82_FR_7883 82 FR 7870 - Study on the Moral Rights of Attribution and Integrity

82 FR 7870 - Study on the Moral Rights of Attribution and Integrity

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
U.S. Copyright Office

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 13 (January 23, 2017)

Page Range7870-7875
FR Document2017-01294

The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a public study to assess the current state of U.S. law recognizing and protecting moral rights for authors, specifically the rights of attribution and integrity. As part of this study, the Office will review existing law on the moral rights of attribution and integrity, including provisions found in title 17 of the U.S. Code as well as other federal and state laws, and whether any additional protection is advisable in this area. To support this effort and provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of questions.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7870-7875]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01294]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

U.S. Copyright Office

[Docket No. 2017-2]


Study on the Moral Rights of Attribution and Integrity

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a public 
study to assess the current state of U.S. law recognizing and 
protecting moral rights for authors, specifically the rights of 
attribution and integrity. As part of this study, the Office will 
review existing law on the moral rights of attribution and integrity, 
including provisions found in title 17 of the U.S. Code as well as 
other federal and state laws, and whether any additional protection is 
advisable in this area. To support this effort and provide thorough 
assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number 
of questions.

DATES: Written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. 
Eastern Time on March 9, 2017. Written reply comments must be received 
no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 24, 2017. The Office may 
announce one or more public meetings, to take place after written 
comments are received, by separate notice in the future.

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office 
is using the regulations.gov system for the submission and posting of 
public comments in this proceeding. All comments must be submitted 
electronically. Specific instructions for submitting comments will be 
posted on the Copyright Office Web site at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/comment-submission/. To meet accessibility 
standards, all comments must be provided in a single file not to exceed 
six megabytes (MB) in one of the following formats: Portable Document 
File (PDF) format containing searchable, accessible text (not an 
image); Microsoft Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII 
text file format (not a scanned document). All comments must include 
the name of the submitter and any organization the submitter 
represents. The Office will post all comments publicly in the form that 
they are received. If electronic submission of comments is not feasible 
due to lack of access to a computer and/or the Internet, please contact 
the Office, using the contact information below, for special 
instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberley Isbell, Senior Counsel for 
Policy and International Affairs, by email at [email protected] or by 
telephone at 202-707-8350; or Maria Strong, Deputy Director for Policy 
and International Affairs, by email at [email protected] or by telephone 
at 202-707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The term ``moral rights'' is taken from the French phrase droit 
moral, and generally refers to certain non-economic rights that are 
considered personal to an author.\1\ Chief among these are the right of 
an author to be credited as the author of his or her work (the right of 
attribution), and the right of an author to prevent prejudicial 
distortions of the work (the right of integrity). These rights have a 
long history in international copyright law, dating back to the turn of 
the 20th century when several European countries included provisions on 
moral rights in their copyright laws.\2\ A provision on moral rights 
was first adopted at the international level through the Berne 
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (``Berne 
Convention'') during its Rome revision in 1928.\3\ The current text of 
article 6bis(1) of the Berne Convention states: ``Independently of the 
author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said 
rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work 
and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, 
or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would 
be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this Notice, we use the general term ``author'' to 
include all creators, including visual artists and performers.
    \2\ See Sam Ricketson & Jane C. Ginsburg, International 
Copyright and Neighboring Rights: The Berne Convention and Beyond ]] 
10.03-.04, at 587-89 (2d ed. 2006).
    \3\ See Mih[aacute]ly Ficsor, World Intellectual Property 
Organization, Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties 
Administered by WIPO and Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights 
Terms ] BC[hyphen]6bis, at 44 (2003).
    \4\ Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic 
Works art. 6bis(1), Sept. 9, 1886, as revised July 24, 1971, and as 
amended Sept. 28, 1979, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to the early adoption of strong moral rights 
protections in

[[Page 7871]]

Europe, the United States' experience with the concept of moral rights 
is more recent. The United States did not adopt the Berne Convention 
right away, only joining the Convention in 1989.\5\ At that time, the 
United States elected not to adopt broad moral rights provisions in its 
copyright law, but instead relied on a combination of various state and 
federal statutes to comply with its Berne obligations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Public Law 100-
568, 102 Stat. 2853 (``BCIA'').
    \6\ See discussion on the BCIA infra notes 15-23 and 
accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2014, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 
and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing that 
focused in part on moral rights for authors in the United States as 
part of its broader review of the nation's copyright laws.\7\ At that 
hearing, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative 
Bob Goodlatte, noted that ``we should consider whether current law is 
sufficient to satisfy the moral rights of our creators or, whether 
something more explicit is required.'' \8\ The Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, Representative Jerrold Nadler, also indicated his 
interest in a further evaluation of the status of moral rights in the 
United States, asking ``how our current laws are working and what, if 
any, changes might be necessary and appropriate.'' \9\ Register of 
Copyrights Maria Pallante recommended further study of moral rights in 
her testimony before Congress at the end of the two-year copyright 
review hearings process,\10\ at which time the Ranking Member of the 
House Judiciary Committee requested that the Office undertake this 
study.\11\ As part of the preparation for this study, the Copyright 
Office co-hosted a day-long symposium on moral rights in April 2016 in 
order to hear views about current issues in this area. The Office is 
now commencing a formal study on moral rights and soliciting public 
input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Moral Rights, Termination Rights, Resale Royalty, and 
Copyright Term: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual 
Prop., & the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. 
(2014) (``Moral Rights Hearing'').
    \8\ Moral Rights Hearing at 4.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Register's Perspective on Copyright Review: Hearing Before 
the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 114th Cong. 34-35 (2015) (written 
statement of Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Dir., 
U.S. Copyright Office) (``Register's Perspective Hearing'').
    \11\ Register's Perspective Hearing at 49 (statement of Rep. 
John Conyers, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on the Judiciary).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Moral Rights in the United States Prior to Implementation of the 
Berne Convention in 1989

    In the late 1950s, the Copyright Office and Congress reviewed the 
issue of moral rights as part of the larger, comprehensive review of 
the copyright laws leading to a general revision of the 1909 Copyright 
Act.\12\ In support of the review, William Strauss completed a study 
for the Office entitled ``The Moral Right of the Author'' in 1959.\13\ 
The report found that U.S. common law principles, such as those 
governing tort and contract actions, ``afford an adequate basis for 
protection of [moral] rights'' and can provide the same protection 
given abroad under the doctrine of moral rights.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As part of the consideration for possible accession to the 
Berne Convention, the general review of the 1909 Act took more than 
20 years and resulted in the 1976 Copyright Act.
    \13\ See William Strauss, Study No. 4: The Moral Right of the 
Author (1959), in Staff of S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 
Copyright Law Revision: Studies Prepared for the Subcomm. on 
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Comm. on the Judiciary, 
United States Senate: Studies 1-4, at 109 (Comm. Print 1960).
    \14\ Strauss at 142. The report rejected the idea of an 
``irreconcilable breach between European and American concepts of 
protection of authors' personal rights,'' instead concluding that 
U.S. and European courts generally arrived at the same results in 
upholding the same rights or limitations on those rights, just in 
different ways. Id. at 141-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Later, Congress considered the specific question of ``whether the 
current law of the United States is sufficient, or whether additional 
laws are needed, to satisfy [Berne article 6bis's] requirements.'' \15\ 
The majority of those who testified before Congress argued against any 
change to U.S. law concerning an artist's right to control attribution 
or any alteration to his creation, stating that current U.S. law was 
sufficient.\16\ Indeed, WIPO Director General Dr. [Aacute]rp[aacute]d 
Bogsch explained to Congress that the United States did not need to 
make any changes to U.S. law to meet the obligations of article 
6bis.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ H.R. Rep. No. 100-609, at 33 (1988).
    \16\ See S. Rep. No. 100-352, at 6 (1988); H.R. Rep. No. 100-
609, at 33 (1988).
    \17\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-609, at 37 (1988); S. Rep. No. 100-
352, at 10 (1988); see also Letter from Dr. [Aacute]rp[aacute]d 
Bogsch, Dir. Gen., World Intellectual Prop. Org., to Irwin Karp, 
Esq. (June 16, 1987), reprinted in Berne Convention Implementation 
Act of 1987: Hearing on H.R. 1623 Before the Subcomm. on Courts, 
Civil Liberties & the Admin. of Justice of the H. Comm. on the 
Judiciary, 100th Cong. 213 (1987) (``In my view, it is not necessary 
for the United States of America to enact statutory provisions on 
moral rights in order to comply with Article 6bis of the Berne 
Convention. The requirements under this Article can be fulfilled not 
only by statutory provisions in a copyright statute but also by 
common law and other statutes.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees accepted this 
conclusion,\18\ finding that U.S. law met the requirements outlined in 
the Berne Convention's article 6bis based on the existing patchwork of 
laws in the United States, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See S. Rep. No. 100-352, at 9-10 (1988); H.R. Rep. No. 100-
609, at 37-38 (1988); see also S. Exec. Rep. No. 100-17, at 55 
(1988) (to accompany S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-27 (1986)) (statement of 
John K. Uilkema on behalf of Am. Bar Ass'n before the S. Comm. on 
Foreign Relations) (``Whether greater or lesser moral rights per se 
should be the subject of legislative consideration in the United 
States is a question that is separate and apart from the Berne 
adherence compatibility question.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act relating to false 
designations of origin and false descriptions, which could be applied 
in some instances to attribution of copyright-protected work.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Copyright Act's provisions regarding protection of an 
author's exclusive rights in derivatives of his or her works; \20\ 
limits on a mechanical licensee's rights to arrange an author's musical 
composition; \21\ and termination of transfers and licenses.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 17 U.S.C. 106(2).
    \21\ See 17 U.S.C. 115(a)(2).
    \22\ See 17 U.S.C. 203.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     State and local laws relating to publicity, contractual 
violations, fraud and misrepresentation, unfair competition, 
defamation, and invasion of privacy.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See H.R. Rep. No. 100-609, at 34 (1988). Contract law is 
particularly important for authors to control aspects of their 
economic and moral rights. For example, the collective bargaining 
agreements that govern the creation of major motion pictures often 
contain explicit requirements with regards to attribution for 
actors, writers, directors, and other guilds. Many copyright sectors 
that involve numerous authors and participants in the creative 
process, such as filmed entertainment, business and entertainment 
software, music production, and book publishing, also rely on both 
employment agreements and the work-for-hire doctrine to determine 
ownership issues, which in turn may include elements related to 
attribution and integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Subsequent Developments After the U.S. Implementation of the Berne 
Convention

    Since the United States' implementation of the Berne Convention 
over 25 years ago, there have been a number of legal and technological 
developments affecting the scope and protection of moral rights. In 
1990, Congress passed the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), codified at 
section 106A of the Copyright Act, \24\

