§401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies
17 U.S.C. § 401
Notes, amendments, and revision history
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2576; Pub. L. 100–568, § 7(a), Oct. 31, 1988, 102 Stat. 2857.)
Historical and Revision Notes
house report no. 94–1476
A requirement that the public be given formal notice of every work in which copyright is claimed was a part of the first U.S. copyright statute enacted in 1790, and since 1802 our copyright laws have always provided that the published copies of copyrighted works must bear a specified notice as a condition of protection. Under the present law the copyright notice serves four principal functions:
(1) It has the effect of placing in the public domain a substantial body of published material that no one is interested in copyrighting;
(2) It informs the public as to whether a particular work is copyrighted;
(3) It identifies the copyright owner; and
(4) It shows the date of publication.
Ranged against these values of a notice requirement are its burdens and unfairness to copyright owners. One of the strongest arguments for revision of the present statute has been the need to avoid the arbitrary and unjust forfeitures now resulting from unintentional or relatively unimportant omissions or errors in the copyright notice. It has been contended that the disadvantages of the notice requirement outweigh its values and that it should therefore be eliminated or substantially liberalized.
The fundamental principle underlying the notice provisions of the bill is that the copyright notice has real values which should be preserved, and that this should be done by inducing use of notice without causing outright forfeiture for errors or omissions. Subject to certain safeguards for innocent infringers, protection would not be lost by the complete omission of copyright notice from large numbers of copies or from a whole edition, if registration for the work is made before or within 5 years after publication. Errors in the name or date in the notice could be corrected without forfeiture of copyright.
Sections 401 and 402 set out the basic notice requirements of the bill, the former dealing with “copies from which the work can be visually perceived,” and the latter covering “phonorecords” of a “sound recording.” The notice requirements established by these parallel provisions apply only when copies or phonorecords of the work are “publicly distributed.” No copyright notice would be required in connection with the public display of a copy by any means, including projectors, television, or cathode ray tubes connected with information storage and retrieval systems, or in connection with the public performance of a work by means of copies or phonorecords, whether in the presence of an audience or through television, radio, computer transmission, or any other process.
It should be noted that, under the definition of “publication” in section 101, there would no longer be any basis for holding, as a few court decisions have done in the past, that the public display of a work of art under some conditions (e.g., without restriction against its reproduction) would constitute publication of the work. And, as indicated above, the public display of a work of art would not require that a copyright notice be placed on the copy displayed.
Subsections (a) of both section 401 and section 402 require that a notice be used whenever the work “is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright owner.” The phrase “or elsewhere,” which does not appear in the present law, makes the notice requirements applicable to copies or phonorecords distributed to the public anywhere in the world, regardless of where and when the work was first published. The values of notice are fully applicable to foreign editions of works copyrighted in the United States, especially with the increased flow of intellectual materials across national boundaries, and the gains in the use of notice on editions published abroad under the Universal Copyright Convention should not be wiped out. The consequences of omissions or mistakes with respect to the notice are far less serious under the bill than under the present law, and section 405(a) makes doubly clear that a copyright owner may guard himself against errors or omissions by others if he makes use of the prescribed notice an express condition of his publishing licenses.
Subsection (b) of section 401, which sets out the form of notice to appear on visually-perceptible copies, retains the basic elements of the notice under the present law: the word “Copyright”, the abbreviation “Copr.”, or the symbol “©”; the year of first publication; and the name of the copyright owner. The year of publication, which is still significant in computing the term and determining the status of a work, is required for all categories of copyrightable works. Clause (2) of subsection (b) makes clear that, in the case of a derivative work or compilation, it is not necessary to list the dates of publication of all preexisting material incorporated in the work; however, as noted below in connection with section 409, the application for registration covering a compilation or derivative work must identify “any preexisting work or works that it is based on or incorporates.” Clause (3) establishes that a recognizable abbreviation or a generally known alternative designation may be used instead of the full name of the copyright owner.
By providing simply that the notice “shall be affixed to the copies in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright,” subsection (c) follows the flexible approach of the Universal Copyright Convention. The further provision empowering the Register of Copyrights to set forth in regulations a list of examples of “specific methods of affixation and positions of the notice on various types of works that will satisfy this requirement” will offer substantial guidance and avoid a good deal of uncertainty. A notice placed or affixed in accordance with the regulations would clearly meet the requirements but, since the Register’s specifications are not to “be considered exhaustive,” a notice placed or affixed in some other way might also comply with the law if it were found to “give reasonable notice” of the copyright claim.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–568, § 7(a)(1), (2), substituted “General provisions” for “General requirement” in heading, and “may be placed on” for “shall be placed on all” in text.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–568, § 7(a)(3), substituted “If a notice appears on the copies, it” for “The notice appearing on the copies”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 100–568, § 7(a)(4), added subsec. (d).
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100–568 effective Mar. 1, 1989, with any cause of action arising under this title before such date being governed by provisions in effect when cause of action arose, see section 13 of Pub. L. 100–568, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Compliance With Predecessor Notice Provisions; Copies Distributed After Dec. 31, 1977
Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 108, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2600, provided that: “The notice provisions of sections 401 through 403 of title 17 as amended by the first section of this Act [sections 401 through 403 of this title] apply to all copies or phonorecords publicly distributed on or after January 1, 1978. However, in the case of a work published before January 1, 1978, compliance with the notice provisions of title 17 either as it existed on December 31, 1977, or as amended by the first section of this Act, is adequate with respect to copies publicly distributed after December 31, 1977.”