New Online Registration Requirements for Designated Agents Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

The U.S. Copyright Office has developed a new electronic system for registering your designated agent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).  As of December 2016, the U.S. Copyright Office has begun transitioning to an online registration system which allows online service providers to register a designated DMCA agent in a centralized public directory.  Any new registrations must be completed through this online system.  Most importantly, even if a service provider has previously registered its designated DMCA agent with the Copyright Office through the previous paper filing system, the service provider must re-register through the Copyright Office’s new online system before December 31, 2017.

Registering and maintaining a designated agent with the Copyright Office for copyright infringement takedown requests is necessary to obtain safe harbor protection under the DMCA.  Safe harbor protection can help shelter online service providers from potential copyright liability for any third party content posted on or transmitted via their websites.  In order to qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA, any online service provider that has a website or application which allows users to post, share, transmit, or comment on content must designate a Copyright agent.  To designate an agent, an online service provider must not only provide the contact information for the agent to the Copyright Office as part of its online public directory, but also make the contact information for the agent available to the public on the online service provider’s website so that users can notify the service provider of allegedly infringing material.

On the Copyright Office’s online registration system, online service providers must create an account and provide all necessary information regarding the service provider itself, the designated agent, and the associated websites.  Registration costs $6 per online service provider submission.

While the registration forms seem relatively simple, they raise additional issues that need to be considered carefully.  For example, related companies that are separate legal entities (parents, subsidiaries, etc.) and own related but separate websites must register separately.  An online service provider must also provide all alternate names under which the service provider is doing business, such as any of its associated website names and/or domains, software application names, or any other commonly used name that the public would be likely to use to search for the service provider’s designated agent.  In many cases a website owner can submit multiple websites/alternate names in one submission, but it depends on the specific circumstances.  The DMCA must be strictly complied with in order to receive full safe harbor protection, so it is essential that the registration forms are properly and fully completed.

Once the DMCA agent has been designated through the Copyright Office’s online system, online service providers must ensure that all of the registered information remains up to date.  Any failure to maintain accuracy in this information could result in losing the protection of the DMCA safe harbor provisions.  For example, if an online service provider’s designated agent changes, the service provider must make sure that the agent registration information is updated not only with the Copyright Office, but also in all places on the service provider’s website where the designated agent is identified.

Online service providers can amend their registrations at any time for an additional $6 per submission.  Additionally, the Copyright Offices requires online service providers to renew their agent designation at least every 3 years.  To do this, service providers must resubmit their registration before it expires, either with the same information if still accurate or with any updated information.  Renewals are also $6 per submission.  Any amendment filed will begin a new 3-year period before a renewal is due.

All online service providers should carefully review their current DMCA policies and materials and determine whether they may need assistance with drafting online DMCA policies for consumers, establishing and maintaining a designated agent with the Copyright Office, and/or drafting internal policies and procedures on reviewing and addressing DMCA takedown notices.  Online service providers do not want to miss out on compliance with the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions and potentially face copyright infringement liability for user content.  — Rina Van Orden

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: The Copyright Office Examines Whether it Needs Revamping

As most internet users of today know, music, videos, poems, photographs, and various other creative works are often posted on social media and other sites without the permission of the work’s creator.  These postings violate the creator’s exclusive right to distribute his or her own work, one of the central rights protected by copyright law and based on the Constitution.[1]  To address concerns of increasing copyright infringement online, Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”) in 1998.  The DMCA allows copyright owners to submit takedown notices to internet service providers (who provide the platforms for postings, think YouTube, SoundCloud, Twitter, etc., abbreviated in this article to “ISPs”), demanding that access to an infringed work be blocked or the work removed.  In exchange for compliance with the DMCA and the swift removal of infringing materials, ISPs are exempted from liability for copyright infringement.

Although the DMCA may have provided a sufficient[2] remedy for copyright holders in 1998, copyright owners in recent years have complained that the increase in infringing posts resulting from the proliferation of user-upload sites such as eBay, SoundCloud, Vimeo, and others makes the takedown process onerous.  For example, since 2012 the music recording industry has sent takedown notices for over 17 million infringements.[3]  Google receives on average over 75 million URL takedown requests per month, and must use computer programs to sift through them all.[4] In response to the uproar from copyright holders, Congress has requested the Copyright Office conduct a study to determine the effectiveness of the DMCA.[5]  The study is currently ongoing, with the Copyright Office receiving more than 92,000 submissions in its first round of comments.[6]

In reviewing comments submitted during the first round, battle lines have clearly been drawn between the creators of works and ISPs.  In support of its position that the DMCA sufficiently protects the various parties’ interests, in its comment Amazon focused on the economic growth driven by the DMCA’s safe harbor provision, noting that, because of the safe harbor, ISPs have not been required to conduct the “difficult” task of policing posted content, a policy that has been “crucial to the growth of the Internet.”[7]  Amazon further asserted that the DMCA strikes “the right balance” between providing rights holders with the ability to remove infringing content while allowing ISPs the ability to “innovate and host ever-increasing amounts and types of content without fear of massive liability based on the activities of their users.”[8]  Other ISPs argue that, in fact, the takedown system is being abused, with a “guilty until proven innocent” approach often leading to misuse and overreach.[9]  One Google-backed study, conducted by the Berkeley School of Law, found that almost 30 percent of takedown requests received in a six month period had validity issues.[10]

Creators of copyrighted works, however, assert that the take down provisions are not an adequate deterrent to infringement, [11] particularly when a majority of takedown notices are for infringing uses previously the target of a notice.[12]  To counteract the cycle of takedown-repost-takedown, many creators are arguing for a “takedown, stay down” provision, which would allow copyright holders to submit a takedown notice for a work once with the expectation that the work never appear again on the same platform.[13]  Indeed, in support of its position that the DMCA needs strengthening, the Artists Rights Society argues that the current takedown provisions, contrary to Congressional intent, favor ISPs, who profit from infringing posts through listing fees, advertising, and/or increased traffic.[14]  To restore balance, the Artists Rights Society recommends that online service providers be required to pay a percentage of the quantifiable revenues received from an infringing third-party user to the copyright owner.[15]  The Artists Rights Society does not elaborate on how these fees would be collected and dispersed.

Taking a slightly different course from both their fellow creators and the ISPs, the American Photographic Artists (“APA”) propose turning the tables on the oft-anonymous infringers who are benefitting from, according to the APA, a “de facto immunity” under the DMCA.  This de facto immunity is the product of the high cost of pursing a copyright infringement claim and the potentially low damages return (particularly for unregistered works),[16] making the pursuit of infringers essentially pointless.  Although it does not appear from its comment that the APA is advocating for one particular measure to shift the risk of infringement, one possibility the APA discusses is requiring an infringer to reimburse the copyright holder’s costs spent on a takedown.[17]

As the Copyright Office weighs these competing interests, it will also need to keep in mind how evolving technology may continue to impact takedown proceedings.  We will keep you updated on developments as the Copyright Office prepares its report. — Stephanie Martinez

 

[1] 17 U.S.C. § 106; U.S. Const. art. I § 8 cl. 8.

[2] Many would argue the DMCA never worked well and was instead poorly thought out and poorly executed.  See Chris Mills, These Three Dumb Examples Prove that Copyright Is Broken, BGR (May 24, 2016), http://bgr.com/2016/05/24/dmca-abuse-copyright-issues/.

[3] Randolph J. May & Seth L. Cooper, Copyright ‘Notice and Takedown’ System Needs Fixing (May 9, 2016) http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/279179-copyright-notice-and-takedown-system-needs-fixing.

[4] Google, Transparency Report, https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/.  Requests sent to Google are to remove links from Google’s search results due to infringing content on the website, not to remove the allegedly infringing content from the site itself.

[5] See United States Copyright Office, Section 512 Study, http://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/.

[6] See United States Copryight Office, Requests for Public Comments: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor Provisions, https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;so=ASC;sb=title;po=0;dct=PS;D=COLC-2015-0013;refD=COLC-2015-0013-0002.

[7] Amazon.com, Inc., Section 512 Study: Notice Docket No. USCO-2015-7 and Request for Public Comment, p. 3.

[8] Id.

[9] Caroline Craig, DMCA ‘Reform’ Harbors Return of SOPA, InfoWorld (May 20, 2016), http://www.infoworld.com/article/3072456/internet/dmca-reform-bill-harbors-return-of-sopa.html.

[10] Id.; Jennifer M. Urban, Joe Karaganis, & Brianna L. Shofield, Notice and Takedown In Everyday Practice, 11 (2016), available at http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=847004104083015079003097000087118126055092036006058054127082102102096125010084120011039049035031006028001088081018024096080127018007025078012087102086098102098094112018040048025114126122121121117028006069023030065090123077101074065106086070087025106064&EXT=pdf.

[11] See American Photographic Artists, Inc., Initial Response to Notice of Inquiry 78 F.R. 13094 (Docket No 2015-7) Section 512 Study: Notice and Request For Public Comment, p. 2.

[12] In fact, the Federation of the Phonographic Industry has reported that 94% of its takedown notices are for “recordings uploaded repeatedly” to sites already notified of the infringing posting.  Randolph J. May & Seth L. Cooper, Copyright ‘Notice and Takedown’ System Needs Fixing, The Hill (May 9, 2016), http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/279179-copyright-notice-and-takedown-system-needs-fixing.

[13] TorrentFreak, Ten Websites Hit With 70M DMCA Complaints In A Year, TorrentFreak (May 29, 2016), https://torrentfreak.com/ten-websites-hit-with-70m-dmca-complaints-in-a-year-160529/.

[14] See Artists Rights Society, Comments of Artists Rights Society, p. 2.

[15] Id.

[16] See American Photographic Artists, Inc., Initial Response to Notice of Inquiry 78 F.R. 13094 (Docket No 2015-7) Section 512 Study: Notice and Request For Public Comment, p. 3.

[17] Id.

Cheerleading Uniforms Vault Copyright’s Useful Article Quandary to the High Court

Are cheerleading uniform designs eligible for federal copyright protection? Last week, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., promising an answer to that question. At issue is whether combinations of stripes, chevrons, and color blocks that appear on cheerleading uniforms are protected by federal copyright law.[1]

The Copyright Act offers limited protection to “useful articles” such as furniture or clothing — items that have intrinsic functionality. Although the Copyright Act protects pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, a design incorporated into a useful article is only eligible for copyright protection if it is conceptually separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article. Under this “doctrine of separability,” if a chair has design elements that can be peeled away from the underlying purpose of the chair and can exist and be perceived independently of the chair’s underlying purpose, those design elements might be eligible for federal copyright protection. If this doctrine seems unclear, you are not alone in your assessment.

Determining whether a feature of a useful article can be conceptually separated from that article and protected under copyright law is a puzzle that some have called a “metaphysical quandary”[2] and “the most vexing, unresolved question in copyright law.”[3] Over ten different tests, some academic, some judicial, have been formulated and adopted by courts struggling to apply the doctrine of separability. The result is an incoherent patchwork scheme of copyright protection where the protectability of features of useful articles under the Copyright Act can turn entirely on which Circuit adjudicates a copyright case.

The Supreme Court’s opportunity to provide a uniform test for separability analysis arrives via a dispute that, fittingly, involves uniforms. Varsity Brands, the world’s largest cheerleading uniform manufacturer and distributor, sued industry newcomer Star Athletica for copyright infringement after Star Athletica published a catalogue of cheerleading uniforms that Varsity alleged too closely mirrored Varsity’s copyright-registered designs. Varsity owns a number of copyright registrations for the designs that appear on the cheerleading uniforms it manufactures and distributes: combinations of stripes, chevrons, and color blocks.

At the district court level, the court held that Varsity’s designs were not copyrightable because the utilitarian function of a cheerleading uniform and the designs themselves are not conceptually separable. Interestingly, according to the district court, stripes, chevrons, and color blocks are functional aspects of a cheerleading uniform, and a cheerleading uniform without these elements is not a cheerleading uniform.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reached an opposite conclusion, holding that Varsity’s designs were protected by copyright because the utilitarian function of a cheerleading uniform and the designs themselves are conceptually separable. In the Sixth Circuit’s view, stripes, chevrons, and color blocks serve no utilitarian function, do not impact a cheerleading uniform’s ability to function as an item of clothing, and are merely decorative as applied to cheerleading uniforms.

In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court has taken on the challenge of sorting through this “metaphysical quandary” to provide a uniform test for determining when a feature of a useful article is protectable under the Copyright Act. Any guidance the Court provides on useful articles and whether the stripes on a cheerleading uniform and the uniform itself are conceptually separable from one another is likely to have a significant impact both upon established industries such as fashion and upon fledgling industries such as 3D printing. The Court is expected to hear arguments in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. in the Fall 2016 Term. — Mary Witzel

 

[1] The Petition for Writ of Certiorari also raised the question of the appropriate level of deference courts should provide to determinations made by the Copyright Office. The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari on this question.

[2] Universal Furniture Int’l v. Collezione Europa, Inc., 618 F.3d 417, 434 (4th Cir. 2010).

[3] Star Athletica, LLC. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, 2016 WL 94219 (Filed Jan. 5, 2016) (Pet. Writ of Cert).

Hot Off the 3D Printer: Infringing Printables Create New Challenges for Copyright Holders

Reproduction and dissemination of written works and 2D visual art like photos, drawings, and videos has become as easy as typing a few words into Google, finding your desire, and clicking “download.” The distribution can be nearly instantaneous. Copyright law has attempted to adapt to protect these works, and constructs such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) give structure to the legal framework of the Internet.

Now, imagine if reproduction and dissemination of 3D products were that simple. For instance, you find an item you like on Amazon or eBay, click “print,” and have it appear next to you almost immediately. Such capabilities have always appeared to be a technology of the distant future — imagined in The Jetsons and Star Trek. Only in a space fantasy could Captain Jean-Luc Picard turn to a replicator device and say “Tea, Earl Gray, Hot” for a steaming mug of tea to instantly appear.

Surprisingly, this technology is here today. And it’s extremely accessible. 3D printing has rapidly evolved from a technology primarily used in industrial and medical settings to something available for home and personal use. Using digital modeling software, a user can design a product as simple as a cube or as complex as a fully-functional monkey wrench, click “print,” and have the product printed in minutes. 3D printing has evolved not just in the line of personal use, but also into other fields previously unimagined. In fact, architects can now design a home for a prospective homeowner, click “print,” and have that home printed within a few hours.[1]

3D printing capabilities raise endless questions for intellectual property attorneys.  First it may be helpful to understand why intellectual property protection is necessary in the first place. Intellectual property law serves to promote and protect innovation and creativity. Creators often make a substantial investment in the creation of their work and incur a much higher cost for creating the work than a second-comer who merely makes copies would. Without intellectual property protection, others could copy a work for a much lower (or even no) cost. For example, think of the long hours an author spends writing a novel. If anyone could then print a free copy of that novel without paying for it, the author would not have a chance to recoup her investment and may not be willing to invest further time and effort into creating more works. Knowing that your laborious creative endeavor could be freely appropriated by anyone else that comes along would leave little motivation for creators to continue creating. Thus, in order to incentivize creators, the law protects their right to develop their work for commercial gain and prevent copiers from doing so. In this way, creators are rewarded for the high costs of their creativity, and are able to fully harness their creations.

Unfortunately, copyright law has not yet caught up with the advances in 3D printing, leaving little specific guidance for tackling this new frontier. For the time being, intellectual property attorneys must apply older copyright cases and statutes that imperfectly fit the 3D printing world. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1984 Sony v. Betamax case that although a VCR was capable of copying movies and television shows, the VCR was also capable of “substantial non-infringing purposes,” thus allowing VCR recording capabilities to remain in the hands of the masses. This result differs greatly from the case of Napster, the infamous peer-to-peer file sharing program that was initially shut down because the intended usage was found to be primarily for infringing purposes. The 3D printer likely falls squarely between these cases — when browsing leading 3D printing communities Thingiverse and Shapeways, a user finds as many Stormtroopers[2] and Iron Thrones[3] as original designs for items like cat battlearmor.[4]

The current framework of the DMCA creates difficulties for copyright owners of 3D works trying to have infringing copies taken down. Under the DMCA, Shapeways and Thingiverse may fall under a safe harbor provision that avoids infringement liability so long as they have a takedown policy and do not actively promote the infringement. The burden of enforcing rights falls on the copyright holder, who must search each site for copyrighted works and file takedown requests for each one or go after each individual infringer who uploads infringing content to the sites. The DMCA takedown policy is similarly employed on sites like YouTube, where infringing works are frequently uploaded.

However, unlike in the world of YouTube and digital music, the content on Shapeways and Thingiverse can allow for the creation of goods that affect and reduce a creator’s ability to fully exploit the fruits of their creative work. 3D printing allows users to create content and goods in the realm of the creator’s work that can completely replace a similar work of the creator. In the digital music world, if someone were to attempt to create a song in the style of Green Day, using similar sound and composition, or even identical lyrics, it would likely not be identified as Green Day music but rather as an imitation. By contrast, 3D printers are able to exploit a specific brand for commercial gain and cut into the monetization of the creator. For example, in the vast intellectual property pool behind Disney’s Frozen, a 3D printer could create a unique toy depicting a character from the movie and market it as a Frozen toy, competing with Disney’s other goods.

Recognizing the difficulty of copyright enforcement using the DMCA takedown notice, Hasbro teamed up with Shapeways in 2014 to create a different business model. Instead of going after infringers, Hasbro and Shapeways allow users with 3D printers to use certain Hasbro copyrights for a small fee in making figurines and fan art. This unique model has allowed Hasbro, Shapeways, and Shapeways users to profit from the creation and sale of these works, while reducing or removing the need for Hasbro to pursue copyright infringers. Essentially, Hasbro has made the potential infringer a part of the production team and is able to profit from its copyrights without production costs. Until copyright law catches up with 3D printing technology, partnerships such as that between Hasbro and Shapeways may be the way of choice for copyright holders to police their copyrights in the 3D printing world.

3D printing doesn’t just pose new questions for copyright law, but also for trade secret law. 3D printing is utilized by many manufacturing companies to create prototypes and mock-ups for proofs of concept and pitches. Often, these prototypes and mockups constitute a trade secret. However, researchers at the University of California, Irvine (“UCI”), have discovered a way to recreate a 3D-printed model based on the sounds the 3D printer makes when printing. The sounds of a 3D printer nozzle can be recorded and mapped based on their directional movements to and from the recording source. UCI researchers were able to recreate the 3D model by reverse engineering the sounds made during printing, thus putting carefully guarded trade secrets at risk of being revealed.[5]

Advances in technology (such as the VCR and Napster) have brought forth the most dramatic changes in copyright law and policy. But by the time laws regulating 3D printing come to pass, it is likely that new technology will be available to work around such laws, as was the case when the fall of Napster gave rise to new methods of illegal downloads such as bittorrent.  The question is whether the technology is driving the need for new regulation, or whether new regulation drives innovations in technology in order to work around the new laws. In the meantime, companies need to remain vigilant in their enforcement and innovative in their policies by working with intellectual property experts to protect their rights. — Noah Downs & Rina Van Orden

 

[1] See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/02/05/yes-that-3d-printed-mansion-is-safe-to-live-in/.

[2] Stormtroopers are from the Star Wars universe and part of the extensive intellectual property holdings belonging to Disney.

[3] The design of the Iron Throne, made famous by the popular television show Game of Thrones, is owned by HBO.

[4] Cat battlearmor can be found at www.thingiverse.com/thing:1095858, and has over 9,000 downloads as of this article’s publication.

[5] See https://news.uci.edu/research/bad-vibrations-uci-researchers-find-security-breach-in-3-d-printing-process/.

What Can You Protect with Copyright?

On first thought, copyright protection may seem fairly easy to understand. Put simply, creative works can receive protection from being copied. But copyright law has many nuances that are important to consider when seeking federal copyright protection. The first of these is determining whether and what aspects of a work can be protected.

Copyright protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”[1] Fixation means that it is somehow captured in a way that can be perceived by others. For example, if you make up a song and sing it in your shower, you have not fixed the work in a tangible medium. However, if you write down the lyrics or notes to the song, or record yourself singing it, you have met the fixation requirement. The originality requirement demands both independent creation by the author and at least some minimal degree of creativity.  Independent creation is fairly self-explanatory — you must have created the work. As for creativity, the more creative the work is, the stronger your claim to copyright protection will be. But a very low level of creativity in a work is all that is required for copyright protection — you do not have to be a master of high art to receive protection.

One of the first things we typically tell clients interested in copyright protection is that ideas cannot be protected — only your individual expression of those ideas can be protected. The Copyright Act makes it clear that ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries cannot receive copyright protection, “regardless of the form in which [they are] described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”[2] The doctrine of the idea/expression dichotomy provides that ideas must be separated out from expression, and the expression is the only protectable part of the work.

Though the line between ideas and expression can at times be murky in works with a lower level of creativity, many instances regarding creative content are evident. For example, copyright would not protect the idea for a story about an innocent man who is sent to prison and later escapes. However, copyright does protect the specific expression of that story idea as Stephen King wrote it in the short story “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” and as it was later depicted in the acclaimed film The Shawshank Redemption. This extends to facts as well. While the compilation of information that comprises the non-fiction book The Devil in the White City receives protection as a literary work, the fascinating individual facts that author Erik Larson uncovered about the 1893 World’s Fair in Chicago and serial killer H.H. Holmes do not, by themselves, receive copyright protection. This keeps any one person from owning ideas and facts so that knowledge can spread and such ideas and facts can form the basis for other original works.

The Copyright Act defines numerous examples of original works of authorship, including literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. Though this list specifically details the categories of registrable works, this is not a complete list of works that can receive copyright protection.

Notably, while the Copyright Act does not specifically refer to works associated with computers and the Internet, a number of computerized creations constitute original works. For example, copyright protects the computer code written for software for a video game like Pac-Man as well as the creative visual aspects of the video game displayed on screen during game play. Copyright also protects works in digital form, such as digital photographs, YouTube videos, and songs in mp3 format.

Additionally, the types of works described above can be combined in various ways to create copyrightable works. Take websites for example. A website typically contains a variety of elements such as articles and other written content, photographs, or videos, and the webpage design itself, not to mention underlying coding and software. While each piece may be eligible to receive federal copyright protection individually, certain circumstances will allow for multiple pieces to receive combined protection or for registration of the website as a whole. Developing the right strategy for protection of works individually or combined together will depend on a variety of factors, including authorship, potential damages, and budgetary considerations.

So what kind of works remain uncopyrightable? A range of works have been deemed uncopyrightable, typically because of their primarily factual nature or because of the limited ways to express them. When an idea and its expression are inseparable, one person cannot claim an exclusive copyright in the expression of that idea (often called the “Merger Doctrine”). For example, calendars themselves are not copyrightable because the calendar year can only be expressed in limited ways that are useful. However, the photographs used for a calendar can be protected. Other works found to have little to no protectability include phone books (comprised of facts and utility requires them to be alphabetized in some fashion), sweepstakes agreements (similar rules can only be stated in a few ways), and recipes (the identification of required ingredients is both a statement of facts and a functional process/procedure).

Sometimes simply tweaking a work may make it protectable.  For example, you may be able to increase protection for a recipe by incorporating original images of the final dish, writing text to introduce it, and/or including it within a larger work.  Additionally, any works deemed uncopyrightable may be able to gain protection through other channels like trademark or trade dress. While you are in the process of creating copyrightable material that you hope to monetize, it is worthwhile to consult an intellectual property attorney to develop strategies to increase your work’s protectability from the start.  Sorting through these often complex issues early on in the process can secure your rights in your work and ensure viable remedies if someone else infringes on your copyrighted material. — Rina Van Orden


[1] 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).

[2] 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).