[[Page 7872]]

which guarantees to authors of works of ``visual arts'' the right to 
claim or disclaim authorship in a work and limited rights to prevent 
distortion, mutilation, or modification of a work.\25\ In contrast to 
how moral rights were often adopted elsewhere, with VARA, Congress 
identified specific instances in which the limited rights could be 
waived.\26\ As part of the legislation, Congress also directed the 
Copyright Office to conduct studies on the VARA waiver provision and 
also on resale royalties.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990, Public Law 101-
650, 104 Stat. 5128-29 (codified at 17 U.S.C. 106A). In the Report 
accompanying H.R. 2690 (Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990), the 
House Judiciary provided background information on the Berne 
Convention and moral rights, noting that the Congress at the time of 
the BCIA agreed that existing federal and state laws were sufficient 
to comply with the Berne Convention requirements, but that 
``adherence to the Berne Convention did not end the debate about 
whether the United States should adopt artists' rights laws, and the 
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the 
Administration of Justice continued its review of the issue in 
[hearings held] in June.'' H.R. Rep. No. 101-514, at 8 (1990). 
Congress cited the ``critical factual and legal differences in the 
way visual arts and audiovisual works are created and disseminated'' 
in support of providing additional protections for visual artists. 
H.R. Rep. No. 101-514, at 9 (1990).
    \25\ See 17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of a ``work of visual art''); 
Sec.  106A(a)(1) (providing for the right of attribution); Sec.  
106A(a)(3) (providing for the right of integrity). Section 604 of 
VARA, codified at 17 U.S.C. 113, created special rules for removal 
of works visual art incorporated into buildings. Unlike Berne's 
article 6bis, VARA's protections only apply to works of visual art.
    \26\ See H.R. Rep. No. 101-514, at 18 (1990). VARA permits 
authors to waive these rights only if expressly agreed in a written 
instrument signed by the author. See 17 U.S.C. 106A(e).
    \27\ See Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, Public Law 101-650, 
608, 104 Stat. 5128, 5132 (1990). The Copyright Office's 1992 study 
concluded there was insufficient economic and copyright policy 
justification to establish droit de suite in the United States. See 
U.S. Copyright Office, Droit De Suite: The Artist's Resale Royalty 
xv (1992), http://www.copyright.gov/history/droit_de_suite.pdf. In 
2013, the Copyright Office responded to a congressional request and 
issued a second report which examined the changes in law and 
practice regarding resale royalties, in both the United States and 
abroad, since the 1992 report. See U.S. Copyright Office, Resale 
Royalties: An Updated Analysis (2013), http://www.copyright.gov/docs/resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its 1996 report on the waiver provision, the Office concluded it 
could not make an accurate assessment of the impact of VARA's waiver 
provisions because artists and art consumers were generally unaware of 
moral rights and recommended that in order for artists to take 
advantage of their legal rights under VARA, further education about 
moral rights in the United States would be necessary.\28\ The Office 
also made observations about the implementation of moral rights 
obligations in other countries, finding that, of the laws reviewed by 
the Office, only the moral rights laws of the United Kingdom and Canada 
contained express waiver provisions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See U. S. Copyright Office, Waiver of Moral Rights in 
Visual Artworks: Final Report of the Register of Copyrights xiii, 
186 (1996), https://www.copyright.gov/reports/waiver-moral-rights-visual-artworks.pdf (``Waiver of Moral Rights'').
    \29\ Waiver of Moral Rights at 183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court's 2003 Decision in Dastar
    In 2003, some scholars began to question the strength of the U.S. 
patchwork of protection as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 
in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (``Dastar''), which 
foreclosed some attribution claims under section 43(a) of the Lanham 
Act.\30\ The Court unanimously rejected an interpretation of section 
43(a) that would ``require attribution of uncopyrighted materials.'' 
\31\ Citing VARA, the Court said that when Congress has wanted to 
provide an attribution right under copyright law, ``it has done so with 
much more specificity than the Lanham Act's ambiguous use of `origin.' 
'' \32\ The Court found that ``origin of goods'' is most naturally 
understood as referring to the source of a physical product, not the 
person or entity that originated the underlying creative content.\33\ 
In a well-known sentence, Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, stated 
that permitting a section 43(a) claim for such misattribution ``would 
create a species of mutant copyright law that limits the public's 
`federal right to copy and to use' expired copyrights.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 539 U.S. 23 (2003). Dastar involved the distribution of an 
edited version of a 1949 broadcast to which Twentieth Century Fox 
had owned the copyright but which it failed to renew, placing the 
work in the public domain. Dastar distributed copies of the edited 
series listing Dastar and its subsidiary as the producer and 
distributor of the edited work, rather than Fox. Fox sued for 
reverse passing off, claiming Dastar violated section 43(a) of the 
Lanham Act's prohibition against false designation of origin.
    \31\ Id. at 35.
    \32\ Id.at 34.
    \33\ See id. at 31-32.
    \34\ Id. at 34 (internal quote marks omitted). The Supreme Court 
left open the possibility of a Lanham Act claim under section 
43(a)(1)(B) where, in advertising for a copied work of authorship, 
the copier ``misrepresents the nature, characteristics [or] 
qualities'' of the work. Id. at 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some lower courts have read Dastar as a broad prohibition on 
applying federal trademark and unfair competition laws in the realm of 
copyright, regardless of whether the copyrighted work remains under the 
term of protection or has fallen into the public domain.\35\ In 
contrast, some scholars have argued that the Court did not write 
federal trademark and unfair competition law out of the patchwork 
entirely.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See, e.g., Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best Lighting 
Prods., Inc., 796 F.3d 576, 587 (6th Cir. 2015); Gen. Universal 
Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131, 148-49 (5th Cir. 2004); Zyla v. 
Wadsworth, 360 F.3d 243, 251-52 (1st Cir. 2004); Carroll v. Kahn, 
No. 03-CV-0656, 2003 WL 22327299, at *5-6 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2003).
    \36\ See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Moral Rights in the U.S.: 
Still in Need of a Guardian Ad Litem, 30 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 
73, 83-87 (2012); Justin Hughes, American Moral Rights and Fixing 
the Dastar ``Gap,'' 2007 Utah L. Rev. 659 (2007). At least one 
commenter has argued that not only do section 43(a)(1)(B) claims 
survive Dastar, but so do some section 43(a)(1)(A) claims. See 
Hughes at 692-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rights Management Information and Moral Rights for Performers
    Since implementation of the Berne Convention, the United States has 
joined two additional international treaties that address moral 
rights--the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). The WCT incorporates the substantive 
provisions of Berne, including those of article 6bis.\37\ Article 5 of 
the WPPT expands the obligations of Contracting Parties to recognize 
the moral rights of attribution and integrity for performers with 
respect to their live performances and performances fixed in 
phonograms.\38\ Furthermore, both the WCT and the WPPT include new 
obligations concerning rights management information (RMI).\39\ These 
provisions protect new means of identifying and protecting works while 
also helping protect the rights of attribution and integrity.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See WIPO Copyright Treaty art. 1(4), Dec. 20, 1996, 2186 
U.N.T.S. 121 (``WCT''); see also Summary of the WIPO Copyright 
Treaty (WCT) (1996), WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/summary_wct.html.
    \38\ See WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty art. 5(1), Dec. 
20, 1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203 (``WPPT''). Like the Berne Convention, 
the WPPT provides that the duration of protection shall be at least 
for the term of economic rights and shall be governed by national 
law. WPPT arts. 5(2)-(3).
    \39\ See WCT art. 12; WPPT art. 19. WCT article 12 and WPPT 
article 19 define rights management information to include 
identification of the author and owner and terms of use of the work 
or sound recording.
    \40\ See J. Carlos Fern[aacute]dez-Molina & Eduardo Peis, The 
Moral Rights of Authors in the Age of Digital Information, 52 J. Am. 
Soc'y for Info. Sci. & Tech. 109, 112 (2001) (explaining how the 
WIPO Internet Treaties' rights management information provisions fit 
within the treaties and also are useful in protecting moral rights).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States implemented its WCT and WPPT obligations via 
enactment of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (``DMCA''),\41\ 
and signed as a contracting party to both treaties in 1999, three years 
before the

[[Page 7873]]

treaties entered into force.\42\ Congress added a new chapter 12 to 
title 17, which contained two new provisions to implement the 
treaties--section 1201, which addresses technological protection 
measures, and section 1202, which protects rights management 
information (called copyright management information in U.S. law) 
\43\--but did not make any additional changes, finding that ``[t]he 
treaties do not require any change in the substance of copyright rights 
or exceptions in U.S. law.'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Public Law 105-
304, 103 122 Stat. 2860, 2863-76 (1998) (codified as amended at 17 
U.S.C. 1201-1205). The WIPO Internet Treaties were submitted to 
Congress for advice and consent the previous year, and the Senate 
voted to approve the Treaties shortly before passage of the DMCA. 
See S. Treaty Doc. No. 105[hyphen]17 (1997); 105 Cong. Rec. S12,972-
73 (daily ed. Oct. 21, 1998).
    \42\ See WCT Notification No. 10: WIPO Copyright Treaty: 
Ratification by the United States of America, WIPO (Sept. 14, 1999), 
available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/wct/treaty_wct_10.html; WPPT Notification No. 8: WIPO Performances and 
Phonograms Treaty: Ratification by the United States of America, 
WIPO (Sept. 14, 1999), available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/wppt/treaty_wppt_8.html.
    \43\ The other sections of chapter 12 include sections 1203 and 
1204, which set forth available civil remedies and criminal 
sanctions for violation of sections 1201 and 1202, and section 1205, 
which explicitly carves out federal and state laws affecting 
Internet privacy. 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1203-1205.
    \44\ H.R. Rep. No. 105[hyphen]551, pt. 1, at 9 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1202 includes prohibitions on both providing false 
copyright management information (``CMI''), and removing or altering 
CMI.\45\ In addition to facilitating the administration of an author's 
or right holder's economic rights, the CMI protections afforded by 
section 1202 may have implications for authors' protection and 
enforcement of their moral rights.\46\ However, two aspects of section 
1202 may limit its usefulness as a mechanism to protect an author's 
moral rights. First, to be liable under section 1202, a person who 
removes copyright management information must know both that they have 
caused its removal and that such removal is likely to cause others to 
infringe the work.\47\ Second, while most courts recognize section 1202 
as protecting against any removal of attribution from works, a minority 
of courts have limited section 1202 to protect only against removal of 
attribution that is digital or part of an ``automated copyright 
protection or management system.'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The term ``copyright management information'' in the 
Copyright Act is seen as a synonymous term for ``rights management 
information'' as used in the WCT and WPPT. See S. Rep. No. 105-190, 
at 11 n.18 (1998) (``Rights management information is more commonly 
referred to in the U.S. as copyright management information 
(CMI).'').
    \46\ Section 1202 makes it an offense to ``intentionally remove 
or alter any copyright management information,'' which includes the 
name of a work's author. 17 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  1202(b)(1), (c)(2). 
See Jane C. Ginsburg, Have Moral Rights Come of (Digital) Age in the 
United States?, 19 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 9, 11 (2001) (``The DMCA 
may contain the seeds of a more general attribution right. . . .''); 
see also Greg Lastowka, Digital Attribution: Copyright and the Right 
to Credit, 87 B.U. L. Rev. 41, 69-73 (2007).
    \47\ See 17 U.S.C. 1202(a)-(b); see also Stevens v. Corelogic, 
No. 14-cv-1158, 2016 WL 4371549, at *5, 6 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) 
(``Under Sec.  1202(b)(1), Plaintiffs must present evidence that 
[defendant] intentionally removed or altered CMI. . . . '' and 
``[a]lthough Plaintiffs need not show actual infringement, the fact 
that there was none is relevant to Plaintiffs' burden to show that 
[defendant] had a reasonable ground to believe it was likely to 
happen.'').
    \48\ Compare Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp. LLC, 650 F.3d 295, 
305 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting argument that the definition of CMI 
under section 1202 is ``restricted to the context of `automated 
copyright protection or management systems'''), and Williams v. 
Cavalli S.p.A., No. CV 14-06659-AB (JEMx), 2015 WL 1247065, at *3 
(C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015) (holding that ``[t]he plain meaning of 
Sec.  1202 indicates that CMI can include non-digital copyright 
information''), and Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, 
LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d 1098, 1101-02 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (noting that the 
majority of courts have rejected a requirement for CMI to be digital 
under section 1202), and Fox v. Hildebrand, No. CV 09-2085 DSF 
(VBKx), 2009 WL 1977996, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2009) (``The plain 
language of the statute indicates that the DMCA provision at issue 
is not limited to copyright notices that are digitally placed on a 
work.''), with Textile Secrets Int'l Inc. v. Ya-Ya Brand Inc., 524 
F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1201 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (``[T]he Court [] cannot 
find that the provision was intended to apply to circumstances that 
have no relation to the Internet, electronic commerce, automated 
copyright protections or management systems, public registers, or 
other technological measures or processes as contemplated in the 
DMCA as a whole.''), and IQ Grp., Ltd. v. Wiesner Publ'g, LLC, 409 
F. Supp. 2d 587, 597 (D.N.J. 2006) (holding that ``[t]o come within 
Sec.  1202, the information removed must function as a component of 
an automated copyright protection or management system''). The 
majority position seems to accord with statements from the 
legislative history. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 105-190, at 16 (1998) 
(``CMI need not be in digital form, but CMI in digital form is 
expressly included.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recent International Developments
    There have also been changes to the landscape of moral rights 
protection internationally since the U.S. acceded to the Berne 
Convention in 1989. The Copyright Office noted in its 1996 report 
Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual Artworks that, while statutory 
recognition of the commonly recognized moral rights--i.e., attribution 
and integrity--is the norm internationally, the strength of the moral 
rights laws varied among Berne members, even among those with the same 
basic legal systems.\49\ For example, at the time of the Report the 
United Kingdom required an author or her heirs, in some cases, to 
assert the right of paternity and was generally considered to have 
adopted one of the more restrictive approaches to implementing moral 
rights.\50\ However, ten years later, in 2006, the United Kingdom 
amended its moral rights provision by extending to qualifying 
performances the right to attribution and the right to object to 
derogatory treatment of a work.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Waiver of Moral Rights at 53.
    \50\ See Waiver of Moral Rights at 47-51, 53.
    \51\ See Performances (Moral Rights, etc.) Regulations 2006, SI 
2006/18, arts. 5-6 (UK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most recent international development on CMI and moral rights 
occurred four years ago at a Diplomatic Conference in Beijing where 
WIPO and its member states concluded a new treaty on audiovisual 
performances.\52\ Similar to the approach of the WPPT, the Beijing 
Treaty on Audiovisual Performances also contains provisions on CMI and 
moral rights for audiovisual performers.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, June 24, 
2012, 51 I.L.M. 1214 (2012) (``Beijing Treaty'').
    \53\ See Beijing Treaty art. 5 (``Moral Rights''), art. 16 
(``Obligations Concerning Rights Management Information''). 
Negotiations to conclude this treaty took more than a decade, with a 
major point of contention involving the provision on contractual 
transfers. See Beijing Treaty art. 12; see also Press Release, WIPO, 
WIPO Diplomatic Conference Opens in Beijing to Conclude Treaty on 
Performers' Rights in Audiovisual Productions, WIPO Press Release 
PR/2012/713 (June 20, 2012), available at http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/article_0012.html (noting that as far 
back as the year 2000 negotiators could not agree on the issue 
involving transfer of rights, and a breakthrough compromise occurred 
in June 2011). This treaty has not yet entered into force, and the 
United States has not yet ratified it. The Obama Administration has 
submitted a legislative package to Congress in support of U.S. 
implementation of the Beijing Treaty. See Letter from Michelle K. 
Lee, Under Sec'y Commerce for Intellectual Prop. & Dir., U.S. Patent 
& Trademark Office, to Joseph R. Biden, President of the Senate 
(Feb. 26, 2016), available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Beijing-treaty-package.pdf (treaty implementation 
package for the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances which 
includes a transmittal letter, Beijing Treaty Implementation Act of 
2016, and Statement of Purpose and Need and Sectional Analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Availability and Use of Licenses, Contracts, and State Laws
    Another part of the patchwork upon which moral rights protection in 
the United States relies is state contract law, which allows authors to 
negotiate for protection of their rights of attribution and integrity 
through private ordering. Since the United States' accession to the 
Berne Convention, a major change to this area has been the emergence of 
Creative Commons and its various licenses that have simplified 
licensing for all kinds of authors and users, large and small. The CC 
license suites have served to facilitate private ordering, including 
for individual authors that would not previously have been able to 
afford the services of a lawyer to create licenses to govern use of 
their works.\54\

[[Page 7874]]

Currently there are over one billion works licensed under Creative 
Commons licenses, most of which require attribution of the author.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Founded in 2001, Creative Commons offers various open 
source content licenses. Creative Commons Project, Cover Pages (Aug. 
22, 2008), http://xml.coverpages.org/creativeCommons.html. These 
types of licenses were held to be governed by copyright law rather 
than contract law in Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1380-83 
(Fed. Cir. 2008).
    \55\ Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/ (last 
visited Jan. 5, 2017) (``1.1 billion works and counting.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes in Technology to Deliver Content and Identify Content
    The evolution of technology in the past few decades has also 
impacted the availability of moral rights protections for modern 
authors. Technology can facilitate improved identification and 
licensing of works with persistent identifiers,\56\ while, at the same 
time, it can also make it easier to remove attribution elements and 
distribute the unattributed works widely.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ For example, the PLUS Coalition has created an image rights 
language to allow for global communication of image rights 
information, and it is currently developing an image registry that 
will function as a hub connecting registries worldwide and providing 
both literal and image-based searches. PLUS Coalition, Comments 
Submitted in Response to U.S. Copyright Office's Apr. 24, 2015 
Notice of Inquiry (Visual Works Study) at 1 (July 22, 2015) (noting 
that the Coalition's unique image rights language is meant to 
address the ``challenges [arising] from a present inability to 
ensure that any person or machine encountering a visual work has 
ready access to rights information sufficient to allow the work to 
be identified, and sufficient to facilitate an informed decision 
regarding the display, reproduction and distribution of the work'').
    \57\ Indeed, CMI is of particular interest to visual artists who 
embed copyright information in their works only to find it 
unlawfully stripped from digital copies. This makes it difficult for 
potential users to identify and contact the copyright owner to 
obtain a license to use a work found online. See Columbia University 
Libraries, Comments Submitted in Response to U.S. Office's Apr. 24, 
2015 Notice of Inquiry (Visual Works Study) at 2 (July 23, 2015) 
(``Rights metadata that includes author attribution and source 
information would [ ] facilitate subsequent re-uses of visual works 
while at the same time support the interests of legitimate copyright 
owners.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Congressional Copyright Review and This Study

    As part of its effort to begin a dialogue about moral rights 
protections in the United States, the Copyright Office organized a 
symposium entitled ``Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining 
Moral Rights in the United States,'' which was held on April 18, 
2016.\58\ The symposium served as a launching point for the issuance of 
this Notice of Inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The Office co-hosted this symposium with the George Mason 
University School of Law and its Center for the Protection of 
Intellectual Property. Videos of the proceedings can be accessed on 
the U.S. Copyright Office Web site event page at http://www.copyright.gov/events/moralrights/. The official transcript has 
been published by the George Mason Journal of International 
Commercial Law. See Symposium, Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: 
Examining Moral Rights in the United States, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 1 (2016), available at http://www.georgemasonjicl.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Summer-Issue-2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven sessions covered the historical development of moral rights, 
the value authors place on moral rights, the various ways current law 
provides for these rights, and new considerations for the digital age. 
Participants, including professional authors, artists, musicians, and 
performers, discussed the importance that copyright law generally, and 
attribution specifically, plays in supporting their creative process 
and their livelihood.\59\ Leading academics provided an overview of the 
scope of moral rights and how countries, including the United States, 
approach these concepts. \60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See Session 4: The Importance of Moral Rights to Authors, 8 
Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 87, 90 (2016).
    \60\ See Session 1: Overview of Moral Rights, 8 Geo. Mason J. 
Int'l Com. L. 7 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many participants identified the right of attribution as 
particularly important to authors, both from a personal and from an 
economic perspective. For example, participants cited the role of 
copyright management information for purposes of attribution, and 
discussed the perceived strengths and limitations of section 1202.\61\ 
Keynote speaker Professor Jane Ginsburg posited ways to strengthen the 
right of attribution.\62\ Others discussed the possibilities of using 
non-copyright laws post-Dastar,\63\ as well as expressing concerns 
about how potential moral rights-like causes of action might interact 
with First Amendment protections.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address, The Most 
Moral of Rights: The Right to be Recognized as the Author of One's 
Work, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 44, 48, 60-72 (2016); Session 4: 
The Importance of Moral Rights to Authors, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 87, 91-93 (2016) (comments of Yoko Miyashita, Getty Images).
    \62\ See Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address: The Most Moral of 
Rights: The Right to be Recognized as the Author of One's Work, 8 
Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 44, 72-81 (2016).
    \63\ See, e.g., Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8 Geo. Mason J. 
Int'l Com. L. 26, 30-34 (2016) (remarks of Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, 
SAG-AFTRA, & Peter K. Yu, Tex. A&M Univ. Sch. of Law); Session 6: 
New Ways to Disseminate Content and the Impact on Moral Rights, 8 
Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 125, 139 (2016) (remarks of Stanley 
Pierre-Louis, Entm't Software Ass'n).
    \64\ See Session 5: The Intersection of Moral Rights and Other 
Laws, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 106, 119-20 (2016) (remarks of 
Paul Alan Levy, Pub. Citizen).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some participants asserted that the current patchwork of laws, 
particularly the availability of contract law, the work for hire 
doctrine, and collective bargaining agreements (available in some 
industry sectors), provides sufficient protection for moral rights 
concerns.\65\ In contrast, several voices criticized the limited scope 
of existing law, ranging from upset that a right of publicity is not a 
federal right \66\ to disappointment with VARA's under-inclusiveness 
and strict standards.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 26, 27-29 (2016) (remarks of Allan Adler, Ass'n of Am. 
Publishers (``AAP'')) (noting that the testimony of AAP at the 2014 
hearing ``raise[d] the threshold policy question of `whether to 
superimpose vague, subjective, and wholly unpredictable new rights 
upon a longstanding balanced and successful copyright system.''').
    \66\ See Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 26, 30 (2016) (remarks of Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG-
AFTRA).
    \67\ See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address, The Most 
Moral of Rights: The Right to be Recognized as the Author of One's 
Work, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 44, 53 (2016); Session 5: The 
Intersection of Moral Rights and Other Laws, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 106, 107-10, 113-14 (2016) (remarks of Sonya G. Bonneau, 
Geo. Univ. Law Ctr.; Eugene Mopsik, Am. Photographic Artists; & 
Nancy E. Wolff, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion also addressed the role of technology, both in creation 
and in dissemination of authorized and unauthorized works. For example, 
a photographer noted the importance of attribution that stays with 
images,\68\ and a photo company described the technology they use to 
persistently connect authorship information to images.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Session 5: The Intersection of Moral Rights and Other 
Laws, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 106, 110 (2016) (remarks of 
Eugene Mopsik, Am. Photographic Artists).
    \69\ See Session 4: The Importance of Moral Rights to Authors, 8 
Geo. Mason J. Int'l Com. L. 87, 92 (2016) (remarks of Yoko 
Miyashita, Getty Images).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Looking at what lessons might be gleaned from the experiences of 
other countries, one panelist commented that there is ``tremendous 
diversity in how different countries have implemented moral rights,'' 
\70\ and another confirmed that moral rights litigation constitutes 
only a small percentage of the copyright cases on those countries' 
litigation documents.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Session 7: Where Do We Go From Here?, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int'l 
Com. L. 142, 147 (2016) (remarks of Mira Sundara Rajan, Univ. of 
Glasgow Sch. of Law).
    \71\ See Session 1: Overview of Moral Rights, 8 Geo. Mason J. 
Int'l Com. L. 7, 15 (2016) (remarks of Daniel Gervais, Vand. Law 
Sch.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Subjects of Inquiry

    The Copyright Office seeks public comments addressing how existing 
law, including provisions found in title 17 of the U.S. Code as well as 
other federal and state laws, affords authors with effective protection 
of their rights, equivalent to those of moral rights of attribution and 
integrity.
    The Office invites written comments in particular on the subjects 
below. A party choosing to respond to this Notice of Inquiry need not 
address every subject, but the Office requests that responding parties 
clearly identify and

[[Page 7875]]

separately address each numbered subject for which a response is 
submitted.
General Questions Regarding Availability of Moral Rights in the United 
States
    1. Please comment on the means by which the United States protects 
the moral rights of authors, specifically the rights of integrity and 
attribution. Should additional moral rights protection be considered? 
If so, what specific changes should be considered by Congress?
Title 17
    2. How effective has section 106A (VARA) been in promoting and 
protecting the moral rights of authors of visual works? What, if any, 
legislative solutions to improve VARA might be advisable?
    3. How have section 1202's provisions on copyright management 
information been used to support authors' moral rights? Should Congress 
consider updates to section 1202 to strengthen moral rights 
protections? If so, in what ways?
    4. Would stronger protections for either the right of attribution 
or the right of integrity implicate the First Amendment? If so, how 
should they be reconciled?
    5. If a more explicit provision on moral rights were to be added to 
the Copyright Act, what exceptions or limitations should be considered? 
What limitations on remedies should be considered?
Other Federal and State Laws
    6. How has the Dastar decision affected moral rights protections in 
the United States? Should Congress consider legislation to address the 
impact of the Dastar decision on moral rights protection? If so, how?
    7. What impact has contract law and collective bargaining had on an 
author's ability to enforce his or her moral rights? How does the issue 
of waiver of moral rights affect transactions and other commercial, as 
well as non-commercial, dealings?
Insights From Other Countries' Implementation of Moral Rights 
Obligations
    8. How have foreign countries protected the moral rights of 
authors, including the rights of attribution and integrity? How well 
would such an approach to protecting moral rights work in the U.S. 
context?
Technological Developments
    9. How does, or could, technology be used to address, facilitate, 
or resolve challenges and problems faced by authors who want to protect 
the attribution and integrity of their works?
Other Issues
    10. Are there any voluntary initiatives that could be developed and 
taken by interested parties in the private sector to improve authors' 
means to secure and enforce their rights of attribution and integrity? 
If so, how could the government facilitate these initiatives?
    11. Please identify any pertinent issues not referenced above that 
the Copyright Office should consider in conducting its study

    Dated: January 13, 2017.
Karyn Temple Claggett,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright 
Office.
[FR Doc. 2017-01294 Filed 1-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1410-30-P



                                                  7870                          Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices

                                                  SUMMARY:   In accordance with the                         Signed at Washington, DC, on January 13,             any organization the submitter
                                                  provisions of the Federal Advisory                      2017.                                                  represents. The Office will post all
                                                  Committee Act (FACA), and after                         Jordan Barab,                                          comments publicly in the form that they
                                                  consultation with the General Services                  Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for                are received. If electronic submission of
                                                  Administration, the Secretary of Labor                  Occupational Safety and Health.                        comments is not feasible due to lack of
                                                  is renewing the charter for the Maritime                [FR Doc. 2017–01407 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]            access to a computer and/or the
                                                  Advisory Committee for Occupational                     BILLING CODE 4510–26–P                                 Internet, please contact the Office, using
                                                  Safety and Health. The Committee will                                                                          the contact information below, for
                                                  better enable OSHA to perform its                                                                              special instructions.
                                                  duties under the Occupational Safety                    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  and Health Act (the OSH Act) of 1970.                                                                          Kimberley Isbell, Senior Counsel for
                                                                                                          U.S. Copyright Office                                  Policy and International Affairs, by
                                                  The Committee is diverse and balanced,
                                                  both in terms of segments of the                        [Docket No. 2017–2]                                    email at kisb@loc.gov or by telephone at
                                                  maritime industry represented (e.g.,                                                                           202–707–8350; or Maria Strong, Deputy
                                                                                                          Study on the Moral Rights of                           Director for Policy and International
                                                  shipyard employment, longshoring, and
                                                                                                          Attribution and Integrity                              Affairs, by email at mstrong@loc.gov or
                                                  marine terminal industries), and in the
                                                                                                                                                                 by telephone at 202–707–8350.
                                                  views and interests represented by the                  AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library                 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  members.                                                of Congress.
                                                                                                          ACTION: Notice of inquiry.                             I. Background
                                                  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  Amy Wangdahl, Director, Office of                                                                                 The term ‘‘moral rights’’ is taken from
                                                                                                          SUMMARY:   The United States Copyright                 the French phrase droit moral, and
                                                  Maritime and Agriculture, Directorate of                Office is undertaking a public study to
                                                  Standards and Guidance, U.S.                                                                                   generally refers to certain non-economic
                                                                                                          assess the current state of U.S. law                   rights that are considered personal to an
                                                  Department of Labor, Occupational                       recognizing and protecting moral rights
                                                  Safety and Health Administration,                                                                              author.1 Chief among these are the right
                                                                                                          for authors, specifically the rights of                of an author to be credited as the author
                                                  Room N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue                    attribution and integrity. As part of this             of his or her work (the right of
                                                  NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:                   study, the Office will review existing                 attribution), and the right of an author
                                                  (202) 693–2066.                                         law on the moral rights of attribution                 to prevent prejudicial distortions of the
                                                  SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:      The                     and integrity, including provisions                    work (the right of integrity). These rights
                                                  Committee will advise OSHA on matters                   found in title 17 of the U.S. Code as well             have a long history in international
                                                                                                          as other federal and state laws, and                   copyright law, dating back to the turn of
                                                  relevant to the safety and health of
                                                                                                          whether any additional protection is                   the 20th century when several European
                                                  employees in the maritime industry.
                                                                                                          advisable in this area. To support this                countries included provisions on moral
                                                  This includes advice on maritime issues
                                                                                                          effort and provide thorough assistance                 rights in their copyright laws.2 A
                                                  that will result in more effective                      to Congress, the Office is seeking public
                                                  enforcement, training, and outreach                                                                            provision on moral rights was first
                                                                                                          input on a number of questions.                        adopted at the international level
                                                  programs, and streamlined regulatory
                                                                                                          DATES: Written comments must be                        through the Berne Convention for the
                                                  efforts. The maritime industry includes
                                                                                                          received no later than 11:59 p.m.                      Protection of Literary and Artistic
                                                  shipyard employment, longshoring,                       Eastern Time on March 9, 2017. Written
                                                  marine terminal, and other related                                                                             Works (‘‘Berne Convention’’) during its
                                                                                                          reply comments must be received no                     Rome revision in 1928.3 The current
                                                  industries, e.g., commercial fishing and                later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on                  text of article 6bis(1) of the Berne
                                                  shipbreaking. The Committee will                        April 24, 2017. The Office may                         Convention states: ‘‘Independently of
                                                  function solely as an advisory body in                  announce one or more public meetings,                  the author’s economic rights, and even
                                                  compliance with the provisions of                       to take place after written comments are               after the transfer of the said rights, the
                                                  FACA and OSHA’s regulations covering                    received, by separate notice in the                    author shall have the right to claim
                                                  advisory committees (29 CFR part 1912).                 future.                                                authorship of the work and to object to
                                                  Authority and Signature                                 ADDRESSES:   For reasons of government                 any distortion, mutilation or other
                                                                                                          efficiency, the Copyright Office is using              modification of, or other derogatory
                                                    Jordan Barab, Acting Assistant                        the regulations.gov system for the                     action in relation to, the said work,
                                                  Secretary of Labor for Occupational                     submission and posting of public                       which would be prejudicial to his honor
                                                  Safety and Health, U.S. Department of                   comments in this proceeding. All                       or reputation.’’ 4
                                                  Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,                     comments must be submitted                                In contrast to the early adoption of
                                                  Washington, DC 20210, authorized the                    electronically. Specific instructions for              strong moral rights protections in
                                                  preparation of this notice pursuant to                  submitting comments will be posted on
                                                                                                                                                                   1 In this Notice, we use the general term ‘‘author’’
                                                  Sections 6(b)(1), and 7(b) of the                       the Copyright Office Web site at https://
                                                                                                                                                                 to include all creators, including visual artists and
                                                  Occupational Safety and Health Act of                   www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/                  performers.
                                                  1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1), 656(b)), the                 comment-submission/. To meet                             2 See Sam Ricketson & Jane C. Ginsburg,

                                                  Federal Advisory Committee Act (5                       accessibility standards, all comments                  International Copyright and Neighboring Rights:
                                                                                                          must be provided in a single file not to               The Berne Convention and Beyond ¶¶ 10.03–.04, at
                                                  U.S.C. App. 2), Section 41 of the                                                                              587–89 (2d ed. 2006).
                                                                                                          exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                  Longshore and Harbor Workers’                                                                                    3 See Mihály Ficsor, World Intellectual Property

                                                  Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 941),                       following formats: Portable Document                   Organization, Guide to the Copyright and Related
                                                  Secretary of Labor’s Order 1–2012 (77                   File (PDF) format containing searchable,               Rights Treaties Administered by WIPO and
                                                  FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR part                accessible text (not an image); Microsoft              Glossary of Copyright and Related Rights Terms ¶
                                                                                                          Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format                    BC-6bis, at 44 (2003).
                                                  1912.                                                                                                            4 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary
                                                                                                          (RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a                and Artistic Works art. 6bis(1), Sept. 9, 1886, as
                                                                                                          scanned document). All comments must                   revised July 24, 1971, and as amended Sept. 28,
                                                                                                          include the name of the submitter and                  1979, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99–27 (1986).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00088   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM   23JAN1


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices                                                         7871

                                                  Europe, the United States’ experience                   A. Moral Rights in the United States                        Both the House and Senate Judiciary
                                                  with the concept of moral rights is more                Prior to Implementation of the Berne                     Committees accepted this conclusion,18
                                                  recent. The United States did not adopt                 Convention in 1989                                       finding that U.S. law met the
                                                  the Berne Convention right away, only                                                                            requirements outlined in the Berne
                                                  joining the Convention in 1989.5 At that                   In the late 1950s, the Copyright Office               Convention’s article 6bis based on the
                                                  time, the United States elected not to                  and Congress reviewed the issue of                       existing patchwork of laws in the
                                                  adopt broad moral rights provisions in                  moral rights as part of the larger,                      United States, including:
                                                  its copyright law, but instead relied on                comprehensive review of the copyright                       • Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
                                                  a combination of various state and                      laws leading to a general revision of the                relating to false designations of origin
                                                  federal statutes to comply with its Berne               1909 Copyright Act.12 In support of the                  and false descriptions, which could be
                                                  obligations.6                                           review, William Strauss completed a                      applied in some instances to attribution
                                                                                                          study for the Office entitled ‘‘The Moral                of copyright-protected work.19
                                                     In July 2014, the Subcommittee on                    Right of the Author’’ in 1959.13 The                        • The Copyright Act’s provisions
                                                  Courts, Intellectual Property, and the                  report found that U.S. common law                        regarding protection of an author’s
                                                  Internet of the House Judiciary                         principles, such as those governing tort                 exclusive rights in derivatives of his or
                                                  Committee held a hearing that focused                   and contract actions, ‘‘afford an                        her works; 20 limits on a mechanical
                                                  in part on moral rights for authors in the              adequate basis for protection of [moral]                 licensee’s rights to arrange an author’s
                                                  United States as part of its broader                    rights’’ and can provide the same                        musical composition; 21 and termination
                                                  review of the nation’s copyright laws.7                 protection given abroad under the                        of transfers and licenses.22
                                                  At that hearing, the Chairman of the                    doctrine of moral rights.14                                 • State and local laws relating to
                                                  House Judiciary Committee,                                                                                       publicity, contractual violations, fraud
                                                                                                             Later, Congress considered the
                                                  Representative Bob Goodlatte, noted                                                                              and misrepresentation, unfair
                                                                                                          specific question of ‘‘whether the
                                                  that ‘‘we should consider whether                                                                                competition, defamation, and invasion
                                                                                                          current law of the United States is
                                                  current law is sufficient to satisfy the                                                                         of privacy.23
                                                                                                          sufficient, or whether additional laws
                                                  moral rights of our creators or, whether                are needed, to satisfy [Berne article                    B. Subsequent Developments After the
                                                  something more explicit is required.’’ 8                6bis’s] requirements.’’ 15 The majority of               U.S. Implementation of the Berne
                                                  The Ranking Member of the                               those who testified before Congress                      Convention
                                                  Subcommittee, Representative Jerrold                    argued against any change to U.S. law                      Since the United States’
                                                  Nadler, also indicated his interest in a                concerning an artist’s right to control                  implementation of the Berne
                                                  further evaluation of the status of moral               attribution or any alteration to his                     Convention over 25 years ago, there
                                                  rights in the United States, asking ‘‘how               creation, stating that current U.S. law                  have been a number of legal and
                                                  our current laws are working and what,                  was sufficient.16 Indeed, WIPO Director                  technological developments affecting
                                                  if any, changes might be necessary and                  General Dr. Árpád Bogsch explained to                  the scope and protection of moral rights.
                                                  appropriate.’’ 9 Register of Copyrights                 Congress that the United States did not                  In 1990, Congress passed the Visual
                                                  Maria Pallante recommended further                      need to make any changes to U.S. law                     Artists Rights Act (VARA), codified at
                                                  study of moral rights in her testimony                  to meet the obligations of article 6bis.17               section 106A of the Copyright Act, 24
                                                  before Congress at the end of the two-
                                                  year copyright review hearings                             12 As part of the consideration for possible             18 See S. Rep. No. 100–352, at 9–10 (1988); H.R.

                                                  process,10 at which time the Ranking                    accession to the Berne Convention, the general           Rep. No. 100–609, at 37–38 (1988); see also S. Exec.
                                                                                                          review of the 1909 Act took more than 20 years and       Rep. No. 100–17, at 55 (1988) (to accompany S.
                                                  Member of the House Judiciary                                                                                    Treaty Doc. No. 99–27 (1986)) (statement of John K.
                                                                                                          resulted in the 1976 Copyright Act.
                                                  Committee requested that the Office                        13 See William Strauss, Study No. 4: The Moral        Uilkema on behalf of Am. Bar Ass’n before the S.
                                                  undertake this study.11 As part of the                  Right of the Author (1959), in Staff of S. Comm. on      Comm. on Foreign Relations) (‘‘Whether greater or
                                                  preparation for this study, the Copyright               the Judiciary, 86th Cong., Copyright Law Revision:       lesser moral rights per se should be the subject of
                                                                                                          Studies Prepared for the Subcomm. on Patents,            legislative consideration in the United States is a
                                                  Office co-hosted a day-long symposium                   Trademarks, and Copyrights of the Comm. on the           question that is separate and apart from the Berne
                                                  on moral rights in April 2016 in order                  Judiciary, United States Senate: Studies 1–4, at 109     adherence compatibility question.’’).
                                                                                                                                                                      19 See 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
                                                  to hear views about current issues in                   (Comm. Print 1960).
                                                                                                             14 Strauss at 142. The report rejected the idea of       20 See 17 U.S.C. 106(2).
                                                  this area. The Office is now
                                                                                                          an ‘‘irreconcilable breach between European and             21 See 17 U.S.C. 115(a)(2).
                                                  commencing a formal study on moral                      American concepts of protection of authors’                 22 See 17 U.S.C. 203.
                                                  rights and soliciting public input.                     personal rights,’’ instead concluding that U.S. and         23 See H.R. Rep. No. 100–609, at 34 (1988).
                                                                                                          European courts generally arrived at the same            Contract law is particularly important for authors to
                                                    5 Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988,        results in upholding the same rights or limitations      control aspects of their economic and moral rights.
                                                                                                          on those rights, just in different ways. Id. at 141–     For example, the collective bargaining agreements
                                                  Public Law 100–568, 102 Stat. 2853 (‘‘BCIA’’).
                                                    6 See discussion on the BCIA infra notes 15–23
                                                                                                          42.                                                      that govern the creation of major motion pictures
                                                                                                             15 H.R. Rep. No. 100–609, at 33 (1988).
                                                  and accompanying text.                                                                                           often contain explicit requirements with regards to
                                                                                                             16 See S. Rep. No. 100–352, at 6 (1988); H.R. Rep.    attribution for actors, writers, directors, and other
                                                    7 See Moral Rights, Termination Rights, Resale
                                                                                                          No. 100–609, at 33 (1988).                               guilds. Many copyright sectors that involve
                                                  Royalty, and Copyright Term: Hearing Before the            17 See H.R. Rep. No. 100–609, at 37 (1988); S. Rep.   numerous authors and participants in the creative
                                                  Subcomm. on Courts, Intellectual Prop., & the
                                                                                                          No. 100–352, at 10 (1988); see also Letter from Dr.      process, such as filmed entertainment, business and
                                                  Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th
                                                                                                          Árpád Bogsch, Dir. Gen., World Intellectual Prop.      entertainment software, music production, and
                                                  Cong. (2014) (‘‘Moral Rights Hearing’’).
                                                                                                          Org., to Irwin Karp, Esq. (June 16, 1987), reprinted     book publishing, also rely on both employment
                                                    8 Moral Rights Hearing at 4.
                                                                                                          in Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1987:          agreements and the work-for-hire doctrine to
                                                    9 Id.
                                                                                                          Hearing on H.R. 1623 Before the Subcomm. on              determine ownership issues, which in turn may
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                    10 Register’s Perspective on Copyright Review:                                                                 include elements related to attribution and
                                                                                                          Courts, Civil Liberties & the Admin. of Justice of the
                                                  Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,           H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 100th Cong. 213 (1987)        integrity.
                                                  114th Cong. 34–35 (2015) (written statement of          (‘‘In my view, it is not necessary for the United           24 Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) of 1990,
                                                  Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Dir.,     States of America to enact statutory provisions on       Public Law 101–650, 104 Stat. 5128–29 (codified at
                                                  U.S. Copyright Office) (‘‘Register’s Perspective        moral rights in order to comply with Article 6bis        17 U.S.C. 106A). In the Report accompanying H.R.
                                                  Hearing’’).                                             of the Berne Convention. The requirements under          2690 (Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990), the House
                                                    11 Register’s Perspective Hearing at 49 (statement    this Article can be fulfilled not only by statutory      Judiciary provided background information on the
                                                  of Rep. John Conyers, Ranking Member, H. Comm.          provisions in a copyright statute but also by            Berne Convention and moral rights, noting that the
                                                  on the Judiciary).                                      common law and other statutes.’’).                                                                   Continued




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00089   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM    23JAN1


                                                  7872                           Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices

                                                  which guarantees to authors of works of                   rights laws of the United Kingdom and                   competition law out of the patchwork
                                                  ‘‘visual arts’’ the right to claim or                     Canada contained express waiver                         entirely.36
                                                  disclaim authorship in a work and                         provisions.29
                                                  limited rights to prevent distortion,                                                                             Rights Management Information and
                                                                                                            The Supreme Court’s 2003 Decision in                    Moral Rights for Performers
                                                  mutilation, or modification of a work.25
                                                                                                            Dastar
                                                  In contrast to how moral rights were                                                                                 Since implementation of the Berne
                                                  often adopted elsewhere, with VARA,                          In 2003, some scholars began to
                                                                                                                                                                    Convention, the United States has
                                                  Congress identified specific instances in                 question the strength of the U.S.
                                                                                                                                                                    joined two additional international
                                                  which the limited rights could be                         patchwork of protection as a result of
                                                                                                                                                                    treaties that address moral rights—the
                                                  waived.26 As part of the legislation,                     the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in
                                                                                                                                                                    WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the
                                                  Congress also directed the Copyright                      Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox
                                                                                                            Film Corp. (‘‘Dastar’’), which foreclosed               WIPO Performances and Phonograms
                                                  Office to conduct studies on the VARA                                                                             Treaty (WPPT). The WCT incorporates
                                                  waiver provision and also on resale                       some attribution claims under section
                                                                                                            43(a) of the Lanham Act.30 The Court                    the substantive provisions of Berne,
                                                  royalties.27                                                                                                      including those of article 6bis.37 Article
                                                     In its 1996 report on the waiver                       unanimously rejected an interpretation
                                                                                                            of section 43(a) that would ‘‘require                   5 of the WPPT expands the obligations
                                                  provision, the Office concluded it could
                                                                                                            attribution of uncopyrighted                            of Contracting Parties to recognize the
                                                  not make an accurate assessment of the
                                                                                                            materials.’’ 31 Citing VARA, the Court                  moral rights of attribution and integrity
                                                  impact of VARA’s waiver provisions
                                                                                                            said that when Congress has wanted to                   for performers with respect to their live
                                                  because artists and art consumers were
                                                                                                            provide an attribution right under                      performances and performances fixed in
                                                  generally unaware of moral rights and
                                                                                                            copyright law, ‘‘it has done so with                    phonograms.38 Furthermore, both the
                                                  recommended that in order for artists to
                                                  take advantage of their legal rights                      much more specificity than the Lanham                   WCT and the WPPT include new
                                                  under VARA, further education about                       Act’s ambiguous use of ‘origin.’ ’’ 32 The              obligations concerning rights
                                                  moral rights in the United States would                   Court found that ‘‘origin of goods’’ is                 management information (RMI).39 These
                                                  be necessary.28 The Office also made                      most naturally understood as referring                  provisions protect new means of
                                                  observations about the implementation                     to the source of a physical product, not                identifying and protecting works while
                                                  of moral rights obligations in other                      the person or entity that originated the                also helping protect the rights of
                                                  countries, finding that, of the laws                      underlying creative content.33 In a well-               attribution and integrity.40
                                                  reviewed by the Office, only the moral                    known sentence, Justice Scalia, writing                    The United States implemented its
                                                                                                            for the Court, stated that permitting a                 WCT and WPPT obligations via
                                                  Congress at the time of the BCIA agreed that              section 43(a) claim for such                            enactment of the 1998 Digital
                                                  existing federal and state laws were sufficient to        misattribution ‘‘would create a species                 Millennium Copyright Act (‘‘DMCA’’),41
                                                  comply with the Berne Convention requirements,            of mutant copyright law that limits the
                                                  but that ‘‘adherence to the Berne Convention did
                                                                                                                                                                    and signed as a contracting party to both
                                                  not end the debate about whether the United States        public’s ‘federal right to copy and to                  treaties in 1999, three years before the
                                                  should adopt artists’ rights laws, and the                use’ expired copyrights.’’ 34
                                                  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and           Some lower courts have read Dastar                      36 See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Moral Rights in the
                                                  the Administration of Justice continued its review        as a broad prohibition on applying                      U.S.: Still in Need of a Guardian Ad Litem, 30
                                                  of the issue in [hearings held] in June.’’ H.R. Rep.
                                                  No. 101–514, at 8 (1990). Congress cited the              federal trademark and unfair                            Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 73, 83–87 (2012); Justin
                                                                                                            competition laws in the realm of                        Hughes, American Moral Rights and Fixing the
                                                  ‘‘critical factual and legal differences in the way
                                                                                                                                                                    Dastar ‘‘Gap,’’ 2007 Utah L. Rev. 659 (2007). At
                                                  visual arts and audiovisual works are created and         copyright, regardless of whether the                    least one commenter has argued that not only do
                                                  disseminated’’ in support of providing additional         copyrighted work remains under the                      section 43(a)(1)(B) claims survive Dastar, but so do
                                                  protections for visual artists. H.R. Rep. No. 101–
                                                  514, at 9 (1990).                                         term of protection or has fallen into the               some section 43(a)(1)(A) claims. See Hughes at 692–
                                                     25 See 17 U.S.C. 101 (definition of a ‘‘work of        public domain.35 In contrast, some                      95.
                                                                                                                                                                       37 See WIPO Copyright Treaty art. 1(4), Dec. 20,
                                                  visual art’’); § 106A(a)(1) (providing for the right of   scholars have argued that the Court did
                                                  attribution); § 106A(a)(3) (providing for the right of                                                            1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 121 (‘‘WCT’’); see also
                                                                                                            not write federal trademark and unfair                  Summary of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT)
                                                  integrity). Section 604 of VARA, codified at 17
                                                  U.S.C. 113, created special rules for removal of                                                                  (1996), WIPO, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/
                                                  works visual art incorporated into buildings. Unlike
                                                                                                              29 Waiver   of Moral Rights at 183.                   wct/summary_wct.html.
                                                                                                              30 539                                                   38 See WIPO Performances and Phonograms
                                                  Berne’s article 6bis, VARA’s protections only apply                 U.S. 23 (2003). Dastar involved the
                                                  to works of visual art.                                   distribution of an edited version of a 1949 broadcast   Treaty art. 5(1), Dec. 20, 1996, 2186 U.N.T.S. 203
                                                     26 See H.R. Rep. No. 101–514, at 18 (1990). VARA       to which Twentieth Century Fox had owned the            (‘‘WPPT’’). Like the Berne Convention, the WPPT
                                                  permits authors to waive these rights only if             copyright but which it failed to renew, placing the     provides that the duration of protection shall be at
                                                  expressly agreed in a written instrument signed by        work in the public domain. Dastar distributed           least for the term of economic rights and shall be
                                                  the author. See 17 U.S.C. 106A(e).                        copies of the edited series listing Dastar and its      governed by national law. WPPT arts. 5(2)–(3).
                                                     27 See Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, Public       subsidiary as the producer and distributor of the          39 See WCT art. 12; WPPT art. 19. WCT article 12

                                                  Law 101–650, 608, 104 Stat. 5128, 5132 (1990). The        edited work, rather than Fox. Fox sued for reverse      and WPPT article 19 define rights management
                                                  Copyright Office’s 1992 study concluded there was         passing off, claiming Dastar violated section 43(a)     information to include identification of the author
                                                  insufficient economic and copyright policy                of the Lanham Act’s prohibition against false           and owner and terms of use of the work or sound
                                                  justification to establish droit de suite in the United   designation of origin.                                  recording.
                                                                                                              31 Id. at 35.                                            40 See J. Carlos Fernádez-Molina & Eduardo Peis,
                                                  States. See U.S. Copyright Office, Droit De Suite:
                                                                                                              32 Id.at 34.
                                                  The Artist’s Resale Royalty xv (1992), http://                                                                    The Moral Rights of Authors in the Age of Digital
                                                  www.copyright.gov/history/droit_de_suite.pdf. In            33 See id. at 31–32.                                  Information, 52 J. Am. Soc’y for Info. Sci. & Tech.
                                                  2013, the Copyright Office responded to a                   34 Id. at 34 (internal quote marks omitted). The      109, 112 (2001) (explaining how the WIPO Internet
                                                  congressional request and issued a second report          Supreme Court left open the possibility of a            Treaties’ rights management information provisions
                                                  which examined the changes in law and practice            Lanham Act claim under section 43(a)(1)(B) where,       fit within the treaties and also are useful in
                                                  regarding resale royalties, in both the United States     in advertising for a copied work of authorship, the     protecting moral rights).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                  and abroad, since the 1992 report. See U.S.               copier ‘‘misrepresents the nature, characteristics         41 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
                                                  Copyright Office, Resale Royalties: An Updated            [or] qualities’’ of the work. Id. at 38.                Public Law 105–304, 103 122 Stat. 2860, 2863–76
                                                  Analysis (2013), http://www.copyright.gov/docs/             35 See, e.g., Kehoe Component Sales Inc. v. Best      (1998) (codified as amended at 17 U.S.C. 1201–
                                                  resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pdf.                     Lighting Prods., Inc., 796 F.3d 576, 587 (6th Cir.      1205). The WIPO Internet Treaties were submitted
                                                     28 See U. S. Copyright Office, Waiver of Moral         2015); Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d       to Congress for advice and consent the previous
                                                  Rights in Visual Artworks: Final Report of the            131, 148–49 (5th Cir. 2004); Zyla v. Wadsworth, 360     year, and the Senate voted to approve the Treaties
                                                  Register of Copyrights xiii, 186 (1996), https://         F.3d 243, 251–52 (1st Cir. 2004); Carroll v. Kahn,      shortly before passage of the DMCA. See S. Treaty
                                                  www.copyright.gov/reports/waiver-moral-rights-            No. 03–CV–0656, 2003 WL 22327299, at *5–6               Doc. No. 105-17 (1997); 105 Cong. Rec. S12,972–73
                                                  visual-artworks.pdf (‘‘Waiver of Moral Rights’’).         (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2003).                                (daily ed. Oct. 21, 1998).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014    19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00090   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM     23JAN1


                                                                                 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices                                                           7873

