US Copyright Attorneys: Understand Your Rights

September 1st, 2009

Our copyright attorneys can help you understand your rights under U.S. Copyright law. Whether you are the victim of copyright infringement, or the target of an infringement threat or take down letter, you need experienced trial attorneys on your side. We handle copyright infringement litigation across the United States with attorneys licensed in California, Washington D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Michigan and in other U.S. states on a pro hac vice basis.

If you have a copyright issue, or wish to register a copyright, you may contact one of our experienced copyright attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Copyright Resources:

Digital Millennium Copyright Act Issues every intellectual property lawyer must understand.
Top Benefits of Filing a Copyright with the United States Copyright Office
Copyright Infringement: The Fair Use Defense.
DMCA Take Down Notice Issues: Protecting Publishers of Third Party Content from Copyright Liability.
Copyright Infringement Threat Letters: Detail is Leverage

Copyright matters handled for our clients:

Our attorneys are representing in copyright infringement litigation on behalf of a major 5 star resort chain in Mexico for copying web site content. The claims are brought under US Copyright law in Florida federal court .
Our attorneys are representing an artist with registered copyrights over his designs being copied by another vendor. The suit involves copyright claims under U.S. copyright law in federal court in Tennessee including statutory damages claims of $150,000 per instance, plus attorney fees.
Our attorneys are representing plaintiffs in copyright litigation on behalf of an author whose work was copied by a major broadcast network as a popular television series. The case is being brought in federal court in Detroit, Michigan.
We handle copyright infringement threat letters and take down notice issues under the DMCA on behalf of numerous clients.
Our attorneys draft DMCA take down policies for web site owners publishing thrid party content.

Chances are, we can help you as well. Contact us at 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Tags: copyright, dmca
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Works Done under U.S. Employment may not be Copyrightable

May 16th, 2012

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), this provision prohibits copyright infringement lawsuit against the U.S. whenever the copyrighted work was done through the employment or service of the U.S. The U.S. is immune for copyright infringement if the works was done as a part of the official duties of the U.S. officer, or the work is prepared using government time, facilities, or materials. Continue reading Works Done under U.S. Employment may not be Copyrightable »

Tags: attorney, copyright, immunity, infringement, prisoners, suit, us employment
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Facts, History, and Chronological Narrative are not Protectable under Copyright

May 16th, 2012

In general, works will be protected under copyright laws when they contain minimal creativity and originality and such works are fixed in a tangible media. Therefore the contents that are considered facts and history that are universally known or indisputably true are not copyrightable. They lack originality and creativity which are the requirement for copyright protection. In other words, the authors of these works did not create the facts and history themselves. They were just reporting on what happened in the past. However, their arrangement of facts and history may be copyrightable subject to certain limitation. Continue reading Facts, History, and Chronological Narrative are not Protectable under Copyright »

Tags: attorney, chronological, copyright, fact, history, infringement, narrative
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Bring a Case of Copyright Infringement (Part 5 – Final)

May 15th, 2012

As discussed in the previous blog, personal jurisdiction can be established by general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. General jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contracts whereas specific jurisdiction requires that the cause of action directly arises from the forum where the suit is brought. It is quite clear to determine personal jurisdiction if the matter at issue is physical. However, if the works or all of the actions are done through the internet, the court differs on how to establish personal jurisdiction. For example:

The Second Circuit: mere maintenance and accessibility of a website, without more, is insufficient for establishing personal jurisdiction. However, deriving substantial income from people in one state through a website is sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in that state.
The Ninth Circuit: the Ninth Circuit follows the federal rule of civil procedure. The law indicates that a website owner will subject to personal jurisdiction only when he continuously and systematically uses his website to conduct business with a substantial number of forum residents.

This blog illustrates that personal jurisdiction from internet contacts work almost the same way as the ordinary lawsuit. However, its requirements involve numerous legal terms which are needed to be interpreted by the courts. In some cases, certain interpretation works for your case whereas another works against you. We encourage you to consult our copyright infringement attorneys to help you draft a complaint and bring a lawsuit.

Tags: attorney, claim, copyright, infringement, internet, jurisdiction, personal, specific, website
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Should you Provide a Copyright Notice on your Copyrighted Work ©?

May 15th, 2012

Yes, you should. If it is not financially burdensome which is hardly the case, you should definitely provide a copyright notice on your work. There are several reasons for this:

You can get substantially more damages. A lawsuit can cost money for both a plaintiff and a defendant. Clearly, it makes a good sense if you balance costs and benefits before bringing a lawsuit. Ideally, you would like to get as much damage as possible. One of the most resourceful damage is treble damage. You can get this type of damage when you can demonstrate the infringement was willful. That is, the infringer knew that he or she did infringe the copyrighted work even if the author did not give him or her permission to do so. The courts view this type of infringement as a blatant violation of the law (knowing that it is illegal and insisting of doing it) and generally award substantial monetary damage. However, proving willful infringement is difficult if you cannot establish that an infringer actually knew that the work is copyrighted. Therefore a copyright notice can prove such intent to violate the copyright protection. If there is a valid copyright notice on the work, it is very unlikely that an infringer will be able to claim that his infringement was innocent and not willful.
Copyright notice can deter potential infringers. If you put on a copyright notice, a potential infringer may realize that this work is under copyright protection and his infringement will be subject to copyright infringement lawsuit. On the other hand, if there is no copyright notice, he may mistakenly assume that such work does not contain copyright, and therefore he is freely to copy the work.

Copyright notice provides a copyright owner with many great benefits. Placing a copyright notice on your work often costs nothing compared to its benefit. Therefore we strongly encourage you to always put a copyright notice on your work.

Tags: attorney, continuous, copyright, damages, fair, infringement, internet, jurisdiction, notice, potential, provide, reasonable, remedies, systematic, treble, willful
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Do you need a Copyright Notice ©?

May 14th, 2012

As a rule of thumb, the answer is “it depends on the works” but most likely, no. The laws states that the requirement of such notice depends on the year the copyrighted work is published.

The works published before 1978 must contain a valid copyright notice in order to be protected under the copyright law. If you fail to provide such notice, it is a waiver of copyright protection. Without copyright notice, therefore any works published before 1978 can be freely copied and used without the author’s permission. For example, A found a book published by B in 1950. If A could make sure that B did not provide any copyright notice in B’s book, then A could freely copy B’s book even if B refused to grant A his permission.

However, for the work published between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, you no longer need a copyright notice to get protected by copyright laws subject to certain limitation. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that a work published after January 1, 1978 without a valid copyright notice is still protectable under copyright laws if within 5 years after the first publication, the work was registered with the Copyright Office and the copyright owner can demonstrate a reasonable effort to add a copyright notice to all copies of the work distributed after the omission was discovered.

For the recently published work (those published after March 1, 1989), a copyright owner does not need to provide any notice at all. By a virtue of the Berne Convention, that the United States is one of the parties, the convention gets rid of the requirement to provide a copyright notice for all copyright works published after the signing date of the Convention (March 1, 1989).

The copyright laws seem to relax certain requirements regarding the copyright notice. However, the copyright notice is not difficult to be put on the work. Often, a simple © is considered a valid copyright notice. Therefore, it rarely hurts to always put a copyright notice to your work. We encourage you to consult our experienced copyright infringement attorneys.

Tags: attorney, berne convention, c, copyright notice, infringement
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Bring a Case of Copyright Infringement (Part 4)

May 14th, 2012

After a plaintiff established that he owns a copyright, and there was an infringement. He then needs to file his complain in the federal court. Then the main question remains: whether the district court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. If not, then the complaint will be dismissed. Personal jurisdiction can be found in two ways:

The court looks at the state’s long-arm statute whether it is permissible to sue the defendant in the state where the court sits. If not, the complaint will be dismissed.
If the court found that the long-arm statute gives it an appropriate jurisdiction, then the court must consider whether the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies the Due Process Clause (including minimum contacts, forum, and venue) making sure that it is fair and it serves the justice. Continue reading Bring a Case of Copyright Infringement (Part 4) »

Tags: attorney, copyright, general jurisdiction, infringement, jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

VARA’s Exception of Public Presentation: Moving is allowed

May 14th, 2012

Recall that VARA reserves certain rights that cannot be taken away even if the ownership of the works is transferred. Here, the court held in Phillips v. Pembroke Real Estate Inc. (1st Cir. 2006) that certain arts are protected under VARA. Absent any exceptions, destroying those arts is illegal.

Pembroke Real Estate Inc. hired Phillips to work for the park. Phillips created more than 20 sculptures and he also designed the park’s walls, walkways, and other landscape. Later, Pembroke decided to restructure the park and some of Phillips’ work had to be moved. Phillips then brought suit against Pembroke under VARA alleging that his works are protected under VARA.

The court held that Phillips’ works are protected under VARA. Phillips’ works were integrated arts that were intended to be presented together but they were not site-specific arts. Therefore removing the work is not the same as destroying the work. Therefore removal is not a violation of VARA.

This case illustrates one of the most important aspects of VARA. Even if you buy a piece of art, in certain circumstances, you do not own everything within that art. There are some elements that is still owned by the original author and VARA protects those elements. We strongly encourage you to consult an experience copyright attorney to make sure that you do have all the rights to modify such works.

Tags: allow, attorney, copyright, moving, sculpture, vara
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

What is VARA (The Visual Artists Rights Act)?

May 13th, 2012

The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. § 106A, is a law that protects artist rights. VARA grants protection to moral rights, the right that cannot be taken away by assignment, or transferred. VARA applies to paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, still photographic images produced for exhibition only. According to VARA, works of art that satisfy certain requirements provide their authors with additional rights in the works (in addition to the right expressly stated in the Copyright Act), regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself, or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work at the time. For instance, a sculptor may insist on proper attribution of his sculpture and in some circumstances, under the law, he may sue the owner of the sculpture for destroying his work even if he is not the owner of the sculpture right now. Continue reading What is VARA (The Visual Artists Rights Act)? »

Tags: act, artist, attorney, moral right, public, right, vara, visual
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Bring a case of Copyright Infringement (Part 3)

May 13th, 2012

This blog might contain legal language that is difficult to understand. We strongly encourage you to consult our copyright infringement attorney to assist you and ensure that everything is in order.

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), the district court has the jurisdiction arising under copyright laws. It provides that “Civil actions, suits, or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” Therefore if you know that your copyrighted work is infringed and the infringer lives in Michigan, you can bring the suit to Michigan’s district court. In some extreme cases, you can bring the claim where the defendant has been “found” as well. For example, if an infringer is on the way to Miami and has to travel through Pennsylvania, you can bring the court while the infringer is in Pennsylvania. However, this kind of situation does not happen very often and it is not clear whether the court will be able to get that person through this type of service. Continue reading Bring a case of Copyright Infringement (Part 3) »

Tags: attorney, copyright, copyright act, district, federal, infringement, jurisdiction
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

Works Containing Ordinary Element does not Infringe

May 12th, 2012

In order to get copyright protection, the work must be original, creative and it needs to be fixed in a tangible media. Absent one of those elements will make the work uncopyrightable. Therefore ordinary works which contains only ordinary elements are not copyrightable. This is illustrated in the previous blog. For example, clichés, words, and short phrases are not copyrightable because they lack creativity and are considered so general that they do not possess sufficient level of originality.

Here, the court ruled in Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc. (11th Cir. 2008) that the certain house plan is not copyrightable absent creativity and originality. In the suit, there are two house plans. Both of them were for residential homes and contained the usual planning of a house. For example, they designated the kitchen, the bathroom, the bedrooms, and the living rooms. These two plans were different in square footage of rooms and the placement of each room. The question is whether these two plans are protectable by the copyright laws. Continue reading Works Containing Ordinary Element does not Infringe »

Tags: attorney, cliche, copyright infringement, creative, elements, generic, originality, universal, works
Posted in U.S. Copyright Attorney | No Comments »

US Copyright Attorneys: Understand Your Rights

Works Done under U.S. Employment may not be Copyrightable

Facts, History, and Chronological Narrative are not Protectable under Copyright

Bring a Case of Copyright Infringement (Part 5 – Final)

Should you Provide a Copyright Notice on your Copyrighted Work ©?

Do you need a Copyright Notice ©?

Bring a Case of Copyright Infringement (Part 4)

VARA’s Exception of Public Presentation: Moving is allowed

What is VARA (The Visual Artists Rights Act)?

Bring a case of Copyright Infringement (Part 3)

Works Containing Ordinary Element does not Infringe

Homepage: Copyright Infringement Attorney

Archives

Categories