Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

publisher. This in no way suggests to the public that the bulk of the work is uncopyrightable and therefore free for use.

To make the notice meaningful rather than misleading, section 403 requires that, when the copies or phonorecords consist "preponderantly of one or more works of the United States Government,” the copy. right notice (if any) identify those parts of the work in which copyright is claimed. A failure to meet this requirement would be treated as an omission of the notice, subject to the provisions of section 405.

AMENDMENTS 1988–Pub. L. 100-568 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "Whenever a work is published in copies or phonorecords consisting preponderantly of one or more works of the United States Government, the notice of copyright provided by sections 401 or 402 shall also include a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title."

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 100-568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

(2) To make a single notice, covering the collective work as a whole, sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement for the separate contributions it contains, even if they have been previously published or their ownership is different; and

(3) To protect the interests of an innocent infringer of copyright in a contribution that does not bear its own notice, who has dealt in good faith with the person named in the notice covering the collective work as a whole.

As a general rule, under this section, the rights in an individual contribution to a collective work would not be affected by the lack of a separate copyright notice, as long as the collective work as a whole bears a notice. One exception to this rule would apply to "advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work." Collective works, notably newspapers and magazines, are major advertising media, and it is common for the same advertisement to be published in a number of different periodicals. The general copyright notice in a particular issue would not ordinarily protect the advertisements inserted in it, and relatively little advertising matter today is published with a separate copyright notice. The exception in section 404(a), under which separate notices would be required for most advertisements published in collective works, would impose no undue burdens on copyright owners and is justified by the special circumstances.

Under section 404(b) a separate contribution that does not bear its own notice, and that is published in a collective work with a general notice containing the name of someone other than the copyright owner of the contribution, is treated as if it has been published with the wrong name in the notice. The case is governed by section 406(a), which means that an innocent infringer who in good faith took a license from the person named in the general notice would be shielded from liability to some extent.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 404, 405 of this title.

REFERENCES IN TEXT The effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, referred to in subsec. (b), is Mar. 1, 1989, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

8 404. Notice of copyright: Contributions to collective

works (a) A separate contribution to a collective work may bear its own notice of copyright, as provided by sections 401 through 403. However, a single notice applicable to the collective work as a whole is sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 401(d) or 402(d), as applicable with respect to the separate contributions it contains (not including advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copy. right in the collective work), regardless of the ownership of copyright in the contributions and whether or not they have been previously published.

(b) With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in a single notice applicable to a collective work as a whole is not the owner of copyright in a separate contribution that does not bear its own notice, the case is governed by the provisions of section 406(a). (Pub. L. 94-553, title I, $ 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2577; Pub. L. 100-568, § 7(d), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2858.)

AMENDMENTS 1988–Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100-568, $ 7(d)(1), substituted "to invoke the provisions of section 401(d) or 402(d), as applicable" for “to satisfy the requirements of sections 401 through 403”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100-568, 87(d)(2), substituted "With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where" for "Where”.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 100-568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476 In conjunction with the provisions of section 201(c), section 404 deals with a troublesome problem under the present law: the notice requirements applicable to contributions published in periodicals and other collective works. The basic approach of the section is threefold:

(1) To permit but not require a separate contribution to bear its own notice;

8 405. Notice of copyright: Omission of notice on cer.

tain copies and phonorecords (a) EFFECT OF OMISSION ON COPYRIGHT.-With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in sections 401 through 403 from copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright

owner does not invalidate the copyright in a work is created, and is not lost when the work is pubwork if

lished, even if the copyright notice is omitted entirely. (1) the notice has been omitted from no Subsection (a) of section 405 provides that omission of more than a relatively small number of copies

notice, whether intentional or unintentional, does not or phonorecords distributed to the public; or

invalidate the copyright if either of two conditions is

met: (2) registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the

(1) if “no more than a relatively small number" of publication without notice, and a reasonable

copies or phonorecords have been publicly distribut

ed without notice; or effort is made to add notice to all copies or

(2) if registration for the work has already been phonorecords that are distributed to the made, or is made within 5 years after the publication public in the United States after the omission without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to has been discovered; or

add notice to copies or phonorecords publicly distrib(3) the notice has been omitted in violation uted in the United States after the omission is disof an express requirement in writing that, as

covered. a condition of the copyright owner's authori

Thus, if notice is omitted from more than a "relazation of the public distribution of copies or

tively small number" of copies or phonorecords, copyphonorecords, they bear the prescribed

right is not lost immediately, but the work will go into

the public domain if no effort is made to correct the notice.

error or if the work is not registered within 5 years. (b) EFFECT OF OMISSION ON INNOCENT INFRING Section 405(a) takes a middle-ground approach in an ERS.-Any person who innocently infringes a

effort to encourage use of a copyright notice without copyright, in reliance upon an authorized copy

causing unfair and unjustifiable forfeitures on technior phonorecord from which the copyright

cal grounds. Clause (1) provides that, as long as the

omission is from “no more than a relatively small notice has been omitted and which was publicly

number of copies or phonorecords," there is no effect distributed by authority of the copyright owner

upon the copyright owner's rights except in the case before the effective date of the Berne Conven

of an innocent infringement covered by section 405(b); tion Implementation Act of 1988, incurs no li there is no need for registration or for efforts to corability for actual or statutory damages under rect the error if this clause is applicable. The phrase section 504 for any infringing acts committed “relatively small number" is intended to be less rebefore receiving actual notice that registration strictive than the phrase "a particular copy or copies" for the work has been made under section 408, now in section 21 of the present law (section 21 of

former title 21). if such person proves that he or she was misled

Under clause (2) of subsection (a), the first condition by the omission of notice. In a suit for infringe

for curing an omission from a larger number of copies ment in such a case the court may allow or dis

is that registration be made before the end of 5 years allow recovery of any of the infringer's profits

from the defective publication. This registration may attributable to the infringement, and may have been made before the omission took place or enjoin the continuation of the infringing un before the work had been published in any form and, dertaking or may require, as a condition or 1 since the reasons for the omission have no bearing on permitting the continuation of the infringing the validity of copyright, there would be no need for undertaking, that the infringer pay the copy

the application to refer to them. Some time limit for right owner a reasonable license fee in an

registration is essential and the 5-year period is rea

sonable and consistent with the period provided in secamount and on terms fixed by the court.

tion 410(c). (c) REMOVAL OF NOTICE.-Protection under

The second condition established by clause (2) is this title is not affected by the removal, de

that the copyright owner make a “reasonable effort," struction, or obliteration of the notice, without

after discovering his error, to add the notice to copies the authorization of the copyright owner, from or phonorecords distributed thereafter. This condition any publicly distributed copies or phono is specifically limited to copies or phonorecords publicrecords.

ly distributed in the United States, since it would be

burdensome and impractical to require an American (Pub. L. 94-553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90

copyright owner to police the activities of foreign liStat. 2578; Pub. L. 100-568, § 7(e), Oct. 31, 1988,

censees in this situation. 102 Stat. 2858.)

The basic notice requirements set forth in sections
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

401(a) and 402(a) are limited to cases where a work is

published by authority of the copyright owner" and, HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

in prescribing the effect of omission of notice, section

405(a) refers only to omission "from copies or phonoEffect of Omission on Copyright Protection. The provi

records publicly distributed by authority of the copysions of section 405(a) make clear that the notice requirements of sections 401, 402, and 403 are not abso

right owner." The intention behind this language is

that, where the copyright owner authorized publicalute and that, unlike the law now in effect, the outright omission of a copyright notice does not auto

tion of the work, the notice requirements would not be matically forfeit protection and throw the work into

met if copies or phonorecords are publicly distributed the public domain. This not only represents a major

without a notice, even if he expected a notice to be change in the theoretical framework of American

used. However, if the copyright owner authorized pubcopyright law, but it also seems certain to have imme

lication only on the express condition that all copies diate practical consequences in a great many individ

or phonorecords bear a prescribed notice, the proviual cases. Under the proposed law a work published

sions of section 401 or 402 and of section 405 would without any copyright notice will still be subject to

not apply since the publication itself would not be austatutory protection for at least 5 years, whether the

thorized. This principle is stated directly in section omission was partial or total, unintentional or deliber

405(a)(3). ate.

Effect of Omission on Innocent Infringers. In addition to Under the general scheme of the bill, statutory

the possibility that copyright protection will be forcopyright protection is secured automatically when a

feited under section 405(a)(2) if the notice is omitted,
a second major inducement to use of the notice is

found in subsection (b) of section 405. That provision, So in original. Probably should be "for".

which limits the rights of a copyright owner against

[ocr errors]

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 100-568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in section 406 of this title.

innocent infringers under certain circumstances, would be applicable whether the notice has been omitted from a large number or from a "relatively small number" of copies. The general postulates underlying the provision are that a person acting in good faith and with no reason to think otherwise should ordinarily be able to assume that a work is in the public domain if there is no notice on an authorized copy or phonorecord and that, if he relies on this assumption, he should be shielded from unreasonable liability.

Under section 405(b) an innocent infringer who acts "in reliance upon an authorized copy or phonorecord from which the copyright notice has been omitted", and who proves that he was misled by the omission, is shielded from liability for actual or statutory damages with respect to "any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice" of registration. Thus, where the infringement is completed before actual notice has been served as would be the usual case with respect to relatively minor infringements by teachers, librarians, journalists, and the like-liability, if any, would be limited to the profits the infringer realized from the act of infringement. On the other hand, where the infringing enterprise is one running over a period of time, the copyright owner would be able to seek an injunction against continuation of the infringement, and to obtain full monetary recovery for all infringing acts committed after he had served notice of registration. Persons who undertake major enterprises of this sort should check the Copyright Office registration records before starting, even where copies have been published without notice.

The purpose of the second sentence of subsection (b) is to give the courts broad discretion to balance the equities within the framework of section 405 (this section). Where an infringer made profits from infringing acts committed innocently before receiving notice from the copyright owner, the court may allow or withhold their recovery in light of the circumstances. The court may enjoin an infringement or may permit its continuation on condition that the copyright owner be paid a reasonable license fee.

Removal of Notice by Others. Subsection (c) of section 405 involves the situation arising when, following an authorized publication with notice, someone further down the chain of commerce removes, destroys, or obliterates the notice. The courts dealing with this problem under the present law, especially in connection with copyright notices on the selvage of textile fabrics, have generally upheld the validity of a notice that was securely attached to the copies when they left the control of the copyright owner, even though removal of the notice at some later stage was likely. This conclusion is incorporated in subsection (c).

8 406. Notice of copyright: Error in name or date on

certain copies and phonorecords (a) ERROR IN NAME.—With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected. In such a case, however, any person who innocently begins an undertaking that infringes the copyright has a complete defense to any action for such infringement if such person proves that he or she was misled by the notice and began the rundertaking in good faith under a purported transfer or license from the person named therein, unless before the undertaking was begun,

(1) registration for the work had been made in the name of the owner of copyright; or

(2) a document executed by the person named in the notice and showing the owner

ship of the copyright had been recorded. The person named in the notice is liable to account to the copyright owner for all receipts from transfers or licenses purportedly made under the copyright by the person named in the notice.

(b) ERROR IN DATE.-When the year date in the notice on copies or phonorecords distributed before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 by authority of the copyright owner is earlier than the year in which publication first occurred, any period computed from the year of first publication under section 302 is to be computed from the year in the notice. Where the year date is more than one year later than the year in which publication first occurred, the work is considered to have been published without any notice and is governed by the provisions of section 405.

(c) OMISSION OF NAME OR DATE.-Where copies or phonorecords publicly distributed before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 by authority of the copyright owner contain no name or no date that could reasonably be considered a part of the notice, the work is considered to have been published without any notice and is governed by the provisions of section 405 as in effect on the day before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988.

REFERENCES IN TEXT The effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Mar. 1, 1989, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

AMENDMENTS 1988–Pub. L. 100-568, 87(e)(3), substituted "notice on certain copies and phonorecords" for "notice" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100-568, $7(e)(1), substituted “With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in" for "The omission of the copyright notice prescribed by".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100-568, $ 7(e)(2), substituted "omitted and which was publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988,” for “omitted,".

(Pub. L. 94-553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2578; Pub. L. 100-568, $ 7(f), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2858.)

what separated from them. Direct contiguity or juxtaposition of the elements is no longer necessary; but if the elements are too widely separated for their relation to be apparent, or if uncertainty is created by the presence of other names or dates, the case would have to be treated as if the name or date, and hence the notice itself had been omitted altogether.

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

REFERENCES IN TEXT The effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, referred to in text, is Mar. 1, 1989, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.

AMENDMENTS 1988–Pub. L. 100-568, 8 7(f)(4), substituted "date on certain copies and phonorecords" for "date" in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100-568, § 7(f)(1), substituted "With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where" for "Where".

Subsec. (b), Pub. L. 100-568, 87(f)(2), inserted "before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" after “distributed".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 100-568, 87(f)(3), inserted "before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988" after “publicly distributed" and "as in effect on the day before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988” after "section 405".

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1988 AMENDMENT Amendment by Pub. L. 100-568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100-568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

In addition to cases where notice has been omitted entirely, it is common under the present law for a copyright notice to be fatally defective because the name or date has been omitted or wrongly stated. Section 406 is intended to avoid technical forfeitures in these cases, while at the same time inducing use of the correct name and date and protecting users who rely on erroneous information.

Error in Name. Section 406(a) begins with a statement that the use of the wrong name in the notice will not affect the validity or ownership of the copyright, and then deals with situations where someone acting innocently and in good faith infringes a copyright by relying on a purported transfer or license from the person erroneously named in the notice. In such a case the innocent infringer is given a complete defense unless a search of the Copyright Office records would have shown that the owner was someone other than the person named in the notice. Use of the wrong name in the notice is no defense if, at the time infringement was begun, registration had been made in the name of the true owner, or if “a document executed by the person named in the notice and showing the ownership of the copyright had been recorded."

The situation dealt with in section 406(a) presupposes a contractual relation between the copyright owner and the person named in the notice. The copies or phonorecords bearing the defective notice have been “distributed by authority of the copyright owner" and, unless the publication can be considered unauthorized because of breach of an express condition in the contract or other reasons, the owner must be presumed to have acquiesced in the use of the wrong name. If the person named in the notice grants a license for use of the work in good faith or under a misapprehension, that person should not be liable as a copyright infringer, but the last sentence of section 406(a) would make the person named in the notice liable to account to the copyright owner for "all receipts, from transfers or licenses purportedly made under the copyright” by that person.

Error in Date. The familiar problems of antedated and postdated notices are dealt with in subsection (b) of section 406. In the case of an antedated notice, where the year in the notice is earlier than the year of first publication, the bill adopts the established judicial principle that any statutory term measured from the year of publication will be computed from the year given in the notice. This provision would apply not only to the copyright terms of anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire under section 302(c), but also to the presumptive periods set forth in section 302(e).

As for postdated notices, subsection (b) provides that, where the year in the notice is more than one year later than the year of first publication the case is treated as if the notice had been omitted and is governed by section 405. Notices postdated by one year are quite common on works published near the end of a year, and it would be unnecessarily strict to equate cases of that sort with works published without notice of any sort.

Omission of Name or Date. Section 406(c) provides that, if the copies or phonorecords "contain no name or no date that could reasonably be considered a part of the notice," the result is the same as if the notice had been omitted entirely, and section 405 controls. Unlike the present law, the bill contains no provision requiring the elements of the copyright notice to "accompany" each other, and under section 406(c) a name or date that could reasonably be read with the other elements may satisfy the requirements even if some

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in section 404 of this title.

8 407. Deposit of copies or phonorecords for Library

of Congress (a) Except as provided by subsection (c), and subject to the provisions of subsection (e), the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in a work published in the United States shall deposit, within three months after the date of such publication

(1) two complete copies of the best edition;

or

(2) if the work is a sound recording, two complete phonorecords of the best edition, together with any printed or other visually perceptible material published with such phono

records. Neither the deposit requirements of this subsection nor the acquisition provisions of subsection (e) are conditions of copyright protection.

(b) The required copies or phonorecords shall be deposited in the Copyright Office for the use or disposition of the Library of Congress. The Register of Copyrights shall, when requested by the depositor and upon payment of the fee prescribed by section 708, issue a receipt for the deposit.

(c) The Register of Copyrights may by regulation exempt any categories of material from the deposit requirements of this section, or rethe demand or the methods for fulfilling it, as reasonably warranted by the circumstances. Willful failure or refusal to comply with the conditions prescribed by such regulations shall subject the owner of the right of transmission in the United States to liability for an amount, not to exceed the cost of reproducing and supplying the copy or phonorecord in question, to be paid into a specially designated fund in the Library of Congress.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require the making or retention, for purposes of deposit, of any copy or phonorecord of an unpublished transmission program, the transmission of which occurs before the receipt of a specific written demand as provided by clause (2).

(4) No activity undertaken in compliance with regulations prescribed under clauses (1) or (2) of this subsection shall result in liability if intended solely to assist in the acquisition of copies or phonorecords under this sub

section. (Pub. L. 94-553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2579; Pub. L. 100-568, § 8, Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2859.)

HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES

HOUSE REPORT NO. 94-1476

quire deposit of only one copy or phonorecord with respect to any categories. Such regulations shall provide either for complete exemption from the deposit requirements of this section, or for alternative forms of deposit aimed at providing a satisfactory archival record of a work without imposing practical or financial hardships on the depositor, where the individual author is the owner of copyright in a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work and (i) less than five copies of the work have been published, or (ii) the work has been published in a limited edition consisting of numbered copies, the monetary value of which would make the mandatory deposit of two copies of the best edition of the work burdensome, unfair, or unreasonable.

(d) At any time after publication of a work as provided by subsection (a), the Register of Copyrights may make written demand for the required deposit on any of the persons obligated to make the deposit under subsection (a). Unless deposit is made within three months after the demand is received, the person or persons on whom the demand was made are liable

(1) to a fine of not more than $250 for each work; and

(2) to pay into a specially designated fund in the Library of Congress the total retail price of the copies or phonorecords demanded, or, if no retail price has been fixed, the reasonable cost of the Library of Congress of acquiring them; and

(3) to pay a fine of $2,500, in addition to any fine or liability imposed under clauses (1) and (2), if such person willfully or repeatedly fails or refuses to comply with such a demand.

(e) With respect to transmission programs that have been fixed and transmitted to the public in the United States but have not been published, the Register of Copyrights shall, after consulting with the Librarian of Congress and other interested organizations and officials, establish regulations governing the acquisition, through deposit or otherwise, of copies or phonorecords of such programs for the collections of the Library of Congress.

(1) The Librarian of Congress shall be permitted, under the standards and conditions set forth in such regulations, to make a fixation of a transmission program directly from a transmission to the public, and to reproduce one copy or phonorecord from such fixation for archival purposes.

(2) Such regulations shall also provide standards and procedures by which the Register of Copyrights may make written demand, upon the owner of the right of transmission in the United States, for the deposit of a copy or phonorecord of a specific transmission program. Such deposit may, at the option of the owner of the right of transmission in the United States, be accomplished by gift, by loan for purposes of reproduction, or by sale at a price not to exceed the cost of reproducing and supplying the copy or phonorecord. The regulations established under this clause shall provide reasonable periods of not less than three months for compliance with a demand, and shall allow for extensions of such periods and adjustments in the scope of

The provisions of sections 407 through 411 of the bill mark another departure from the present law. Under the 1909 statute, deposit of copies for the collections of the Library of Congress and deposit of copies for purposes of copyright registration have been treated as the same thing. The bill's basic approach is to regard deposit and registration as separate though closely related: deposit of copies or phonorecords for the Library of Congress is mandatory, but exceptions can be made for material the Library neither needs nor wants; copyright registration is not generally mandatory, but is a condition of certain remedies for copyright infringement. Deposit for the Library of Congress can be, and in the bulk of cases undoubtedly will be, combined with copyright registration.

The basic requirement of the deposit provision, section 407, is that within 3 months after a work has been published with notice of copyright in the United States, the “Owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication" must deposit two copies or phonorecords of the work in the Copyright Office. The Register of Copyrights is authorized to exempt any category of material from the deposit requirements. Where the category is not exempted and deposit is not made, the Register may demand it; failure to comply would be penalized by a fine.

Under the present law deposits for the Library of Congress must be combined with copyright registration, and failure to comply with a formal demand for deposit and registration results in complete loss of copyright. Under section 407 of the bill, the deposit requirements can be satisfied without ever making registration, and subsection (a) makes clear that deposit “is not a condition of copyright protection." A realistic fine, coupled with the increased inducements for voluntary registration and deposit under other sections of the bill, seems likely to produce a more effective deposit system than the present one. The bill's approach will also avoid the danger that, under a divisible copyright, one copyright owner's rights could be destroyed by another owner's failure to deposit.

Although the basic deposit requirements are limited to works "published with notice of copyright in the United States," they would become applicable as soon

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »