Dimension Films et al did not fare so well in appellate court- the decision reached in the district court was reversed and appellate Judge Ralph B. Guy held that Bridgeport's copyright was infringed. The court's basic argument was that with a sound recording, the owner of the copyright of that recording possesses sole right to duplicate the work and no third parties could do so without acquiring permission. Guy, in his opinion, bluntly stated:
"Get a license or do not sample"
The court struck down the district judge's decision by proving that all three elements of a prima facie copyright infringement had been met. First, the valid ownership of the copyright was established, as Bridgeport Music clearly owned the copyright for Funkadelic's music. Second, the actual copying of Funkadelic's tune was assumed because the sampling was not disputed- rather Dimension never denied that sampling occurred, as they had citied a de minimis defense. The final element of a prima facie copyright infringement, proof of improper appropriation, which is usually measured by considering the similarity with the original work or by a de minimis requirement (was enough sampled that the original could be recognized by the sample), was not required due to the statutory effect of 17 U.S.C section 114(b).
"17 U.S.C. section 114(b) The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (1) of section 106 is limited to the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording. The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118(g)): Provided,That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public."
In other words, under 17 U.S.C. section 114(b), if the copyright holder can prove that any portion of the protected sound recording was sampled, the fact that the new song is very different from the original or that the amount of the original song that was sampled, no matter how insignificant, become irrelevant.
This decision is very significant for two reasons. First, the de minimis doctrine, when applied to the sampling of copyrighted music, is rendered irrelevant and can no longer be used as an adequate defense. Second, the court established a 'bright-line test' for any future cases involving the sampling of copyrighted music, saying that any unliscenced sampling, not matter how minute, would be considered a copyright infringement. In law, a bright-line test is a clearly defined rule that is made up of objective factors, and leaves little room for interpretation.
The overall legal signficance of the appellate court's reversal in the Bridgeport Music, Inc. V. Dimension Films case is that it essentially redefined copyright law for recorded music, at least in regards to sampling, in the United States.
Sources:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000114----000-.html
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_bridgeportmusicstillnthewaterpublishing.html
http://law.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/site.pl?2130&pageID=1984
http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/volumes/v81/no1/22_Mueller.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment