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