Page 192 - JLA-03
P. 192

¥ÿ≈æ“À



              authorshipé) has been debated in copyright circles for some time. Here, the

              Court looked at a summary of the law that had been prepared in a Circular
              distributed by the Copyright Office, which listed certain criteria that could be

              applied in determining whether a re-recorded work had sufficient creativity to

              merit a copyright. The Court also looked at specific evidence offered by
              recording engineers that showed how they used independent creative

              judgment in deciding to enhance certain elements of the recording in the

              digital version and to suppress others. The testimony showed that the digital

              version was the result of more than simply hooking the analog source material

              to a digital recorder and distributing the result. Human intervention in deciding
              how to materially change the original work to produce a new digital work was

              found by the Court - deciding that this was a classic version of a derivative

              work, authorized by the Copyright holders themselves when they
              commissioned the digital versions of the recordings. Thus, these works were

              entitled to their own copyright - a copyright that arose when the work was

              created after 1972.

                      However, in August, 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Second

              Circuit decided to defer its consideration of an appeal of a District Courtûs

              decision that New York law included a public performance right for pre-1972

              sound recordings. The Court deferred its decision until it can get a definitive
              answer as to whether or not such a right exists under New York state law.

              To get that definitive answer, the Court of Appeals referred the question to

              the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York State)
              asking it to issue an opinion as to whether the right exists. Reading the order

              referring the case to the New York state court, there are a number of

              interesting issues addressed, including a discussion that could help decide the

              ramifications for over-the-air broadcasters who play these recordings. What



              182                                                             ‡≈à¡∑’Ë Û  ªï∑’Ë ˆˆ
   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197