Introduction

The following paper provides an introduction to copyrights and the legal associations to the constitutional provisions. The article explains, in general terms, the principles of copyrights in detail delineating on the constitutional requirements and the institutions that allow copyright owners to be remunerated for the use of their work.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property rights are a full body of law that refers to any creations and innovations made by man. As such, copyrights law are intellectual property rights that are creations made by man.[1] The purpose of copyrights law is to protect innovators as well as creators alike by giving them due diligence to their original works. Under the Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization of 1967, the intellectual properties are profound but not well documented. It is upon each country to decide universally on what are the copyrights provided for creators and innovators. Therefore, states have intellectual property rights to offer legal expression to the privileges of creative individuals in their works as well as their innovations.[2] Besides, the rights are necessary as a means to creativity and influence innovation contributing to the economy as well as social development. Copyright laws entail literary and artistic creations including writing, music, paintings, and sculptures. Other creative categories include movies and technological advancements such as programming codes and computer databases.

Copyrights protection is constituted in sound formats where the legal protection is for the artists. Primarily, it provides monopoly rights to the owner of the invention and creation. The security is limited and can last up to twenty years. Nonetheless, the provisions under the law state the copyrights ought to be known by the public. The process issues that an inventor or creator should make it public through official notification which should be specific and adequately describes the invention of the property owner.[3] There are provisions, as well, in the Federal Copyrights Act which ensure that creators of the inventions are safeguarded from any exploitation. These laws are provided within the infringement clause.

Infringement Clause

The infringement clause is a legal provision in the United States of America under Federal Law that protects copyrights owners. Copyright infringement is defined as the act of violating any copyright that is exclusive to them as granted under the Federal Act. Three elements occur for a violation to be regarded as an infringement of the law. These include the occasions where the copyright holder must have legal and valid copyright licences issued by the institution constituted to issue permits. Moreover, the individuals claiming to infringe the copyright allegedly must have access to the copyrighted work. Finally, the individual must have possession of copyrighted work outside the exclusive rights under the Copyrights Act. In a case scenario where the copyright violations are noted, then an in-depth analysis of the type of infringement conducted is analysed.

According to the Infringement of Copyright Chapter 5 (501), the issues regarding any violations from Copyrights Law is mandated to seek court injunction ensuring that their work is no longer used for profitable gain without their knowledge. Infringement Copyright Section 5 Cap. 501 elaborates on the private rights of the proprietor as stipulated in Section 106 to sections 122 under the Copyrights Act.[4] The law stipulates that any individual awarded the certificate for Copyrights possesses exclusive rights and shall be regarded as the legal owner. Therefore, the statutory provisions under the Infringement Laws stipulate that legal and beneficial owners are entitled to the rights accorded to them as long as they are the owner (Section 501). According to the Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp (562 U.S. 40) case 2010,[5]The preciding judge ruled that the Copyrights Act of 1976 is the legally mandated and constitutionally accredited law that enforces infringement of copyrights violations. However, some cases have challenged the approach including the Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd (545 U.S. 913) 2005.[6] The judge, nonetheless, ruled that the Infringement Law does affect as long as the actions done against the copyright violations are true.

The Remedies to any infringement are provided within the Copyrights Act (1976). Section 502 extrapolates on the injunctions a court can undertake arising from matters concerning copyrights infringement. The orders on Section 502 provide a wide berth to the civil action lawsuits where any court can issue temporarily grand orders to stop the use of any invention until the case has been cleared. The law indicates that any order pursued by the courts shall be valid across the United States of America. To ensure that the statute is enforced, the clerk is required to send copies to all state courts around the country.

The injunctions may also require the courts to sanction all the copyrights to be submitted. Under Section 503 of the Copyrights Act, the court may impound all copyrights. They include models and materials of the inventions as well as the violated physical evidence of the used copyrights. The impound procedure falls under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65. Additional impounding regulations are often borrowed from the Trademark Act of section 32.[7] The law stipulates that any titles and references based on counterfeits shall be seized by the courts. The parties involved shall not use the copyright material until the courts rule otherwise. The case, Dastar Corp v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp (539 U.S. 23) 2003 is an example. The judge in the case ruled that any copyright material under the Trademark law stipulates the need to impound evidence and content during the court case process.

The remuneration in profits and damages is stipulated in Section 504 of the Copyrights Infringement Law.[8] The process to remuneration is lengthy and can involve a series of Copyright injunctions and impound of material. In general, Section 505 indicates that calculation of actual damages to the copyright’s owner shall be done. The legislation is based on two aspects: statutory damages and actual damages and profits. Based on actual costs, the real copyright owner is allowed to account for the benefits and any losses they incurred. Section 504 stipulates in (a) that actual indemnities and revenues of the guilty party are provided within the law. Section 504 dictates that the copyright holder is authorised to reclaim the damages suffered as a result of the infringement. The injuries also include the profits that are attributable to the offence. Moreover, aspects of statutory damages dictate that the copyright owner can decide to take or recover actual damages before any judgment.

Statutory damages involve the action concerning the work from which the infringer is liable. In such a case, the United States of America’s Copyrights Law states that a sum of not less than $ 750 and no more than $ 30, 000 should be given if the courts agree.[9] As for law cases where the court defines that the infringer infringed wilfully then, Section 5 of Infringement Copyrights Act dictate that a sum of $ 150, 000 shall be presented as statutory damages.[10] However, for cases where the infringer can indicate and provide evidence that they did not know the crime, then the copyright owner should be paid no more than $ 200.[11]

As for additional remuneration of the infringement of rights, then the copyright owner will have to address the case at the law courts. Other claims can include activities that exempted in Section 110(5) where the defendant can prove that they did not have any reasonable need to infringe the law on copyrights. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to damages, which will infer double the price of the licencing fees that the owner of the business in question should have for use during the preceding period of three years.

Institutions that Protect Copyright Owners

The international organisation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the largest institutions that protect copyrights owners. WIPO is a foreign intellectual property service which provides policies, information, and cooperation about copyrights issues. So far, the organisation has close to 191 member states with the United States of America being among the members. The mission of the organisation is to provide a balance as well as an effective global intellectual property framework that fosters invention as well as creativity for all copyright owners. Membership to the organisation is open to any member of the Paris Union (which is the Protection of Industrial Property or Berne Union), a member of the United Nations and a State which is invited to the WIPO general assembly.[12]

WIPO is an organisation that ensures copyright aspects for owners are guaranteed across all member states.[13] The policy dictates that any invention or creation by a copyright owner is protected under the WIPO policy as long as the country of origin is a member state of WIPO. According to the Berne Convention, the provisions on the enforcement of rights entails infringing copies of work be liable to seizure in any country which enjoy Berne Union protection.[14] The policies state that contracting parties should avail the enforcement procedures in accordance with the legislation to provide for adequate action against breach of any rights covered under the Treaty.

The United States Copyrights Office

Another credible institution in America is the U.S. Copyrights Office. The office was set up in the 1900s with the primary aim of protecting the rights of copyright’s owners. Under the constitution, the Congress enacted laws in 1790 where the Copyrights office to ensure that any invention and creation was protected under the law. Some of the functions of the copyright’s office include administering over the copyrights law and creating as well as maintaining a public record through registrations of claims. The purpose of the latter is to ensure that any court cases provided under Copyright Law. The office archives all the files of any copyrights issued. Another function is the provision of information services to the public. The office provides any information regarding copyrights including inventions and creations. The office supports the Library of Congress by obtaining and availing the deposits for the library collections. All copyrights documents have to be stored in a central area, which is based on deposit regulations. The partnership ensures the registration of records, films, photographs, sound recording, computer programs, and more than 142 million books are stored within the copyright’s library.

Moreover, the copyright office consults with domestic and international copyrights communities.[15] The office coordinates with copyrights owners, industries and library representatives including bar associations. They also include other interested parties including those associated with copyrights laws such as WIPO. The aspect of U.S. copyrights office ensures that improved copyright protection is done through the International Copyright Institute.[16] The institute ensures that property laws and other forms of copyrights aspects are protected under international relations.

The International Copyright Institute is a worldwide system that addresses developing topics in the field of copyrights and rights for emerging countries. Emerging nations include Ecuador, Afghanistan, Brazil, Kenya, Cambodia, and Lebanon among others. The aspect of the International Copyright Institute ensures that officials are well trained on the elements of copyrights law. The officials enforce the policy under WIPO to ensure that member states protect their citizens against any infringements.

The Agreement on Trade-Relates Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS Agreement) contains the provision where copyrights factors that are violated are integrated.[17] They include provisional measures which are orders of the courts that are issues in civil proceedings before final determination of the copyright’s privileges. The general idea of the litigation is to protect the irreparable damage to the plaintiff before the rights of the parties involved which are determined by the intervention of the courts of the country of origin. Thus, in ordinary cases, the copyright holder may prevent any infringement, but the procedure can only be executed through the law courts.

Another measure is the final remedies, which is a civil proceeding that seeks to restore the affected the right of the copyright’s holder.[18] The court, in any case, may decide to award damages against the infringed party. The central aspect under the court injunction is the need to compensate the right holder for economic as well as moral injury. In other situations, the court may decide to issue an order based on the defendant’s inability to carry out facts about infringing the copyrights violation.

Conclusion

The present paper has presented an in-depth analysis of the legal provisions and institutions that allow copyrights owners to be rewarded. The infringement clause found in the Copyrights Act states explicitly because a copyrights holder should be compensated. The paper has presented extensively on the grounds with proper documentation of the law cases that are parallel to the compensation rights. Additionally, the paper has presented institutions that are concerned with the protection of copyrights holders. These include WIPO and U.S. Copyrights office. The article has also presented aspects of how policies and international laws safeguard copyrights holders on any infringements on a global platform.

Bibliography

Boyle, James. “A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property.” Duke Law & Technology Review 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-13.

Goold, Patrick R. “Unbundling the Tort of Copyright Infringement.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1833.

Hook, Sara Anne. “Copyright Law.” (2016).

Joyce, Craig, Tyler T. Ochoa, Michael W. Carroll, Marshall A. Leaffer, and Peter Jaszi. Copyright law. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2016.

Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd (545 U.S. 913) 2005.

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp (562 U.S. 40) case 2010

Varian, Hal R. “Copying and copyright.” Journal of economic perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 121-138.

[1] Joyce, Craig, Tyler T. Ochoa, Michael W. Carroll, Marshall A. Leaffer, and Peter Jaszi. Copyright law. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2016.

[2] Ibid

[3] Joyce, Craig, Tyler T. Ochoa, Michael W. Carroll, Marshall A. Leaffer, and Peter Jaszi. Copyright law. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2016.

[4] Hook, Sara Anne. “Copyright Law.” (2016).

[5] Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp (562 U.S. 40) case 2010

[6] Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. v Grokster Ltd (545 U.S. 913) 2005.

[7] Hook, Sara Anne. “Copyright Law.” (2016).

[8] Varian, Hal R. “Copying and copyright.” Journal of economic perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 121-138.

[9] Varian, Hal R. “Copying and copyright.” Journal of economic perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 121-138.

[10] Hook, Sara Anne. “Copyright Law.” (2016).

[11] Goold, Patrick R. “Unbundling the Tort of Copyright Infringement.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1833.

[12] Goold, Patrick R. “Unbundling the Tort of Copyright Infringement.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1833.

[13] Boyle, James. “A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property.” Duke Law & Technology Review 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-13.

[14] Goold, Patrick R. “Unbundling the Tort of Copyright Infringement.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1833.

[15] Varian, Hal R. “Copying and copyright.” Journal of economic perspectives 19, no. 2 (2005): 121-138.

[16] Goold, Patrick R. “Unbundling the Tort of Copyright Infringement.” Va. L. Rev. 102 (2016): 1833.

[17] Boyle, James. “A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property.” Duke Law & Technology Review 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-13.

[18] Boyle, James. “A Manifesto on WIPO and the Future of Intellectual Property.” Duke Law & Technology Review 3, no. 1 (2004): 1-13.