                                                  treaties entered into force.42 Congress                  courts recognize section 1202 as                         attribution and the right to object to
                                                  added a new chapter 12 to title 17,                      protecting against any removal of                        derogatory treatment of a work.51
                                                  which contained two new provisions to                    attribution from works, a minority of                       The most recent international
                                                  implement the treaties—section 1201,                     courts have limited section 1202 to                      development on CMI and moral rights
                                                  which addresses technological                            protect only against removal of                          occurred four years ago at a Diplomatic
                                                  protection measures, and section 1202,                   attribution that is digital or part of an                Conference in Beijing where WIPO and
                                                  which protects rights management                         ‘‘automated copyright protection or                      its member states concluded a new
                                                  information (called copyright                            management system.’’ 48                                  treaty on audiovisual performances.52
                                                  management information in U.S.                                                                                    Similar to the approach of the WPPT,
                                                                                                           Recent International Developments                        the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual
                                                  law) 43—but did not make any
                                                  additional changes, finding that ‘‘[t]he                    There have also been changes to the                   Performances also contains provisions
                                                  treaties do not require any change in the                landscape of moral rights protection                     on CMI and moral rights for audiovisual
                                                  substance of copyright rights or                         internationally since the U.S. acceded to                performers.53
                                                  exceptions in U.S. law.’’ 44                             the Berne Convention in 1989. The                        Availability and Use of Licenses,
                                                     Section 1202 includes prohibitions on                 Copyright Office noted in its 1996 report                Contracts, and State Laws
                                                  both providing false copyright                           Waiver of Moral Rights in Visual
                                                  management information (‘‘CMI’’), and                    Artworks that, while statutory                              Another part of the patchwork upon
                                                  removing or altering CMI.45 In addition                  recognition of the commonly recognized                   which moral rights protection in the
                                                  to facilitating the administration of an                 moral rights—i.e., attribution and                       United States relies is state contract law,
                                                  author’s or right holder’s economic                      integrity—is the norm internationally,                   which allows authors to negotiate for
                                                  rights, the CMI protections afforded by                  the strength of the moral rights laws                    protection of their rights of attribution
                                                  section 1202 may have implications for                   varied among Berne members, even                         and integrity through private ordering.
                                                                                                           among those with the same basic legal                    Since the United States’ accession to the
                                                  authors’ protection and enforcement of
                                                                                                           systems.49 For example, at the time of                   Berne Convention, a major change to
                                                  their moral rights.46 However, two
                                                                                                           the Report the United Kingdom required                   this area has been the emergence of
                                                  aspects of section 1202 may limit its
                                                                                                           an author or her heirs, in some cases, to                Creative Commons and its various
                                                  usefulness as a mechanism to protect an
                                                                                                           assert the right of paternity and was                    licenses that have simplified licensing
                                                  author’s moral rights. First, to be liable
                                                                                                           generally considered to have adopted                     for all kinds of authors and users, large
                                                  under section 1202, a person who
                                                                                                           one of the more restrictive approaches                   and small. The CC license suites have
                                                  removes copyright management
                                                                                                           to implementing moral rights.50                          served to facilitate private ordering,
                                                  information must know both that they
                                                                                                           However, ten years later, in 2006, the                   including for individual authors that
                                                  have caused its removal and that such
                                                                                                           United Kingdom amended its moral                         would not previously have been able to
                                                  removal is likely to cause others to                                                                              afford the services of a lawyer to create
                                                  infringe the work.47 Second, while most                  rights provision by extending to
                                                                                                                                                                    licenses to govern use of their works.54
                                                                                                           qualifying performances the right to
                                                     42 See WCT Notification No. 10: WIPO Copyright
                                                                                                                                                                       51 See Performances (Moral Rights, etc.)
                                                  Treaty: Ratification by the United States of             [defendant] had a reasonable ground to believe it
                                                  America, WIPO (Sept. 14, 1999), available at http://                                                              Regulations 2006, SI 2006/18, arts. 5–6 (UK).
                                                                                                           was likely to happen.’’).                                   52 See Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual
                                                  www.wipo.int/treaties/en/notifications/wct/treaty_          48 Compare Murphy v. Millennium Radio Grp.
                                                  wct_10.html; WPPT Notification No. 8: WIPO                                                                        Performances, June 24, 2012, 51 I.L.M. 1214 (2012)
                                                                                                           LLC, 650 F.3d 295, 305 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting         (‘‘Beijing Treaty’’).
                                                  Performances and Phonograms Treaty: Ratification         argument that the definition of CMI under section           53 See Beijing Treaty art. 5 (‘‘Moral Rights’’), art.
                                                  by the United States of America, WIPO (Sept. 14,         1202 is ‘‘restricted to the context of ‘automated
                                                  1999), available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/                                                              16 (‘‘Obligations Concerning Rights Management
                                                                                                           copyright protection or management systems’’’),          Information’’). Negotiations to conclude this treaty
                                                  notifications/wppt/treaty_wppt_8.html.                   and Williams v. Cavalli S.p.A., No. CV 14–06659–
                                                     43 The other sections of chapter 12 include                                                                    took more than a decade, with a major point of
                                                                                                           AB (JEMx), 2015 WL 1247065, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb.        contention involving the provision on contractual
                                                  sections 1203 and 1204, which set forth available        12, 2015) (holding that ‘‘[t]he plain meaning of
                                                  civil remedies and criminal sanctions for violation                                                               transfers. See Beijing Treaty art. 12; see also Press
                                                                                                           § 1202 indicates that CMI can include non-digital        Release, WIPO, WIPO Diplomatic Conference
                                                  of sections 1201 and 1202, and section 1205, which       copyright information’’), and Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox
                                                  explicitly carves out federal and state laws affecting                                                            Opens in Beijing to Conclude Treaty on Performers’
                                                                                                           Sports Interactive Media, LLC, 999 F. Supp. 2d           Rights in Audiovisual Productions, WIPO Press
                                                  Internet privacy. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1203–1205.                1098, 1101–02 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (noting that the
                                                     44 H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 9 (1998).
                                                                                                                                                                    Release PR/2012/713 (June 20, 2012), available at
                                                                                                           majority of courts have rejected a requirement for       http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2012/
                                                     45 The term ‘‘copyright management information’’      CMI to be digital under section 1202), and Fox v.        article_0012.html (noting that as far back as the year
                                                  in the Copyright Act is seen as a synonymous term        Hildebrand, No. CV 09–2085 DSF (VBKx), 2009 WL           2000 negotiators could not agree on the issue
                                                  for ‘‘rights management information’’ as used in the     1977996, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 1, 2009) (‘‘The plain     involving transfer of rights, and a breakthrough
                                                  WCT and WPPT. See S. Rep. No. 105–190, at 11             language of the statute indicates that the DMCA          compromise occurred in June 2011). This treaty has
                                                  n.18 (1998) (‘‘Rights management information is          provision at issue is not limited to copyright notices   not yet entered into force, and the United States has
                                                  more commonly referred to in the U.S. as copyright       that are digitally placed on a work.’’), with Textile    not yet ratified it. The Obama Administration has
                                                  management information (CMI).’’).                        Secrets Int’l Inc. v. Ya-Ya Brand Inc., 524 F. Supp.     submitted a legislative package to Congress in
                                                     46 Section 1202 makes it an offense to                2d 1184, 1201 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (‘‘[T]he Court []         support of U.S. implementation of the Beijing
                                                  ‘‘intentionally remove or alter any copyright            cannot find that the provision was intended to           Treaty. See Letter from Michelle K. Lee, Under
                                                  management information,’’ which includes the             apply to circumstances that have no relation to the      Sec’y Commerce for Intellectual Prop. & Dir., U.S.
                                                  name of a work’s author. 17 U.S.C. §§ 1202(b)(1),        Internet, electronic commerce, automated copyright       Patent & Trademark Office, to Joseph R. Biden,
                                                  (c)(2). See Jane C. Ginsburg, Have Moral Rights          protections or management systems, public                President of the Senate (Feb. 26, 2016), available at
                                                  Come of (Digital) Age in the United States?, 19          registers, or other technological measures or            http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
                                                  Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 9, 11 (2001) (‘‘The DMCA        processes as contemplated in the DMCA as a               documents/Beijing-treaty-package.pdf (treaty
                                                  may contain the seeds of a more general attribution      whole.’’), and IQ Grp., Ltd. v. Wiesner Publ’g, LLC,     implementation package for the Beijing Treaty on
                                                  right. . . .’’); see also Greg Lastowka, Digital         409 F. Supp. 2d 587, 597 (D.N.J. 2006) (holding that     Audiovisual Performances which includes a
                                                  Attribution: Copyright and the Right to Credit, 87       ‘‘[t]o come within § 1202, the information removed       transmittal letter, Beijing Treaty Implementation
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                  B.U. L. Rev. 41, 69–73 (2007).                           must function as a component of an automated             Act of 2016, and Statement of Purpose and Need
                                                     47 See 17 U.S.C. 1202(a)–(b); see also Stevens v.     copyright protection or management system’’). The        and Sectional Analysis).
                                                  Corelogic, No. 14-cv-1158, 2016 WL 4371549, at *5,       majority position seems to accord with statements           54 Founded in 2001, Creative Commons offers

                                                  6 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) (‘‘Under § 1202(b)(1),        from the legislative history. See, e.g., S. Rep. No.     various open source content licenses. Creative
                                                  Plaintiffs must present evidence that [defendant]        105–190, at 16 (1998) (‘‘CMI need not be in digital      Commons Project, Cover Pages (Aug. 22, 2008),
                                                  intentionally removed or altered CMI. . . . ’’ and       form, but CMI in digital form is expressly               http://xml.coverpages.org/creativeCommons.html.
                                                  ‘‘[a]lthough Plaintiffs need not show actual             included.’’).                                            These types of licenses were held to be governed
                                                                                                              49 See Waiver of Moral Rights at 53.
                                                  infringement, the fact that there was none is                                                                     by copyright law rather than contract law in
                                                  relevant to Plaintiffs’ burden to show that                 50 See Waiver of Moral Rights at 47–51, 53.                                                         Continued




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00091   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM      23JAN1


                                                  7874                          Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices

                                                  Currently there are over one billion                    launching point for the issuance of this                criticized the limited scope of existing
                                                  works licensed under Creative                           Notice of Inquiry.                                      law, ranging from upset that a right of
                                                  Commons licenses, most of which                            Seven sessions covered the historical                publicity is not a federal right 66 to
                                                  require attribution of the author.55                    development of moral rights, the value                  disappointment with VARA’s under-
                                                                                                          authors place on moral rights, the                      inclusiveness and strict standards.67
                                                  Changes in Technology to Deliver                        various ways current law provides for                      Discussion also addressed the role of
                                                  Content and Identify Content                            these rights, and new considerations for                technology, both in creation and in
                                                     The evolution of technology in the                   the digital age. Participants, including                dissemination of authorized and
                                                  past few decades has also impacted the                  professional authors, artists, musicians,               unauthorized works. For example, a
                                                  availability of moral rights protections                and performers, discussed the                           photographer noted the importance of
                                                  for modern authors. Technology can                      importance that copyright law generally,                attribution that stays with images,68 and
                                                  facilitate improved identification and                  and attribution specifically, plays in                  a photo company described the
                                                  licensing of works with persistent                      supporting their creative process and                   technology they use to persistently
                                                  identifiers,56 while, at the same time, it              their livelihood.59 Leading academics                   connect authorship information to
                                                  can also make it easier to remove                       provided an overview of the scope of                    images.69
                                                  attribution elements and distribute the                 moral rights and how countries,                            Looking at what lessons might be
                                                  unattributed works widely.57                            including the United States, approach                   gleaned from the experiences of other
                                                                                                          these concepts. 60                                      countries, one panelist commented that
                                                  II. Congressional Copyright Review and
                                                                                                             Many participants identified the right               there is ‘‘tremendous diversity in how
                                                  This Study
                                                                                                          of attribution as particularly important                different countries have implemented
                                                     As part of its effort to begin a dialogue            to authors, both from a personal and                    moral rights,’’ 70 and another confirmed
                                                  about moral rights protections in the                   from an economic perspective. For                       that moral rights litigation constitutes
                                                  United States, the Copyright Office                     example, participants cited the role of                 only a small percentage of the copyright
                                                  organized a symposium entitled                          copyright management information for                    cases on those countries’ litigation
                                                  ‘‘Authors, Attribution, and Integrity:                  purposes of attribution, and discussed                  documents.71
                                                  Examining Moral Rights in the United                    the perceived strengths and limitations
                                                  States,’’ which was held on April 18,                                                                           III. Subjects of Inquiry
                                                                                                          of section 1202.61 Keynote speaker
                                                  2016.58 The symposium served as a                       Professor Jane Ginsburg posited ways to                    The Copyright Office seeks public
                                                                                                          strengthen the right of attribution.62                  comments addressing how existing law,
                                                  Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373, 1380–83 (Fed.        Others discussed the possibilities of                   including provisions found in title 17 of
                                                  Cir. 2008).                                                                                                     the U.S. Code as well as other federal
                                                     55 Creative Commons, https://
                                                                                                          using non-copyright laws post-Dastar,63
                                                  creativecommons.org/ (last visited Jan. 5, 2017)        as well as expressing concerns about                    and state laws, affords authors with
                                                  (‘‘1.1 billion works and counting.’’).                  how potential moral rights-like causes                  effective protection of their rights,
                                                     56 For example, the PLUS Coalition has created an
                                                                                                          of action might interact with First                     equivalent to those of moral rights of
                                                  image rights language to allow for global
                                                                                                          Amendment protections.64                                attribution and integrity.
                                                  communication of image rights information, and it                                                                  The Office invites written comments
                                                  is currently developing an image registry that will        Some participants asserted that the
                                                  function as a hub connecting registries worldwide       current patchwork of laws, particularly                 in particular on the subjects below. A
                                                  and providing both literal and image-based              the availability of contract law, the work              party choosing to respond to this Notice
                                                  searches. PLUS Coalition, Comments Submitted in
                                                                                                          for hire doctrine, and collective                       of Inquiry need not address every
                                                  Response to U.S. Copyright Office’s Apr. 24, 2015                                                               subject, but the Office requests that
                                                  Notice of Inquiry (Visual Works Study) at 1 (July       bargaining agreements (available in
                                                  22, 2015) (noting that the Coalition’s unique image     some industry sectors), provides                        responding parties clearly identify and
                                                  rights language is meant to address the ‘‘challenges    sufficient protection for moral rights
                                                  [arising] from a present inability to ensure that any                                                           Allan Adler, Ass’n of Am. Publishers (‘‘AAP’’))
                                                  person or machine encountering a visual work has        concerns.65 In contrast, several voices
                                                                                                                                                                  (noting that the testimony of AAP at the 2014
                                                  ready access to rights information sufficient to                                                                hearing ‘‘raise[d] the threshold policy question of
                                                  allow the work to be identified, and sufficient to         59 See Session 4: The Importance of Moral Rights
                                                                                                                                                                  ‘whether to superimpose vague, subjective, and
                                                  facilitate an informed decision regarding the           to Authors, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 87, 90        wholly unpredictable new rights upon a
                                                  display, reproduction and distribution of the           (2016).                                                 longstanding balanced and successful copyright
                                                  work’’).                                                   60 See Session 1: Overview of Moral Rights, 8 Geo.   system.’’’).
                                                     57 Indeed, CMI is of particular interest to visual
                                                                                                          Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 7 (2016).                           66 See Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8 Geo.
                                                  artists who embed copyright information in their           61 See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address,     Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 26, 30 (2016) (remarks of
                                                  works only to find it unlawfully stripped from          The Most Moral of Rights: The Right to be               Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG–AFTRA).
                                                  digital copies. This makes it difficult for potential   Recognized as the Author of One’s Work, 8 Geo.             67 See, e.g., Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address,
                                                  users to identify and contact the copyright owner       Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 44, 48, 60–72 (2016); Session    The Most Moral of Rights: The Right to be
                                                  to obtain a license to use a work found online. See     4: The Importance of Moral Rights to Authors, 8         Recognized as the Author of One’s Work, 8 Geo.
                                                  Columbia University Libraries, Comments                 Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 87, 91–93 (2016)            Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 44, 53 (2016); Session 5: The
                                                  Submitted in Response to U.S. Office’s Apr. 24,         (comments of Yoko Miyashita, Getty Images).             Intersection of Moral Rights and Other Laws, 8 Geo.
                                                  2015 Notice of Inquiry (Visual Works Study) at 2           62 See Jane C. Ginsburg, Keynote Address: The        Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 106, 107–10, 113–14 (2016)
                                                  (July 23, 2015) (‘‘Rights metadata that includes                                                                (remarks of Sonya G. Bonneau, Geo. Univ. Law Ctr.;
                                                                                                          Most Moral of Rights: The Right to be Recognized
                                                  author attribution and source information would [ ]                                                             Eugene Mopsik, Am. Photographic Artists; & Nancy
                                                                                                          as the Author of One’s Work, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l
                                                  facilitate subsequent re-uses of visual works while                                                             E. Wolff, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard
                                                  at the same time support the interests of legitimate    Com. L. 44, 72–81 (2016).
                                                                                                             63 See, e.g., Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8     LLP).
                                                  copyright owners.’’).                                                                                              68 See Session 5: The Intersection of Moral Rights
                                                     58 The Office co-hosted this symposium with the      Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 26, 30–34 (2016)
                                                                                                          (remarks of Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, SAG–AFTRA,         and Other Laws, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 106,
                                                  George Mason University School of Law and its
                                                                                                          & Peter K. Yu, Tex. A&M Univ. Sch. of Law);             110 (2016) (remarks of Eugene Mopsik, Am.
                                                  Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property.
                                                                                                          Session 6: New Ways to Disseminate Content and          Photographic Artists).
                                                  Videos of the proceedings can be accessed on the
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                  U.S. Copyright Office Web site event page at http://    the Impact on Moral Rights, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l          69 See Session 4: The Importance of Moral Rights

                                                  www.copyright.gov/events/moralrights/. The official     Com. L. 125, 139 (2016) (remarks of Stanley Pierre-     to Authors, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 87, 92
                                                  transcript has been published by the George Mason       Louis, Entm’t Software Ass’n).                          (2016) (remarks of Yoko Miyashita, Getty Images).
                                                                                                             64 See Session 5: The Intersection of Moral Rights      70 Session 7: Where Do We Go From Here?, 8 Geo.
                                                  Journal of International Commercial Law. See
                                                  Symposium, Authors, Attribution, and Integrity:         and Other Laws, 8 Geo. Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 106,      Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 142, 147 (2016) (remarks of
                                                  Examining Moral Rights in the United States, 8 Geo.     119–20 (2016) (remarks of Paul Alan Levy, Pub.          Mira Sundara Rajan, Univ. of Glasgow Sch. of Law).
                                                  Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 1 (2016), available at http://   Citizen).                                                  71 See Session 1: Overview of Moral Rights, 8 Geo.

                                                  www.georgemasonjicl.org/wp-content/uploads/                65 See Session 2: The U.S. Perspective, 8 Geo.       Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 7, 15 (2016) (remarks of
                                                  2016/08/Summer-Issue-2016.pdf.                          Mason J. Int’l Com. L. 26, 27–29 (2016) (remarks of     Daniel Gervais, Vand. Law Sch.).



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00092   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM   23JAN1


                                                                                Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 13 / Monday, January 23, 2017 / Notices                                                   7875

                                                  separately address each numbered                        challenges and problems faced by                       ephemeral reproductions to facilitate
                                                  subject for which a response is                         authors who want to protect the                        the digital transmission of the sound
                                                  submitted.                                              attribution and integrity of their works?              recording. 17 U.S.C. 112(e).
                                                                                                                                                                    Licensees may operate under these
                                                  General Questions Regarding                             Other Issues                                           licenses provided they pay the royalty
                                                  Availability of Moral Rights in the                        10. Are there any voluntary initiatives             fees and comply with the terms set by
                                                  United States                                           that could be developed and taken by                   the Copyright Royalty Judges. The rates
                                                     1. Please comment on the means by                    interested parties in the private sector to            and terms for the section 112 and 114
                                                  which the United States protects the                    improve authors’ means to secure and                   licenses are set forth in 37 CFR parts
                                                  moral rights of authors, specifically the               enforce their rights of attribution and                380 and 382–84.
                                                  rights of integrity and attribution.                    integrity? If so, how could the                           As part of the terms set for these
                                                  Should additional moral rights                          government facilitate these initiatives?               licenses, the Judges designated
                                                  protection be considered? If so, what                      11. Please identify any pertinent                   SoundExchange, Inc., as the Collective,
                                                  specific changes should be considered                   issues not referenced above that the                   i.e., the organization charged with
                                                  by Congress?                                            Copyright Office should consider in                    collecting the royalty payments and
                                                  Title 17                                                conducting its study                                   statements of account submitted by
                                                                                                             Dated: January 13, 2017.                            eligible nonsubscription services such
                                                     2. How effective has section 106A                                                                           as broadcasters and with distributing
                                                  (VARA) been in promoting and                            Karyn Temple Claggett,
                                                                                                                                                                 the royalties to copyright owners and
                                                  protecting the moral rights of authors of               Acting Register of Copyrights and Director
                                                                                                                                                                 performers entitled to receive them. See
                                                  visual works? What, if any, legislative                 of the U.S. Copyright Office.
                                                                                                                                                                 37 CFR 380.33(b)(1).
                                                  solutions to improve VARA might be                      [FR Doc. 2017–01294 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
                                                                                                                                                                    As the designated Collective,
                                                  advisable?                                              BILLING CODE 1410–30–P                                 SoundExchange may, once during a
                                                     3. How have section 1202’s provisions                                                                       calendar year, conduct an audit of a
                                                  on copyright management information                                                                            licensee for any or all of the prior three
                                                  been used to support authors’ moral                     LIBRARY OF CONGRESS                                    years in order to verify royalty
                                                  rights? Should Congress consider                                                                               payments. SoundExchange must first
                                                  updates to section 1202 to strengthen                   Copyright Royalty Board
                                                                                                                                                                 file with the Judges a notice of intent to
                                                  moral rights protections? If so, in what                [Docket Nos. 17–0008–CRB–AU and 17–                    audit a licensee and deliver the notice
                                                  ways?                                                   0009–CRB–AU]                                           to the licensee. See 37 CFR 380.35.
                                                     4. Would stronger protections for                                                                              On December 22, 2016,
                                                  either the right of attribution or the right            Notice of Intent To Audit                              SoundExchange filed with the Judges
                                                  of integrity implicate the First                                                                               notices of intent to audit licensee
                                                  Amendment? If so, how should they be                    AGENCY:  Copyright Royalty Board,
                                                                                                          Library of Congress.                                   broadcasters Cox Radio, Inc., and
                                                  reconciled?                                                                                                    Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., for 2013–
                                                     5. If a more explicit provision on                   ACTION: Public notice.
                                                                                                                                                                 15. The Judges must publish notice in
                                                  moral rights were to be added to the
                                                                                                          SUMMARY:   The Copyright Royalty Judges                the Federal Register within 30 days of
                                                  Copyright Act, what exceptions or
                                                                                                          announce receipt of two notices of                     receipt of a notice announcing the
                                                  limitations should be considered? What
                                                  limitations on remedies should be                       intent to audit the 2013, 2014, and 2015               Collective’s intent to conduct an audit.
                                                  considered?                                             statements of account submitted by                     See 37 CFR 380.35(c). Today’s notice
                                                                                                          broadcasters Cox Radio (Docket No. 17–                 fulfills this requirement with respect to
                                                  Other Federal and State Laws                            CRB–0009–AU) and Hubbard                               SoundExchange’s December 22, 2016
                                                     6. How has the Dastar decision                       Broadcasting (Docket No. 17–CRB–                       notices of intent to audit.
                                                  affected moral rights protections in the                0008–AU) concerning royalty payments                     Dated: January 13, 2017.
                                                  United States? Should Congress                          each made pursuant to two statutory                    Suzanne M. Barnett,
                                                  consider legislation to address the                     licenses.                                              Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
                                                  impact of the Dastar decision on moral                  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:                       [FR Doc. 2017–01319 Filed 1–19–17; 8:45 am]
                                                  rights protection? If so, how?                          Anita Brown, Program Specialist, by                    BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
                                                     7. What impact has contract law and                  telephone at (202) 707–7658 or by email
                                                  collective bargaining had on an author’s                at crb@loc.gov.
                                                  ability to enforce his or her moral                                                                            LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
                                                                                                          SUMMARY INFORMATION: The Copyright
                                                  rights? How does the issue of waiver of
                                                                                                          Act, title 17 of the United States Code,
                                                  moral rights affect transactions and                                                                           Copyright Royalty Board
                                                                                                          grants to copyright owners of sound
                                                  other commercial, as well as non-
                                                                                                          recordings the exclusive right to                      [Docket No. 17–0004–CRB–AU, 17–0007–
                                                  commercial, dealings?
                                                                                                          publicly perform sound recordings by                   CRB–AU, and 17–0010–CRB–AU]
                                                  Insights From Other Countries’                          means of certain digital audio
                                                  Implementation of Moral Rights                          transmissions, subject to limitations.                 Notice of Intent To Audit
                                                  Obligations                                             Specifically, the right is limited by the              AGENCY:  Copyright Royalty Board,
                                                    8. How have foreign countries                         statutory license in section 114 which                 Library of Congress.
                                                  protected the moral rights of authors,                  allows nonexempt noninteractive digital                ACTION: Public notice.
                                                                                                          subscription services, eligible
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES




                                                  including the rights of attribution and
                                                  integrity? How well would such an                       nonsubscription services, and                          SUMMARY:   The Copyright Royalty Judges
                                                  approach to protecting moral rights                     preexisting satellite digital audio radio              announce receipt of three notices of
                                                  work in the U.S. context?                               services to perform publicly sound                     intent to audit the 2013, 2014, and 2015
                                                                                                          recordings by means of digital audio                   statements of account submitted by
                                                  Technological Developments                              transmissions. 17 U.S.C. 114(f). In                    commercial webcasters Radionomy
                                                    9. How does, or could, technology be                  addition, a statutory license in section               (Docket No. 17–CRB–0004–AU), IMVU,
                                                  used to address, facilitate, or resolve                 112 allows a service to make necessary                 Inc. (Docket No. 17–CRB–0007–AU),


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   19:02 Jan 19, 2017   Jkt 241001   PO 00000   Frm 00093   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM   23JAN1



Document Created: 2017-01-20 01:30:03
Document Modified: 2017-01-20 01:30:03
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
ActionNotice of inquiry.
DatesWritten comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on March 9, 2017. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on April 24, 2017. The Office may announce one or more public meetings, to take place after written comments are received, by separate notice in the future.
ContactKimberley Isbell, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350; or Maria Strong, Deputy Director for Policy and International Affairs, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350.
FR Citation82 FR 7870 

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR