Supreme Court Says Of Course You Need To Register Your Copyright Before You Can Sue; Copyright Trolls & Hollywood Freak Out

from the oh,-poor-souls dept

17 USC 411(a) (part of US Copyright law) states the following:

...no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.

This is pretty clear. It also becomes important in a surprising number of situations and cases, including quite a few we've discussed just recently, such as the various copyright lawsuits over dances in Fortnite, where it appears that none of the "dances" were actually registered with the Copyright Office. Copyright trolls, also, are somewhat notorious for threatening lawsuits over works without any copyright registration at all.

So it's a bit bizarre that the Supreme Court even needed to weigh in on this, but there was a bit of technical confusion between a bunch of circuits as to whether or not you could sue as soon as you submitted a registration application, or if you had to wait until the Copyright Office issues the actual certificate of registration. While getting a registered copyright is mostly (though not entirely) a rubber stamp process by the Copyright Office, it still takes about six to seven months right now, though the Copyright Office has been upgrading its technology (after some earlier hiccups under the previous regime), and insists that before long the timing will be one of weeks, rather than months.

In a unanimous ruling, surprisingly written by Justice Ginsburg, the court ruled that the law is pretty clear and you have to wait until registration is complete and the certificate has been issued by the Copyright Office. It comes down to the Justices just reading what the law actually says and saying "um, that's pretty clear." Indeed, the ruling basically says the wording of the law wouldn't make any sense if it meant you just had to submit the application to be able to sue:

If application alone sufficed to “ma[ke]” registration, §411(a)’s second sentence—allowing suit upon refusal of registration—would be superfluous. What utility would that allowance have if a copyright claimant could sue for infringement immediately after applying for registration without awaiting the Register’s decision on her application? Proponents of the application approach urge that §411(a)’s second sentence serves merely to require a copyright claimant to serve “notice [of an infringement suit] . . . on the Register.” See Brief for Petitioner 29–32. This reading, however, requires the implausible assumption that Congress gave “registration” different meanings in consecutive, related sentences within a single statutory provision. In §411(a)’s first sentence, “registration” would mean the claimant’s act of filing an application, while in the section’s second sentence, “registration” would entail the Register’s review of an application. We resist this improbable construction.

As for the claims that by requiring a copyright holder to wait infringement can go on for a while, the Court points out that the law still lets them go after all that past infringement after getting the registration:

If infringement occurs before a copyright owner applies for registration, that owner may eventually recover damages for the past infringement, as well as the infringer’s profits. §504. She must simply apply for registration and receive the Copyright Office’s decision on her application before instituting suit. Once the Register grants or refuses registration, the copyright owner may also seek an injunction barring the infringer from continued violation of her exclusive rights and an order requiring the infringer to destroy infringing materials.

The court also takes a dim view on the idea that it takes too long to get the registration, and this could impact the statute of limitations on suing (three years):

Fourth Estate raises the specter that a copyright owner may lose the ability to enforce her rights if the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations runs out before the Copyright Office acts on her application for registration. Brief for Petitioner 41. Fourth Estate’s fear is overstated, as the average processing time for registration applications is currently seven months, leaving ample time to sue after the Register’s decision, even for infringement that began before submission of an application

Furthermore, Ginsburg notes that even if it's taking the Copyright Office a long time, that's an issue for Congress to deal with rather than the courts:

True, the statutory scheme has not worked as Congress likely envisioned. Registration processing times have increased from one or two weeks in 1956 to many months today. See GAO, Improving Productivity in Copyright Registration 3 (GAO–AFMD–83–13 1982); Registration Processing Times. Delays in Copyright Office processing of applications, it appears, are attributable, in large measure, to staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure.

The surprising aspect of this is that Ginsburg wrote the decision. Historically, Justice Ginsburg has never seen a copyright case where she wouldn't support the more Hollywood-friendly interpretation. Whether you agree with Ginsburg on other issues or not, she's generally... awful on copyright with the infamous Eldred ruling being a key example (if you want to read a good half-book long rant about just how badly Ginsburg messed up nearly every aspect of the Eldred ruling, I highly recommend the book No Law, which has some choice words for that particular decision).

Still, this decision was a pretty straightforward reading of the statute, and in some ways builds on the basis that Ginsburg set forth in Eldred, in which she more or less says "hey, Congress can do what Congress wants regarding copyright." And here, Congress has said you need to register to sue.

What's amusing, though, is that this fairly minor step has Hollwyood and its friends completely flipping out about how much more difficult it's going to be to stop piracy. But this makes no sense. Once a work is out there, it's out there. It's not like being able to sue a few months earlier is going to stop works from leaking or being available. And suing is usually not the most efficient way to stop the spread of something anyway (the DMCA takedown process still works...).

Of course, those who should really be worried are the copyright trolls who got kind of complacent about these things over the past few years. As Fight Copyright Trolls first noticed, prolific copyright trolling operation Malibu Media, has already been hit with an Order to Show Cause in response to this case for suing over works where no registration had been made:

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing by March 12, 2019, why its complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted — specifically, for failure to allege that registration or preregistration of the copyright claims at issue had “been made” prior to the filing of this action. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); see Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, 2019 WL 1005829 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019). If Plaintiff fails to show good cause, or does not file anything by that date, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice to Plaintiff.

Anything that causes more problems for copyright trolls has to be a good thing.

Filed Under: applications, copyright, copyright office, copyright registration, copyright trolls, litgiation, registration, ruth bader ginsburg, supreme court
Companies: fourth estate, wall-street.com


Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 3:40pm

    Live Sports

    So the NFL can't sue me for copying the Superbowl for 4-9 months after the fact?
    Sweet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 3:46pm

    Re: Live Sports

    There’s an exception you can file with the copyright office before live events and items likely to be infringed before their release dates.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 4:04pm

    If you can't even be bothered with the basics...

    If it's not serious enough for you to register and wait for that to go through then it's definitely not serious enough to sue someone over, something which can easily cause significant costs on the other side even before any judgement are handed out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 4:43pm

    Who knows with all of the registration fees flowing in, perhaps the office can go faster.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:05pm

    Masnick sure likes passing judgment on high-level federal judges. Which law school did he graduate from?

    Registration is no big deal. Anyone serious about their work registers it the day it's released or earlier, to prove that they wrote it. Did that with a few of my books that I knew would be plagiarized (and which have been, many times) or imitated. Funny how major publishers, network television, and films have found "inspiration" in my work ::::cough:::::

    Anyone relying on this decision as a get-out-of-judgment-free card is on pretty thin ice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:10pm

    Re: Hypocrite U home of Fighting No U’s

    Jhon boy sure likes to criticise blogs. I wonder where he got his journalism degree?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:12pm

    Re: Jhons a liar. Change my mind

    Bro you can’t even spell your own four letter name right. I find it impossible to believe that you had actual words published on paper by a real company you didn’t pay for up front.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:20pm

    Re:

    Oh, who plagiarized you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    Killercool (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re:

    He considers people quoting him back at himself as plagiarism.

    I don't see how, we gladly attribute it to him. I know I don't want credit for his nonsense...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 5:44pm

    Re:

    Did that with a few of my books that I knew would be plagiarized (and which have been, many times) or imitated

    Imitation of copyrighted works which doesn't amount to plagiarism is perfectly legal, so why mention it here?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 6:00pm

    Re:

    Did that with a few of my books that I knew would be plagiarized

    Can you show us on the doll where your IP was infringed? No? STFU - You are a paid sockpuppet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 6:03pm

    Re:

    Anyone relying on this decision as a get-out-of-judgment-free card is on pretty thin ice

    That's... not what the decision said. The decision said that copyright holders still had free rein to go after infringement that occurred. And this decision came from one of the most copyright-friendly judges ever.

    Literally the only people this negatively affects are copyright trolls who try to use unregistered copyrights to sue grandmothers, so the fact that these are the people you chose to sing the defense of is... telling. Unsurprising, but very, very telling.

    You can blame your copyright enforcers for sounding the alert to Justice Ginsburg and derailing your own gravy train. Nice job fucking it up for yourselves, genius!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 6:14pm

    Re: Re:

    "And this decision came from one of the most copyright-friendly judges ever."

    It was a unanimous decision, so...

    You can blame your copyright enforcers for sounding the alert to Justice Ginsburg and derailing your own gravy train."

    Did they speak to the rest of the court as well?

    Techdirt's position has always been that infringement is not a good thing, but that in light of overreach by, not creators, but by legacy copyright holders, understandable. The difference between taking a copy of a file, and trying to sell the copy of that file is a big one. The legacy industry tries to obfuscate that difference, and that might just be illegal. That concept was not covered in this decision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 6:17pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    It sounds Schmalfeldtian.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 7:15pm

    Damn Jhon I have seen that many people line up to pound someone since Worlds Biggest Gangbang 8.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Except if I did that it would trigger a wave of actionable harassment, defamation, etc.

    You REALLY do not understand the level of criminality surrounding some who frequent this site. Like I said, there is already police involvement. This isn't just some internet game. One member of this little group fucked up BIG a while back when it picked on me like I was some random internet slug.

    You think I give a shit about publicizing the people already taken down because of this garbage? Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:14pm

    Re: Re:

    Except if I did that it would trigger a wave of actionable harassment, defamation, etc.

    You REALLY do not understand the level of criminality surrounding some who frequent this site. Like I said, there is already police involvement. This isn't just some internet game. One member of this little group fucked up BIG a while back when it picked on me like I was some random internet slug.

    You think I give a shit about publicizing the people already taken down because of this garbage? Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:16pm

    Re:

    Spoken like a true Aspie who thinks life is a fucking video game.

    Have fun "winning" on your stupid little website.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:17pm

    Re: Re:

    I don't have unregistered copyrights so you're really inaccurate.

    Also another anonymous mouth, maybe a sockpuppet for one of the criminals or just one of their pawns. Doesn't matter much.

    Those who need to be taken down and haven't been yet will be soon enough.

    Anyone who thinks someone can take a "beating" in the comments section is a joke. Try being arrested or worse (legally).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:30pm

    How many times you get your ass handed to you today alone?

    Have fun losing again and again and again on this stupid little website.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. icon
    Matthew Cline (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.

    Wow, what a lovely person you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:50pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    One member of this little group fucked up BIG a while back when it picked on me like I was some random internet slug.

    Except it didn't happen. And you are an anonymous slug.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    You think I give a shit

    I think you really give a shit about boasting. But - you are a liar. Please, tell us more about how great you are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 8:58pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't have unregistered copyrights so you're really inaccurate.

    You don't have any registered copyrights, you are a liar and a sockpuppet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    Gary (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:05pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Like I said, there is already police involvement.

    Well that is a whopper. You are just some dumb AC. If someone on this site actually threatened you, you could point to a post but you can't. And no one can threaten or defame an AC - because you don't exist.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. icon
    ysth (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:33pm

    superfluous

    If application alone sufficed to “ma[ke]” registration, §411(a)’s second sentence—allowing suit upon refusal of registration—would be superfluous.

    But in Oracle vs Rimini St, also unanimous, Justice Kavanaugh just wrote "redundancy is not a silver bullet" in response to Oracle's claims that "full costs" must be meant to include costs other than the types enumerated in the law.

    So which is it? I agree wholeheartedly with both rulings, but is this just a "I know it when I see it" kind of distinction?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:33pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    If the wave of actionable harassment is so huge and the level of criminality is so deep then go for it, dumbass. You've had six months, what's stopping you and your powerful patrons from wasting one measly little site?

    I think someone who wants to gloat about these achievements so badly would put a name or face to them. You know, as a warning against anyone who fails to take you seriously. As it stands you're doing a terrible job of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    I don't have unregistered copyrights so you're really inaccurate.

    Then the decision doesn't affect you adversely, you triggered little snowflake. Why all the anger over something that literally doesn't penalize you in any meaningful way?

    The only reason you could have is because it does affect you, and the only reason why that would be the case is because you profit from the enforcement of unregistered copyrights.

    Those who need to be taken down and haven't been yet will be soon enough.

    Oh, I'm not worried that Malibu Media will eventually get their comeuppance.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Re:

    This coming from the guy who gets his rocks off suing grandmothers and dedicating police forces to insignificant websites that make fun of him. Real mature.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. icon
    techflaws (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:44pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Like I said, there is already police involvement."

    Yeah, and like we said we still think you're full of shit. Tough.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    techflaws (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 9:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Those who need to be taken down and haven't been yet will be soon enough."

