-protected nondramatic English-language literary

material unless such material exceeds the exempted material in importance. Thus, where the literary material in a work consists merely of a foreword or preface, and captions, headings, or brief descriptions or explanations of pictorial, graphic or other nonliterary material, the manufacturing requirement does not apply to the work in whole or in part. In such case, the non-literary material clearly exceeds the literary material in importance, and the entire work is free of the manufacturing requirement.

On the other hand, if the copyright-protected nondramatic English-language literary material in the work exceeds the other material in importance, then the manufacturing requirement applies. For example, a work containing pictorial, graphic, or other non-literary material is subject to the manufacturing requirement if the non-literary material merely illustrates a textual narrative or exposition, regardless of the relative amount of space occupied by each kind of material. In such a case, the narrative or exposition comprising the literary material plainly exceeds in importance the non-literary material in the work. However, even though such a work is subject to the manufacturing requirement, only the portions consisting of copyrighted non-dramatic literary material in English are required to be manufactured in the United States or Canada. The illustrations may be manufactured elsewhere without affecting their copyright status.

Under section 601(b)(1) works by American nationals domiciled abroad for at least a year would be exempted. The manufacturing requirement would generally apply only to works by American authors domiciled here, and then only if none of the co-authors of the work are foreign.

In order to make clear the application of the foreign-author exemption to "works made for hire"-of which the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the "author" for copyright purposes-section 601(b)(1) provides that the exemption does not apply unless a substantial part of the work was prepared for an employer or other person who is not a national or domiciliary of the United States, or a domestic corporation or enterprise. The reference to "a domestic corporation or enter. prise" is intended to include a subsidiary formed by the domestic corporation or enterprise primarily for the purpose of obtaining the exemption.

The provision adopts a proposal put forward by vari ous segments of both the United States and the Cana. dian printing industries, recommending an exemption for copies manufactured in Canada. Since wage standards in Canada are substantially comparable to those in the United States, the arguments for equal treatment under the manufacturing clause are persuasive. Limitations on Importation and Distribution of Copies Manufactured Abroad. The basic purpose of the temporary manufacturing requirements of section 601, like that of the present manufacturing clause, is to induce the manufacture of an edition in the United States if more than a certain limited number of copies are to be distributed in this country. Subsection (a) therefore provides in general that "the importation into or public distribution in the United States" of copies not complying with the manufacturing clause is prohibited. Subsection (b) then sets out the exceptions to this prohibition, and clause (2) of that subsection fixes the importation limit at 2,000 copies.

Additional exceptions to the copies affected by the manufacturing requirements are set out in clauses (3) through (7) of subsection (b). Clause (3) permits importation of copies for governmental use, other than in schools, by the United States or by "any State or political subdivision of a State." Clause (4) allows importation for personal use of "no more than one copy of any work at any one time," and also exempts copies in the baggage of persons arriving from abroad and copies intended for the library collection of nonprofit scholarly, educational, or religious organizations. Braille copies are completely exempted under clause

(5), and clause (6) permits the public distribution in the United States of copies allowed entry by the other clauses of that subsection. Clause (7) is a new exception, covering cases in which an individual American author has, through choice or necessity, arranged for publication of his work by a foreign rather than a domestic publisher.

What Constitutes "Manufacture in the United States" or Canada. A difficult problem in the manufacturing clause controversy involves the restrictions to be imposed on foreign typesetting or composition. Under what they regard as a loophole in the present law, a number of publishers have for years been having their manuscripts set in type abroad, importing "reproduction proofs," and then printing their books from offset plates "by lithographic process * wholly performed in the United States." The language of the statute on this point is ambiguous and, although the publishers' practice has received some support from the Copyright Office, there is a question as to whether or not it violates the manufacturing requirements.

In general the book publishers have opposed any definition of domestic manufacture that would close the "repro proof" loophole or that would interfere with their use of new techniques of book production, including use of imported computer tapes for composition here. This problem was the focal point of a compromise agreement between representatives of the book publishers and authors on the one side and of typographical firms and printing trades unions on the other, and the bill embodies this compromise as a reasonable solution to the problem.

Under subsection (c) the manufacturing requirement is confined to the following processes: (1) Typesetting and platemaking, "where the copies are printed directly from type that has been set, or directly from plates made from such type"; (2) the making of plates, "where the making of plates by a lithographic or photoengraving process is a final or intermediate step preceding the printing of the copies"; and (3) in all cases, the "printing or other final process of producing multiple copies and any binding of the copies." Under the subsection there would be nothing to prevent the importation of reproduction proofs, however they were prepared, as long as the plates from which the copies are printed are made here and are not themselves imported. Similarly, the importation of computer tapes from which plates can be prepared here would be permitted. However, regardless of the process involved, the actual duplication of multiple copies, together with any binding, are required to be done in the United States or Canada.

Effect of Noncompliance with Manufacturing Requirement. Subsection (d) of section 601 makes clear that compliance with the manufacturing requirements no longer constitutes a condition of copyright with respect to reproduction and the distribution of copies. The bill does away with the special "ad interim" time limits and registration requirements of the present law and, even if copies are imported or distributed in violation of the section, there would be no effect on the copyright owner's right to make and distribute phonorecords of the work, to make derivative works including dramatizations and motion pictures, and to perform or display the work publicly. Even the rights to reproduce and distribute copies are not lost in cases of violation, although they are limited as against certain infringers.

Subsection (d) provides a complete defense in any civil action or criminal proceeding for infringement of the exclusive rights of reproduction or distribution of copies where, under certain circumstances, the defendant proves violation of the manufacturing requirements. The defense is limited to infringement of the "nondramatic literary material comprised in the work and any other parts of the work in which the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copies are owned by the same person who owns such exclusive rights in the nondramatic literary material." This means, for example, that the owner of copyright in photographs or il

lustrations published in a book copyrighted by someone else who would not be deprived of rights against an infringer who proves that there had been a violation of section 601.

Section 601(d) places the full burden for proving violation on the infringer. The infringer's defense must be based on proof that: (1) copies in violation of section 601 have been imported or publicly distributed in the United States "by or with the authority" of the copyright owner; and (2) that the infringing copies complied with the manufacturing requirements; and (3) that the infringement began before an authorized edition complying with the requirements had been registered. The third of these clauses of subsection (d) means, in effect, that a copyright owner can reinstate full exclusive rights by manufacturing an edition in the United States and making registration for it.

Subsection (e) requires the plaintiff in any infringement action involving publishing rights in material subject to the manufacturing clause to identify the manufacturers of the copies in his complaint. Correspondingly, section 409 would require the manufacturers to be identified in applications for registration covering published works subject to the requirements of section 601.

AMENDMENTS

1982-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97-215 substituted "1986" for "1982".

CROSS REFERENCES

Application for copyright registration, names of persons or organizations who performed the processes specified in this section, see section 409 of this title. Fee for issuance of import statement, see section 708 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 409, 602 of this title.

§ 602. Infringing importation of copies or phonorecords

(a) Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. This subsection does not apply to

(1) importation of copies or phonorecords under the authority or for the use of the Government of the United States or of any State or political subdivision of a State, but not including copies or phonorecords for use in schools, or copies of any audiovisual work imported for purposes other than archival

use;

(2) importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage; or

(3) importation by or for an organization operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes and not for private gain, with respect to no more than one copy of an audiovisual work solely for its archival purposes, and no more than five copies or phonorecords of any other work for its library lend

ing or archival purposes, unless the importation of such copies or phonorecords is part of an activity consisting of systematic reproduction or distribution, engaged in by such organization in violation of the provisions of section 108(g)(2).

(b) In a case where the making of the copies or phonorecords would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, their importation is prohibited. In a case where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made, the United States Customs Service has no authority to prevent their importation unless the provisions of section 601 are applicable. In either case, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prescribe, by regulation, a procedure under which any person claiming an interest in the copyright in a particular work may, upon payment of a specified fee, be entitled to notification by the Customs Service of the importation of articles that appear to be copies or phonorecords of the work.

(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2589.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

Scope of the Section. Section 602, which has nothing to do with the manufacturing requirements of section 601, deals with two separate situations: importation of "piratical" articles (that is, copies or phonorecords made without any authorization of the copyright owner), and unauthorized importation of copies or phonorecords that were lawfully made. The general approach of section 602 is to make unauthorized importation an act of infringement in both cases, but to permit the United States Customs Service to prohibit importation only of "piratical" articles.

Section 602(a) first states the general rule that unauthorized importation is an infringement merely if the copies or phonorecords "have been acquired outside the United States", but then enumerates three specific exceptions: (1) importation under the authority or for the use of a governmental body, but not including material for use in schools or copies of an audiovisual work imported for any purpose other than archival use; (2) importation for the private use of the importer of no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work at a time, or of articles in the personal baggage of travelers from abroad; or (3) importation by nonprofit organizations "operated for scholarly, educational, or religious purposes" of "no more than one copy of an audiovisual work solely for archival purposes, and no more than five copies or phonorecords of any other work for its library lending or archival purposes." The bill specifies that the third exception does not apply if the importation "is part of an activity consisting of systematic reproduction or distribution, engaged in by such organization in violation of the provisions of section 108(g)(2)."

If none of the three exemptions applies, any unauthorized importer of copies or phonorecords acquired abroad could be sued for damages and enjoined from making any use of them, even before any public distribution in this country has taken place.

Importation of "Piratical" Copies. Section 602(b) retains the present statute's prohibition against importation of "piratical" copies or phonorecords-those whose making "would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title has been applicable." Thus, the Customs Service could exclude copies or phonorecords that were unlawful in the country where they were made; it could also exclude copies or phonorecords which, although made lawfully under the domestic

law of that country, would have been unlawful if the U.S. copyright law could have been applied. A typical example would be a work by an American author which is in the public domain in a foreign country because that country does not have copyright relations with the United States; the making and publication of an authorized edition would be lawful in that country, but the Customs Service could prevent the importation of any copies of that edition.

Importation for Infringing Distribution. The second situation covered by section 602 is that where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made but their distribution in the United States would infringe the U.S. copyright owner's exclusive rights. As already said, the mere act of importation in this situation would constitute an act of infringement and could be enjoined. However, in cases of this sort it would be impracticable for the United States Customs Service to attempt to enforce the importation prohibition, and section 602(b) provides that, unless a violation of the manufacturing requirements is also involved, the Service has no authority to prevent importation, "where the copies or phonorecords were lawfully made." The subsection would authorize the establishment of a procedure under which copyright owners could arrange for the Customs Service to notify them wherever articles appearing to infringe their works are imported.

CROSS REFERENCES

Importer of copies or phonorecords into the United States as infringer, see section 501 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 501, 511, 603 of this title.

§ 603. Importation prohibitions: Enforcement and disposition of excluded articles

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Postal Service shall separately or jointly make regulations for the enforcement of the provisions of this title prohibiting importation.

(b) These regulations may require, as a condition for the exclusion of articles under section 602

(1) that the person seeking exclusion obtain a court order enjoining importation of the articles; or

(2) that the person seeking exclusion furnish proof, of a specified nature and in accordance with prescribed procedures, that the copyright in which such person claims an interest is valid and that the importation would violate the prohibition in section 602; the person seeking exclusion may also be required to post a surety bond for any injury that may result if the detention or exclusion of the articles proves to be unjustified.

(c) Articles imported in violation of the importation prohibitions of this title are subject to seizure and forfeiture in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws. Forfeited articles shall be destroyed as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury or the court, as the case may be; however, the articles may be returned to the country of export whenever it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Treasury that the importer had no reasonable grounds for believing that his or her acts constituted a viola. tion of law.

« iepriekšējā Turpināt »

Grāmatas

United States Code, 8. sējums;10. sējums