FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text] Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable? Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium. Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV. The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable. Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however. [back to notice text] Question: What is copyright infringement? Are there any defenses? Answer: Infringement occurs whenever someone who is not the copyright holder (or a licensee of the copyright holder) exercises one of the exclusive rights listed above. The most common defense to an infringement claim is "fair use," a doctrine that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations, such as quotations in a book review. To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors: the purpose and character of the use the nature of the copyrighted work the amount and substantiality of copying, and the market effect. (17 U.S.C. 107) The most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth, effect on the market. If a copier's use supplants demand for the original work, then it will be very difficult for him or her to claim fair use. On the other hand, if the use does not compete with the original, for example because it is a parody, criticism, or news report, it is more likely to be permitted as "fair use." Trademarks are generally subject to fair use in two situations: First, advertisers and other speakers are allowed to use a competitor's trademark when referring to that competitor's product ("nominative use"). Second, the law protects "fair comment," for instance, in parody. [back to notice text] Question: Where can I find the text of the U.S. Copyright Act? Answer: The federal Copyright Act may be found at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/. [back to notice text] Question: What is a hyperlink? Answer: Unless you typed the URL directly into your web browser, you probably followed a hyperlink to get to this page. A hyperlink is a location reference that the web browser interprets, often by underlining the text in blue, to "link" to another information resource when clicked. In HTML (HyperText Markup Language, the code used to write web pages), a hyperlink looks like this: link [back to notice text] Question: If a hyperlink is just a location pointer, how can it be illegal? Answer: It probably isn't, however, a few courts have now held that a hyperlink violates the law if it points to illegal material with the purpose of disseminating that illegal material: In the DeCSS case, Universal v. Reimerdes, the court barred 2600 Magazine from posting hyperlinks to DeCSS code because it found the magazine had linked for the purpose of disseminating a circumvention device. (See Anticircumvention (DMCA).) The court ruled that it could regulate the link because of its "function," even if the link was also speech. In another case, Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, a Utah court found that linking to unauthorized copies of a text might be a contributory infringement of the work's copyright. (The defendant in that case had previously posted unauthorized copies on its own site, then replaced the copies with hyperlinks to other sites.) By contrast, the court in Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com found that links were not infringements of copyright. Like anything else on a website, a hyperlink could also be problematic if it misrepresents something about the website. For example, if the link and surrounding text falsely stated that a website is affiliated with another site or sponsored by the linked company, it might be false advertising or defamation. Finally, post-Grokster, a hyperlink might be argued to induce copyright infringement, if the link were made knowing that the linked-to material was infringing and with the intent of inducing people to follow the link and infringe copyright. In most cases, however, simple linking is unlikely to violate the law. [back to notice text] Question: Can a hyperlinker be protected by the DMCA safe-harbor? Answer: Someone who posts hyperlinks to online material may benefit from the DMCA safe harbor in section 512(d), "information location tools." If you linked to materials without knowing they were infringing, but then receive a notice of claimed infringement, you can claim the statutory immunity if you remove the link expeditiously (see also What does a service provider have to do in order t...?). [back to notice text] Question: What is "inducement" of copyright infringement? Answer: In MGM v. Grokster, the Supreme Court introduced a new branch of indirect copyright liability (see ), for "inducing" infringement. One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, may be liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses. [back to notice text] Question: What are the possible penalties for copyright infringement? Answer: Under the Copyright Act, penalties for copyright infringement can include: an injunction against further infringement -- such as an order preventing the infringer from future copying or distribution of the copyrighted works impounding or destruction of infringing copies damages -- either actual damages and the infringer's profits, or statutory damages costs and attorney's fees A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney's fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication. (17 U.S.C. 411 and 412) [back to notice text] Question: What are "actual" and "punitive" damages? Answer: Actual damages are damages awarded to a winning party to compensate them for a proven injury or loss; damages that repay actual losses. Punitive damages are damages awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit. Punitive damages are intended to punish and thereby deter blameworthy conduct. (Black's Law Dictionary) [back to notice text] Question: What are statutory damages? Answer: A copyright owner can only sue for infringement on a work whose copyright was registered with the Copyright Office, and can get statutory damages and attorney's fees only if the copyright registration was filed before infringement or within three months of first publication. (17 U.S.C. 411 and 412) (17 U.S.C. 411 and 412) A copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. (17 U.S.C. 504). (17 U.S.C. 504) ?Innocent infringement? may lower the damages amount. Typically, a ? notice on a work, precludes an infringer from claiming innocent infringement. [back to notice text] Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions? Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable. [back to notice text] Question: Why does a search engine get DMCA takedown notices for materials in its search listings? Answer: Many copyright claimants are making complaints under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512(d), a safe-harbor for providers of "information location tools." These safe harbors give providers immunity from liability for users' possible copyright infringement -- if they "expeditiously" remove material when they get complaints. Whether or not the provider would have been liable for infringement by users' materials it links to, the provider can avoid the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages by following the DMCA's takedown procedure when it gets a complaint. The person whose information was removed can file a counter-notification if he or she believes the complaint was erroneous. Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection? Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions. In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)] Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)]. Question: What are the provisions of 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3) & 512(d)(3)? Answer: Section 512(c)(3) sets out the elements for notification under the DMCA. Subsection A (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(A)) states that to be effective a notification must include: 1) a physical/electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the infringed right; 2) identification of the copyrighted works claimed to have been infringed; 3) identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed; 4) information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party (e.g., the address, telephone number, or email address); 5) a statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material is not authorized by the copyright owner; and 6) a statement that information in the complaint is accurate and that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner. Subsection B (17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3)(B)) states that if the complaining party does not substantially comply with these requirements the notice will not serve as actual notice for the purpose of Section 512. Section 512(d)(3), which applies to "information location tools" such as search engines and directories, incorporates the above requirements; however, instead of the identification of the allegedly infringing material, the notification must identify the reference or link to the material claimed to be infringing. Question: Does a service provider have to follow the safe harbor procedures? Answer: No. An ISP may choose not to follow the DMCA takedown process, and do without the safe harbor. If it would not be liable under pre-DMCA copyright law (for example, because it is not contributorily or vicariously liable, or because there is no underlying copyright infringement), it can still raise those same defenses if it is sued. Question: How do I file a DMCA counter-notice? Answer: If you believe your material was removed because of mistake or misidentification, you can file a "counter notification" asking the service provider to put it back up. Chilling Effects offers a form to build your own counter-notice. For more information on the DMCA Safe Harbors, see the FAQs on DMCA Safe Harbor. For more information on Copyright and defenses to copyright infringement, see Copyright. [back to notice text] Question: What is section 512 of the DMCA, and what are its various provisions? Answer: The On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), included as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was passed in 1998. It provides Internet Service Providers (ISPs), such as providers of DSL and dial-up Internet access, as well as other Online Service Providers (OSPs), such as search engines, with a ?safe harbor,? a way to avoid liability for the wrongdoing of their customers. If an ISP meets the criteria set out in section 512, it cannot be held liable for copyright infringement even if its users engage in that activity. Following is a general summary of each of the subsections of section 512. Subsection 512(a) provides a safe harbor for ISPs when their systems or networks transmit, rout, provide connections for, or store infringing material en route to its destination. This subsection only refers to automatic, temporary transmissions over which the ISP exercises no control, such as for file sharing. (See What are the criteria a service provider must sati...? for more information.) Subsection 512(b) provides a safe harbor for ISPs when they cache infringing material on their systems or networks. This subsection only refers to automatic storage such as for efficiency purposes to speed Internet access, etc. The ISP must stop caching the material if it receives notice that the material infringes a copyright. Subsection 512(c) provides a safe harbor for ISPs when they, at the direction of a user, store infringing material on their systems or networks. This subsection only refers to automatic storage such as for websites, blogs, newsgroups, etc. The ISP must stop storing the material if it receives notice that the material infringes a copyright, or if it has reason to believe so. The ISP must also designate an agent to handle claims of copyright infringement and make the contact information of that person available to the public. Paragraph (3) of subsection 512(c) sets out the requirements for sending a ?notice and takedown? request. The copyright owner must, in good faith, identify the copyrighted material, the infringing material, and the location of the infringing material. Subsection 512(d) provides a safe harbor for OSPs for linking to infringing material, such as for search engines, websites with links, etc. The OSP must stop storing the material if it receives notice that the material infringes a copyright, or if it has reason to believe so. Subsection 512(e) provides a special safe harbor for nonprofit educational institutions, such as public schools and universities. While entities are generally liable for the conduct of their employees, 512(e) protects nonprofit educational institutions from liability for the copyright infringement of their teachers and researchers. Nonprofit educational institutions must inform all of their users about copyright law and promote compliance with it. (See How are the safe harbor provisions applied to educ...? for more information.) Subsection 512(f) attempts to limit false and fraudulent claims of copyright infringement under the DMCA. Anyone who fraudulently claims copyright infringement or fraudulently claims that non-infringing material was wrongly removed, or that access to it was wrongfully disabled, is liable to anyone who suffers any damages because of that misrepresentation, including court costs and attorney?s fees. Subsection 512(g) provides a safe harbor for ISPs and OSPs when they remove or disable access to material, but only if they have a good faith belief that it infringes copyright, even if it turns out not to. The ISP or OSP must notify the alleged infringer and copyright owner. Paragraph (3) of subsection 512(g) sets out the requirements for sending a ?counter-notice and put-back? request. The alleged infringer must, in good faith, identify the allegedly infringing material and its location. Subsection 512(h) authorizes copyright owners to subpoena the identities of copyright infringers. If a copyright owner requests such a subpoena from a court, the court must issue it and the ISP must comply with it. (See Can a copyright owner find out the identity of the...? for more information.) Subsection 512(i) requires ISPs and OSPs to terminate the accounts of repeat copyright infringers and to inform all users of this policy. (See What happens if an individual is found to repeated...? for more information.) Subsection 512(j) states that, while ISPs and OSPs can usually only be held liable for money damages if they fail to meet the safe harbor requirements of section 512, sometimes courts can issue injunctions requiring them to terminate the account of a copyright infringer or to deny access to infringing material. In considering whether to grant an injunction, courts must weigh the burden it would place on the ISP/OSP, the degree of harm the copyright owner would suffer without it, and the feasibility of narrowly tailoring the injunction so as not to affect non-infringing material. ISPs/OSPs are generally entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before courts may issue an injunction on them. Section 512(k) defines an Internet Service Provider (ISP) as an entity that (1) automatically transmits, routes or provides connections for digital online communications of material of a user?s choosing, between or among points specified by the user; or (2) provides online services or network access. The subsection also defines monetary damages, from which ISPs and OSPs are always exempt if they meet the safe harbor provisions, to include damages, court costs, attorney?s fees, and any other form of monetary payment. Section 512(l) states that the failure of an ISP or OSP to take advantage of section 512?s safe harbor provisions may not adversely affect any other defenses it may claim in a suit for copyright infringement. Section 512(m) states that the safe harbor provisions of section 512 apply to ISPs and OSPs even if they do not monitor or otherwise actively seek out infringing material; and even if they gain access to, remove, or disable access to material protected by other statutes, such as privacy laws. Section 512(n) tells courts how to interpret the statute. It states that subsections (a)-(d) of section 512 describe separate and distinct functions of ISPs and that an ISP only qualifies for the safe harbor of each subsection whose requirements it meets. [back to notice text] Question: Does a DMCA takedown mean the material taken down was infringing? Answer: No. ISPs can take down material according to the DMCA anytime they receive a compliant notice alleging copyright infringement (see What are the notice and takedown procedures for we...?). The ISP does not have to investigate to determine whether the material was truly infringing before taking it down. The fact that someone has claimed infringement does not prove that infringement occurred -- there might be a fair use defense, or the claim might have been false or even frivolous. In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)] A proper counter-notice must contain the following information: The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)] Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)] A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)] Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)] If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the OSP for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)] [back to notice text] Question: Does a copyright owner have to specify the exact materials it alleges are infringing? Answer: Proper notice under the safe harbor provisions requires the copyright owners to specifically identify the alleged infringing materials, or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, to specifically identify the links to the alleged infringing materials. [512(c)(3)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. The provisions also require the copyright owners to identify the copyrighted work, or a representative list of the copyrighted works, that is claimed to be infringed. [512(c)(3)(A)(ii)]. Rather than simply sending a letter to the service provider that claims that infringing material exists on their system, these qualifications ensure that service providers are given a reasonable amount of information to locate the infringing materials and to effectively police their networks. [512(c)(3)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(3)]. However, in the recent case of ALS Scan, Inc. v. Remarq Communities, Inc., the court found that the copyright owner did not have to point out all of the infringing material, but only substantially all of the material. The relaxation of this specificity requirement shifts the burden of identifying the material to the service provider, raising the question of the extent to which a service provider must search through its system. OSP customers should note that this situation might encourage OSP's to err on the side of removing allegedly infringing material. [back to notice text] Question: What does the "reservation of rights" language mean? What are they "waiving" at me? Answer: Many C&Ds will say something like, "This letter shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any rights or remedies, which are expressly reserved." This is just legalese for saying, "Even if you do what we ask in this letter, we can still sue you later." The language is standard; do not be alarmed. Litigation is extremely unpleasant, and unless your opponent is irrational (always a distinct possibility, of course), it will not bring litigation after it has obtained what it wants.

Topic maintained by Electronic Frontier Foundation