    Bring it on, water boy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. icon
    Killercool (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 10:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, he's telling the truth. He just doesn't comprehend that the cops all die a little every time he walks in.

    "Sir, can we please tell him to go away?"

    "Just... just take his printouts and put them with the rest."

    sounds of a shredder bogging down in the background

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. icon
    Bergman (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It's an especially stupid comment, because Asperger's makes you BETTER at analytical thought at the cost of emotional processing. Most aspies are actually smarter than the average in any area where the law matters -- such as copyrights.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. icon
    Bergman (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 10:18pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You have copyright on almost every idea you fix in tangible form -- unless he rushes out to register a copyright every time he posts a comment (including here on Techdirt), then he has TONS of unregistered copyrights!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. icon
    Rico R. (profile), 7 Mar 2019 @ 10:48pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well.

    Steve Jobs. Albert Einstein. Adam Young. Temple Grandin. All successful and sane people who either have Asperger's/Autism or is believed to have had it. In fact, Einstein helped us change our perspective on reality. Really, that's why one of his theories is called Special Relativity.

    Anyway, I'm autistic as well, and copyright has been one of my "obsessive interests". Ask anyone from my college classes. So I know that plagiarism isn't necessarily a case of copyright infringement. And again, no source is given, let alone the title of the books you said were plagiarized. So why should we believe you?

    And as far as being "picked on" by being "some random internet slug", I think you need to re-evaluate your "dumb Aspie" remark before you complain about any harassment going on. Any sane person, autistic or not, will find that offensive!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 11:12pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Goddamnit jhonnie. You can only protect so hard before you project BACK TO THE FUTURE!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2019 @ 11:45pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh fuck no. Jhonnie don’t have the ball ball to sue anyone. He get the pathetic nubbins that we’re once his ball off by lying to a bunch of rando-calrissians on the internet and more so by getting his ass handed to him by said Ayn-Randos.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 1:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I actually want him to sue.

    We'd be able to put a face and name to the 4chan poster who thinks he's such an accomplisher being all hipster and edgy and counterculture.

    I'd finally know what creative works to actively avoid.

    And I want to see a judge laugh him out of court for trying to sue an international collection of readers and commenters because his panties got twisted one too many times.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. identicon
    Rocky, 8 Mar 2019 @ 1:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    One member of this little group fucked up BIG a while back when it picked on me like I was some random internet slug.

    If you post stupid shit as an AC you are a "random internet slug", and as an AC there can't be any kind of defamation etc going on since any opinion or statement given isn't connected to a real persona - ie. you real life reputation and character was never impinged.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 2:59am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You REALLY do not understand the level of criminality surrounding"

    your ignorant ass existence!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 3:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "You REALLY do not understand the level of criminality surrounding some who frequent this site."

    You mean the defenders of John Steele and his ilk? Because that's the worst level of criminality there is on this site - apologists for copyright terrorism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 3:02am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Anyone who thinks someone can take a "beating" in the comments section is a joke. Try being arrested or worse (legally)."

    god, this is gold.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 3:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    " He considers people quoting him back at himself as plagiarism. I don't see how, we gladly attribute it to him. I know I don't want credit for his nonsense..."

    I think he may be in two minds about that. On the one hand he wants everyone to pay him for reading his work. On the other hand he doesn't want people to know who he is or remember what he wrote.

    The only way I can reconcile those two rather obvious views of his is that he's somehow miffed people aren't just giving him all their money for nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 3:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Maybe you're a dumb Aspie or something; they never really grasp reality very well."

    And now he's proving himself a bigot as well. Somehow I can very well imagine Baghdad bob laughing and pointing at disabled people.

    Wait - he more or less just did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 4:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "Well that is a whopper."

    Actually I wouldn't put it past poor old Baghdad bob there to regularly try to report this site to some long-suffering police officer who very rightly doesn't give a rat's ass about what commenters say about some anonymous troll whose hobby is to shit in a text box and proudly display the results.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 4:07am

    Re: Re:

    "Spoken like a true Aspie who thinks life is a fucking video game."

    Says the man who failed to learn that in real life bigotry is a bad thing.

    But hey, why am I not surprised to find the world's most unreasonable - and delusional - copyright fanatic trying to turn minority into a scapegoat..

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47. icon
    Gary (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 6:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    In order for a threat to be remotely credible, someone would have to know who they were threatening.
    It would be patently impossible for anyone in the US to made a credible threat against a russian sockpuppet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48. icon
    DannyB (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 6:26am

    Overly Burdensome

    Isn't it expecting too much for Copyright Trolls to have to register or even pre-register their copyright? Can't the courts just take the Copyright Trolls' word for it?

    Next, you'll be expecting the Trolls to provide actual evidence of infringement.

    /s

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 7:23am

    Re: Re: Live Sports

    There’s an exception you can file with the copyright office before live events

    For live sports, though? Sports aren't creative, and how do we know ahead of time whether the camerawork will be creative? (Because if not, it's not eligible for copyright.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 7:25am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I was thinking the same, and am amused by the idea that this person registered "I don't have unregistered copyrights so you're really inaccurate" 6-9 months ago and has been waiting for the chance to use it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 8:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Live Sports

    Cause they are large corporations that bribes politicians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52. icon
    nasch (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 8:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Live Sports

    I wonder if you could make a case for copying just the video because it's not creative. The commentary would seem more likely to be eligible for copyright protection.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53. icon
    nasch (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 8:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Like I said, there is already police involvement.

    lol, sure there is.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 9:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Live Sports

    "a copyright owner can apply for a “preregistration” and still meet the threshold to filing a lawsuit, but those are limited to works the are deemed vulnerable to infringement before release, like music compositions or movies. Exceptions also are made for live TV broadcasts."

    So what exactly is the problem then? IMO, if they're pro-active in doing the above they won't have anything to complain about.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 9:31am

    Re: Re: Re: Live Sports

    SO, in any live broadcast, there will be a producer who chooses which cameras are broadcast at what time, and gives direction as to how narrow the focus should be, when to cut to the coaches, ect. Regardless of the creativity of any individual cameraman, the broadcast is an experience dictated by a producer who determines what you see. This will be present in any live sports broadcast. The courts have largely attempted to separate the question of HOW creative a visual work is with the question of if it required creativity. The trigger, from rulings I've read, to establish creativity seems to generally be a question of active involvement in the process of capturing the visual work. The idea that someone is, in the moment, deciding at least some of the 'creative' factors.

    While an argument can be made that, in a live sporting event, the visual choices made are largely functional for the display of the sport, the conventional wisdom is that choices between wide shots and narrow focus, when to cut to sideline footage, and the commentary are all creative elements that you can hold copyright for.

    In a live event, registration can happen before an event. That does not mean the copyright will withstand scrutiny in the subsequent court battle. But it seems unlikely the courts will overthrow the idea that the copyright eligible elements which will show up in a live sports broadcast are no longer considered copyright eligible as it would probably throw understanding of photography and videography copyright into chaos by having the courts rate how creative the work is, not merely that it contains sufficient elements of creativity..

    The courts largely tend to

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 9:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    he's somehow miffed people aren't just giving him all their money for nothing.

    Just like those groups trying to push link taxes through...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57. icon
    Pen & Ink (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 9:47am

    Fortnite

    So, Fortnite could be the first to register their "dance" and then prohibit said football player from using it live.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58. icon
    Gary (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 10:39am

    Re: Fortnite

    Except you can't register a dance move, as has been proven in court. You can register a ballet but not the moonwalk, the carlton or any simple set of steps.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 8 Mar 2019 @ 10:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "For the last time, 'butthurt', even even you add 'aggravated' in front of it, is not a crime. Stop going there if you don't like people being mean to you, or at the least stop trying to report it to us."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2019 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Live Sports

    Good point, but the post got truncated?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 11 Mar 2019 @ 8:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hey, "being wrong on the internet" should probably be a crime in the eyes of many.

    The weird thing about Baghdad bob is that if that was what he was after he'd be the first one behind bars, given how often he tries to talk established reality out of existing.

    I can only surmise that in his mind, then, given his long demonstrated behavior, being right on the internet needs to be criminal...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62. icon
    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 11 Mar 2019 @ 8:41am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "...and am amused by the idea that this person registered "I don't have unregistered copyrights so you're really inaccurate" 6-9 months ago and has been waiting for the chance to use it."

    Is that why he keeps harping about mailing lists? He needs your address so he can send you the subpoena?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.