Copyright law of the United States

[3] Under the Copyright Clause, Congress has the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.The goal of copyright law, as set forth in the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution, is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

§ 102): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.For example, a paper describing a political theory is copyrightable.

The Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. clarified the requirements for copyright in compilations.

The Feist case denied copyright protection to a "white pages" phone book (a compilation of telephone numbers, listed alphabetically).

"the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

[12] In 2017, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. to determine when a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature" incorporated into a useful article is eligible for copyright protection,[13] holding that such features are eligible for copyright protection "only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work—either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression—if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.

[15] Applying its new test to the cheerleader uniform designs, the court said: First, one can identify the decorations as features having pictorial, graphic, or sculptural qualities.

[18] This restriction on copyright applies to publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees within the scope of their employment.

[20] Federal, state, and local statutes and court decisions are in the public domain and are ineligible for copyright, a concept known as the government edicts doctrine.

[21]Three key Supreme Court cases established this government edicts doctrine: Wheaton v. Peters (1834), Banks v. Manchester (1888), and Callaghan v. Myers (1888).

Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials.

Special rules apply when multiple authors are involved: Three types of transfers exist for copyrighted works.

[38][39] Title 17, United States Code, Section 107 also places statutory limits on copyright which are commonly referred to as the fair use exception.

For works created before 1978, but not published or registered before 1978, the standard §302 copyright duration of 70 years from the author's death also applies.

Upon the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act (which was January 1, 1978) this requirement was removed and these unpublished, unregistered works received protection.

Before 1972, sound recordings were not subject to federal copyright, but copying was nonetheless regulated under various state torts and statutes, some of which had no duration limit.

[50] As a result, older sound recordings were not subject to the expiration rules that applied to contemporary visual works.

[48] In May 2016, Judge Percy Anderson ruled in a lawsuit between ABS Entertainment and CBS Radio that "remastered" versions of pre-1972 recordings can receive a federal copyright as a distinct work due to the amount of creative effort expressed in the process.

There is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original—if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings—this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.

Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing a "copy" of a protected work that is "substantially similar" to the original version.

The copyright owner, as plaintiff, bears the burden of establishing these three elements of the prima facie case for infringement.

Registration is also useful because it creates a presumption of a valid copyright, it allows the plaintiff to collect enhanced "statutory damages", and to be eligible for an award of attorney fees.

[77] A plaintiff may establish "access" by proof of distribution over a large geographical area, or by eyewitness testimony that the defendant owned a copy of the protected work.

[81] The unprotected elements are subtracted and the fact finder then determines whether substantial similarities exist in the protectible expression which remains.

[87][88] In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that §411(a) requires that a lawsuit cannot be initiated until the Copyright Office has processed, not merely received, the application.

The seizure order may include materials used to produce such copies, such as master tapes, film negatives, printing plates, etc.

There are not criminal sanctions for violating the rights of attribution and integrity held by the author of a work of visual art.

Strictly speaking, the term "public domain" means that the work is not covered by any intellectual property rights at all (copyright, trademark, patent, or otherwise).