Some works are not protected by copyright. These include: Federal law regulates the creation of copyright. Unlike other forms of intellectual property, there is no need to file or register copyright. Copyright protection arises when an expression is an original and creative work attached to a material medium. A plaintiff can prove a de facto reproduction with evidence that (1) the defendant had access to the copyrighted work prior to the creation of the allegedly infringing work, and (2) the two works are manifestly similar to each other. Positive Black Talk, 394 F.3d to 368. “Access” means that the author of the allegedly infringing work has had a “reasonable opportunity” to see (or hear) the allegedly infringing work. Ferguson v. National Broadcasting Co., 584 F.2d 111, 113 (Cir. 5, 1978). Since a finding of access cannot be based on speculation and presumption, it is important that a mere possibility of access is not sufficient. In addition to proving access, an applicant must prove that the two works are manifestly similar. Allgemeine Universalsysteme v.
Lee, 379 F.3d, pp. 141-142. Probative similarity “requires proof that the works are reasonably similar in comparison as a whole in order to determine appropriation.” Id. at p. 142. A conclusion of the copy therefore occurs only after an applicant has provided competent evidence of (i) access to the allegedly infringing work and (ii) conclusive similarity between the works. Id.; Positive Black Talk, 394 F.3d to 368. A court may consider expert opinions in determining whether two works are manifestly similar. See Ferguson, 584 F.2d, p.
113. Creative expression must be placed on a tangible medium. This means that the copyrighted work must be saved in a tangible format. A tangible format may include recording the work on paper, canvas, hard drive, digital camera (e.B camera, hard drive or video recorder), etc. If an expression is made without registering it in any form whatsoever of material medium, it does not benefit from copyright protection. In fact, if the expression is communicated to the public before registration, it may be in the public domain and cannot be protected by copyright. The Supreme Court rejected “common law copyright” for published works, that is, the right of the creator of a work to control it without going through legal process, in Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834). Unpublished works can still be protected without being registered.
Because the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact copyright laws, the Court ruled that once a creator “has published his work in the world,” that is, at 657, he must follow the procedures established by law. Copyright infringement could be a criminal offence if the alleged infringer completes two additional elements. Note: Facts are not original works; Rather, they are recitations of certain truths. However, expressions that contain facts may be protected by copyright depending on the choice and disposition of those facts. Federal law grants a copyright holder the exclusive right to use copyrighted material for a variety of purposes, including the exhibition or performance of the work, the making and distribution of copies of the work, and the creation of derivative works from the original. Using a copyrighted work without the owner`s permission is called copyright infringement. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant infringed its exclusive rights to the copyrighted work. Some situations are relatively easy to prove, such as posting a copyrighted photo, broadcasting a copyrighted video, or performing a copyrighted play without permission.
In situations involving the unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work or the unauthorized creation of a derivative work, it can be much more difficult to determine infringement. A copyright owner may take legal action for an injunction to prohibit any unauthorized use by the defendant of copyrighted materials and to seek damages. A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement in a civil suit must prove two elements by a preponderance of evidence. The Department of Justice can establish a criminal infringement of copyright by proving the same and two other elements, all of which are beyond a reasonable doubt. A person infringes a copyright not only by using information contained in a copyrighted work. In Feist, supra, the Court held that a telephone directory was protected by copyright as a whole, since the telephone company endeavoured to compile the information and present it in a specific format. However, the use of the names and addresses contained in the directory did not constitute copyright infringement. Federal law contains two alternatives to the element of “commercial advantage” that could also give rise to criminal copyright infringement: many courts have abused the phrase “substantial similarity” both “the similarity required to prove the de facto copy [i.e., what the Fifth District calls “conclusive similarity” as well as the similarity required to prove that the copy is legally required [i.e., what the Fifth District Circle calls “substantial similarity”]. Positive Black Talk, 394-368 n. 7. But as the Fifth Circle explained in Bridgmon, “[t]he positive similarity” and “substantial similarity” are analytically different investigations.
Bridgmon, 325 F.3d to 576. The study of convincing similarity. is not the same as the question of essential similarity, which determines whether de facto reproduction, once established, is legally questionable. Positive Black Talk, 394 F.3d at 370; Bridgmon, 325 F.3d at 577 n. . . .