Copyright law of the United States
In the United States of America, copyright grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1,, are in the public domain.
United States copyright law was last generally revised by the Copyright Act of 1976, codified in Title 17 of the United States Code. The United States Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to create copyright law under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, known as the Copyright Clause. 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 United States Copyright Office, which is in the Library of Congress, handles copyright registration, recording of copyright transfers, and other administrative aspects of copyright law.
History
United States copyright law traces its lineage back to the British Statute of Anne, which influenced the first U.S. federal copyright law, the Copyright Act of 1790. The length of copyright established by the Founding Fathers was 14 years with an option to renew it once for 14 more. The Copyright Act of 1831 changed the length of the initial term to 28 years.Through the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright duration was extended to the life of the author plus 50 years or 75 years after publication for works made for hire. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 further increased the term length to the life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years after publication for works made for hire.
Purpose of copyright
The goal of copyright law, as set forth in the Copyright Clause of the U.S. 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." This includes incentivizing the creation of art, literature, architecture, music, and other works of authorship. As with many legal doctrines, the effectiveness of copyright law in achieving its stated purpose is a matter of debate.Works subject to copyright law
The United States copyright law protects "original works of authorship" fixed in a tangible medium of expression, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Copyright law includes the following types of works:- Literary
- Musical
- Dramatic
- Pantomimes and choreographic works
- Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
- Audiovisual works
- Sound recordings
- Derivative works
- Compilations
- Architectural works
Idea–expression dichotomy
For example, a paper describing a political theory is copyrightable. The paper is the expression of the author's ideas about the political theory. The theory itself is just an idea, and is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in their own words without infringing on the original author's copyright.
Although fundamental, the idea–expression dichotomy is often difficult to put into practice. Reasonable people can disagree about where the unprotectable "idea" ends and the protectable "expression" begins. As Judge Learned Hand put it, "Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the 'idea,' and has borrowed its 'expression.' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc."
Compilations of facts and the sweat of the brow doctrine
Mere facts are not copyrightable. However, compilations of facts are treated differently and may be copyrightable material. Section 103 of the Copyright Act allows copyright protection for compilations as long as there is some creative or original act involved in developing the compilation, such as in the selection and arrangement. Copyright protection in compilations is limited to the selection and arrangement of facts, not to the facts themselves.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. In making this ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. That is, copyright protection requires creativity, and no amount of hard work can transform a non-creative list into copyrightable subject matter. A mechanical, non-selective collection of facts cannot be protected by copyright.
Useful articles
Copyright protects artistic expression. Copyright does not protect useful articles, or objects with some useful functionality. The Copyright Act states:However, many industrial designers create works that are both artistic and functional. Under these circumstances, copyright law only protects the artistic expression of such a work, and only to the extent that the artistic expression can be separated from its utilitarian function.
In 2017, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. to determine when a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature" incorporated into a useful article is eligible for copyright protection, holding that such features are eligible for copyright protection "only if the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and 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." Star Athletica began as a suit by Varsity Brands against Star Athletica for infringing the copyright of five cheerleader uniform designs. Applying its new test to the cheerleader uniform designs, the court said:
This produces a relatively low threshold for pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features on useful articles to be eligible for copyright protection, which one commentator clearly highlighted: the Star Athletica decision "really has ensured that all but the subtlest graphic designs will be able to gain copyright protection...once we determine that the designs 'hav... graphic... qualities... applied... on a painter's canvas,' the test for copyrightability is met."
Works by the federal government
Works created by the federal government are not copyrightable. This restriction on copyright applies to publications produced by the United States Government, and its agents or employees within the scope of their employment. However, government contractors are generally not considered employees, and their works may be subject to copyright. Additionally, the government can purchase and hold the copyright to works created by third parties.The government may restrict access to works it has produced through other mechanisms. For instance, classified materials may not be protected by copyright but are restricted by other applicable laws. Even in the case of non-classified materials, there may be specific prohibitions against usage, such as the presidential seal, which is restricted for commercial uses.
Federal and state laws are not restricted by copyright
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. It is not difficult to see the motivations behind this:Three key Supreme Court cases established this government edicts doctrine: Wheaton v. Peters, Banks v. Manchester, and Callaghan v. Myers. The doctrine was codified into the United States Code at via the Copyright Act of 1976. The Copyright Office upholds this doctrine within its own regulations:
The Supreme Court has also ruled that annotated versions of statutes or court decisions at the federal, state, and local level, when such annotations are done by members of the government as part of their duties, are ineligible for copyright in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc..