Copyright FAQs

A copyright is a kind of intellectual property that protects the owner’s exclusive right to make certain kinds of uses of an original work of authorship.

Copyrights protect creative expression. Trademarks protect brand identifiers. The owner of a copyright has an exclusive right to make certain kinds of uses of an original work of authorship, whether for commercial purposes or not. A trademark owner has an exclusive right to use a particular word, phrase, logo, etc. in commerce to identify the source of a product or service.

A work of authorship has to be original and sufficiently creative to receive copyright protection. Trademarks do not need to be original or creative.

The key requirement for a trademark is use in commerce as an identifier of the source of a product or service. A work does not need to be used in commerce as a brand identifier to receive copyright protection.

In some cases, rights in a work of authorship may be protected by both copyright and trademark laws. For example, a drawing of a cartoon character could be protected by copyright law if it is sufficiently creative and original. It might also be protected by trademark law if it is used in commerce to identify the source of a product or service.

Copyrights protect expression. Patents protect inventions. Trade secrets protect commercially valuable ideas and information that are kept secret. A copyright may protect the expression of an idea, but it does not protect the idea itself. For that, recourse must be had, if at all, to patent, trade secret or unfair competition laws.

The five requirements for a valid copyright are:

• Originality
• Creativity
• Expression
• Human authorship
• Fixation in a tangible medium of expression.

An enforceable copyright exists when — and only when — creative, original, human expression is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

Copyright protects original works of human authorship that have been fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The categories of works that copyright protects are:

• Literary works such as books, articles, essays, blog posts, stories, poems, email messages, notes, computer programs (source code, not the algorithm), etc.
• Music – songs, lyrics, musical compositions and arrangements
• Dramatic works – plays, screenplays, scripts, operas
• Pantomime routines
• Choreography for dances and other performances involving human movement
• Pictorial works – 2-dimensional visual expressions such as drawings, paintings, photographs, graphics, maps, diagrams, logos, etc.
• Sculptural works – 3-dimensional visual representations such as statues, topographical maps, dolls, etc.
• Audiovisual works – motion pictures (including both silent movies and “talkies”), movies, television shows, videos, video games, etc.
• Sound recordings – recordings of music, spoken-word, or other sounds (including production and performance elements)
• Architectural works – blueprints and building designs

Yes, a photograph is protected by copyright if it is original and created by a human. A “selfie” taken by a monkey or other nonhuman animal is not protected by copyright. Courts have held that only humans can have rights of authorship that are protected by copyright laws. Also, a photograph of another work that is protected by copyright (such as a photograph of a drawing) is a derivative work based on the other work. As such, it is protected by copyright only if the photograph does not infringe a copyright in the other work.

Yes. Copyright protects the photograph, not the subject of the photograph. Thus, any number of people can photograph the Grand Canyon, for instance, even if they take the photograph from the same place, using the same angle and lighting. Copyright liability may be incurred, however, if someone takes a picture of the photograph or creates a painting based on the photograph.

No. A title, name, slogan or short phrase is not protected by copyright. Coming up with a title, name, slogan or short phrase is not considered a sufficiently creative and expressive act to qualify for copyright protection. In some cases, a title, name, slogan or short phrase may be protected as a trademark if it is used in commerce to identify the source of a product or service.

No. Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, methods, systems, or formulae. Copyright only protects expression. A copyright may protect the way an idea, method, procedure, system or formula is expressed, but it does not protect the idea, method, procedure, system or formula itself.

No. A recipe , that is to say, the step-by-step procedure for making a particular dish, is an idea, method or process, so it is not something that copyright law protects. Expressive elements that are not essential to the recipe may be protected by copyright, however, provided they are sufficiently creative, original, and substantial. For example, illustrations and photographs depicting the dish might be protected by copyright, as might text about the recipe or the dish, provided they are sufficiently substantial. Names, titles and short phrases generally are not substantial enough to warrant copyright protection, so a name for a dish would not qualify for copyright protection even if it is original. A compilation copyright may be claimed in the selection, coordination or arrangement of a collection of recipes, even if no copyright is claimed in the recipes themselves

Yes. A person can own a copyright in the expressive elements of a computer program, such as the source code. Copyright cannot be claimed in an algorithm, however, because an algorithm is an idea, method, system or process. Copyright does not protect ideas, methods, processes and systems. It only protects expression.

Copyright may be claimed in the expressive elements of a three-dimensional object but not in the functional elements of it. For example, copyright cannot be claimed in a vase, because a vase serves the function of holding flowers. Copyright may be claimed in images that are painted on it, though. And copyright might be claimed in nonfunctional features of a vase. A vase that is shaped in the form of a human head, for example, might give rise to a copyright claim in the shape of the vase even if copyright cannot be claimed in the hole in the vase that serves the function of holding flowers, or in handles on the vase that serve the function or enabling a person to carry it more efficiently.

To the extent a feature of an object is ornamental, not functional, it may be protected by copyright. For example, although handles are functional and therefore not protected by copyright, handles shaped to look like human ears might be protected by copyright if sufficiently original and creative.

No. Copyright cannot be claimed in facts, information, discoveries, or research findings. At one time, courts applied a “sweat of the brow ” doctrine, holding that copyright protection could exist for facts and information that a person expended a great deal of effort to discover and collect. Courts no longer apply the “sweat of the brow” doctrine. Copyright protection does not exist for facts and information. This is true even if you make a unique discovery, such as a cure for cancer. In some cases, patent, trade secret, or unfair competition law may provide some protection for facts, information, research findings, discoveries, and the like, but copyright law does not.

No. Copyright cannot be claimed in a theory. Theories are ideas, and copyright ownership cannot be claimed in ideas. Copyright protects expression, not ideas. This means that the expression of a theory may be protected by copyright, but the theory itself is not.

No. Copyrights only protect expression, not ideas. Even if you’ve got all the expressive aspects (such as the melody and lyrics for a song) worked out in your head, a copyright will not come into being until you fix it in a tangible medium of expression, such as by writing it out on paper or in a digital file, or by recording a performance of it.

No, merely performing a work in public does not satisfy the requirement of fixation in a tangible medium. A recording of the performance, however, could satisfy the fixation requirement.

A live broadcast of an interview is not protected by copyright unless it is fixed in a tangible medium. If it is recorded, then it may qualify for copyright protection as a literary work. It may also be protected if a transcription of it is made and saved to a tangible medium, such as a digital file.

Sometimes. Although designs usually are regarded as uncopyrightable ideas, Congress enacted legislation in 1990 providing copyright-like protection for architectural designs. An architectural work is defined as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Protection extends to architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, and also to any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on December 1, 1990 that were constructed by December 31, 2002.Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for protection. Standard features and attributes may not be claimed.

Vessel hull designs are not specifically protected by the Copyright Act, but the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. ch. 13 ), offers 10-year protection for original, non-staple vessel hull and deck designs.

Copyright protection does not exist for mask works, but the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 (SCPA) (17 U.S.C. Chapter 9), provides a similar kind of protection for them. The SCPA protects the 3-dimensional layout of chip layers (mask works) against unauthorized reproduction and distribution, for 10 years if registered.

A compilation copyright is a claim in the selection and arrangement of the elements in a collection, as distinguished from claims of copyright in the elements in the collection. It is possible to own a compilation copyright even if one does not own the copyrights in the individual works that are included in the collection. A compiler of a collection of short stories by other authors, for example, may own a compilation copyright in the selection and arrangement of the stories.

Yes, if the selection, coordination or arrangement is creative and original. Although facts are not protected by copyright, copyright may be claimed in the selection and arrangement of them, provided it is sufficiently creative and original. Copyright cannot be claimed in a selection and arrangement that is too obvious to be creative and original. For example, a telephone directory that lists people and their telephone numbers in alphabetical order would not be sufficiently creative and original to receive copyright protection. A selection of “the 10 most influential philosophers in Western civilization,” on the other hand, probably would receive copyright protection because it is not obvious which philosophers to include. That requires some creative thinking. If they are not arranged in alphabetical or chronological order, then the arrangement of entries about each selected philosopher might also be protected by copyright.

A derivative work is a work that is based on or incorporates elements from another work. A sequel, a translation, a second edition of a book, a screenplay adaptation of a novel, an arrangement of a song, a video game based on a movie, an illustrated version of a literary work, a drawing of a photograph, a sound recording of a musical composition, and fan fiction are examples of derivative works. This is not an exhaustive list.

Yes, copyright may be claimed in new works of authorship that are created for the derivative work, but only if it is an authorized derivative work. The owner of the copyright in an original work has the exclusive right to make derivative works based on it. A person who makes an unauthorized derivative work in violation of the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make derivative works does not acquire any rights in the illegally created derivative work. This is true even if the derivative work contains a great deal of original, creative expression. Copyrights cannot be acquired through infringement.

Yes. By definition, nobody owns a copyright in works that are in the public domain. Therefore, creating a derivative work that is based on a work that is in the public domain does not infringe anyone’s copyright. The copyright in the derivative work extends only to the newly created elements, however. The original elements of the work remain in the public domain.

Yes. A compilation may contain multiple copyrighted word within it. Moreover, what appears to be one work may actually comprise multiple works. A copyright in an audiovisual work, for example, may exist for the productions and performances in it. A copyright in the screenplay may also exist. If the screenplay is an adaptation of a book, there may also be a copyright in the book. The musical score might include pre-recorded performances of musical works. Sound recordings involve at least two copyrights – one in the making of the recording and one in the musical or literary work that is performed in the recording. A multimedia unit of production, such as an album of musical recordings on vinyl or CD-ROM, might include distinct copyrights in production, performances, musical compositions, literary works, liner notes, cover art, compilation, and possibly other things. In addition, a copyright in a work, and in works within other works, may have multiple co-owners.

Yes. Two or more people can own a copyright in a work. If they each contribute creative content to what is intended to be a unitary whole, then they are each co-owners of the copyright in the entire work. On the other hand, if a person creates a work without the intention of making it part of a work that is being co-created with another person, then the person is the sole owner of the copyright in that work. For example, if a poet writes a poem, and a composer independently comes up with the melody for a song, then the poet owns a copyright in the lyrics and the composer owns the copyright in the melody.

The author initially owns the copyright in the work. In most cases, the author is the person who actually creates the work. In the case of a work made for hire, however, the employer or person who specially commissions the creation of the work is deemed the author.

A work made for hire is a work that is either:

(a) Created by an employee within the scope of the employment; or

(b) A specially commissioned work that is created by an independent contractor pursuant to a signed, written “work for hire” agreement and that is in one of the categories listed in the Copyright Act.

In addition to the requirement of a signed, written agreement expressly calling the arrangement a “work made for hire,” a work created by an independent contractor is not a “work made for hire” unless it is created after it is commissioned (not before), and falls into at least one of the following categories:

1. Translation
2. Contribution to a collective work (e.g., an article for a magazine, a chapter for a book, illustrations for a book, etc.)
3. Part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
4. Supplementary work (e.g., a foreword for someone else’s book)
5. Compilation
6. Instructional text
7. Test material
8. Answer material for a test
9. Atlas.

Employees usually own the copyrights in works they create on their own time, using their own resources, outside the scope of their employment duties. If the work is created during business hours, using company resources, or relates directly to the employee’s job, however, it may be considered a “work made for hire.” The employer owns the copyright in works created by employees as works made for hire. Employment contracts should be consulted, as they often address the questions of classification and ownership of copyrights in works created by an employee.

The five exclusive rights of copyright ownership are:

• Reproduction: the right to make a copy of the work
• Distribution: the right to sell, rent, lease, lend or give copies of the work to the public
• Public Performance: the right to perform the work publicly, such as a concert, play, broadcast, livestream, etc.
• Public Display: the right to show the work in public, such as by exhibiting a painting in a gallery or displaying a photograph or drawing on a website
• Making of a Derivative Work – the right to create new works based on the original, such as translating a book, writing a sequel, or making a sound recording of a performance of a musical composition.

The owner of a copyright in a sound recording has these exclusive rights, too, but the exclusive right to publicly perform a sound recording extends only to digital transmissions of a performance of it, such as by Internet streaming. The exclusive right to publicly perform works other than sound recordings is not so limited. An analog radio broadcast of a sound recording of a song, for example, might not infringe the producers’ and performers’ rights in the sound recording, but it could infringe the songwriter’s copyright in the musical work.

In the United States, the general rule is that the term of a copyright is the life of the author plus 70 years. This rule is subject to some important exceptions, though:

Work made for hire

The copyright in a work made for hire lasts for 95 years after the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation

Corporate authorship

95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation.

Pseudonymous or anonymous works

95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation.

Work created before 1978

The duration of a copyright in a work that was created before 1978 can be complicated to calculate. This is because laws regarding the duration of a copyright changed significantly at various times before 1978. For example, copyright terms were renewable and protection could be lost for failure to timely renew, or failure to properly display a copyright notice, or for several other reasons. The renewal terms of copyrights also underwent a series of extensions at various times. As a result, it is impossible to determine how long copyrights in works created before 1978 last(ed) without more information. The renewal requirement was abolished in 1978 for works created in 1978 or later.

Work published before March 1, 1989

For works published before March 1, 1989, copyright could be lost by failing to display a copyright notice on published copies. The rule was subject to some limited exceptions. The requirement to display a copyright notice on published copies of works was eliminated in 1989. It now only applies to works that were published before March 1, 1989.

Pre-1972 sound recordings

Pre-1972 sound recordings have terms that are defined in the Music Modernization Act of 2018.

International law

The duration of copyrights in countries other than the United States may be different. Not all countries define the duration of a copyright in the same way the United States Congress has.

Joint authors

70 years after the death of the last surviving author.

No. Copyright registration is not mandatory. A copyright comes into existence and is legally protected as soon as a creative, original work of human expression is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Registration is strongly recommended, but it is not a precondition to the existence of a copyright.

Preregistration is a procedure that may be available in some cases to protect against pre-publication infringement. It is optional. It is not a prerequisite to filing a copyright registration application.

To qualify for preregistration, the work must be unpublished and in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution. Preregistration is available only for motion pictures, sound recordings, musical compositions, book manuscripts, computer programs (including video games), and advertising or marketing photographs.

Preregistration is not a substitute for registration. A person who preregisters a work must register the work within one month after the copyright owner becomes aware of infringement, and not later than three months after publication.

Even though a copyright can exist even if it is not registered, there are important reasons to register a copyright. Here is a partial list:

• In the United States, the owner of a copyright cannot file a lawsuit in court to enforce it without registering it. Registration is a prerequisite to filing an infringement action in court.
• Registering a copyright before infringement begins, or within three months after first publication, makes it possible to recover statutory damages and attorney fees for infringement. The owner of an unregistered copyright will need to prove actual damages, which may be difficult.
• A registration certificate is prima facie evidence of validity. It serves as legal proof of valid ownership and of the facts stated in the certificate.
• Registration creates a public record of ownership, which gives constructive notice to third parties of the existence of the copyright. This can deter potential infringers and may help defeat a claim of “innocent infringement.”
• Registered works can be recorded with U.S. Customs to stop the importation of infringing copies.
• Registration facilitates the enforcement of rights in other countries.

No. Mailing a copy of your work to yourself is not an adequate substitute for copyright registration. Sometimes called “the poor man’s copyright,” the idea that mailing a copy of a work to yourself can substitute for registration is false and potentially harmful to a copyright owner’s rights. To file an infringement lawsuit in court, you will need to produce a registration certificate. A court will not accept a sealed envelope containing the work in place of a registration certificate. A “poor man’s copyright” will not provide constructive notice to potential infringers. It will not deter potential infringers. It will not provide a basis for preventing the importation of infringing copies at the border. And it will not enable the copyright owner to recover statutory damages and attorney fees for infringement. A registration certificate is needed for these things.

No. Unrepresented parties may file copyright registration applications on their own behalf. You may retain an attorney to file a copyright registration application on your behalf if you wish.

Hiring a qualified, competent attorney is strongly recommended if you are filing a group registration, applying to register a copyright in a foreign work, or if you are planning to claim copyright in a work that was created by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). Denials and cancellations of copyright registration, and appeals from them, are also situations where the retention of competent legal counsel may be advisable. If you want help with applying for a copyright or registering a group of works, contact Cokato, Minnesota attorney, Thomas James.

Yes, copyright applications generally may be filed electronically and deposit copies may be uploaded and transmitted to the Copyright Office electronically, as well. In some situations, such as for certain group registrations and books in e-book format only, electronic filing may be mandatory.

Generally, no, the information in a copyright application is not private. Registering a copyright creates a public record of your claim. All of the information you provide in the application for registration will be available to the public. In some cases, it may be possible to request that certain kinds of personally identifiable information, such as names, home addresses, personal telephone numbers, and personal email addreses be removed from the public catalog. Even then, however, it will remain in the Copyright Office’s offline records and made available for public inspection as required by law. Some kinds of sensitive personally identifying information, such as a Social Security number, drivers license number, banking and credit card information, will be removed if you or your authorized representative make a request that specifically identifies the sensitive information for which removal is requested. The Copyright Office has specific procedures for this that must be followed.

Yes, a minor may apply for and receive a copyright registration if all of the conditions for registration of a copyright are satisfied.

Yes. Any work that is protected by U.S. copyright law can be registered in the United States. All unpublished works are protected by U.S. copyright law, regardless of the author’s nationality. A published work may be registered in the United States if:

• It was first published in the United States;
• It was first published in a country with which the United States has a copyright treaty; or
• It was created by a citizen or domiciliary of a country with which the United States has a copyright treaty.

Yes. A copyright in a work may be registered whether the work is published or unpublished.

No. A band name cannot be registered as a copyright, because copyright law offers no protection for names, titles, slogans or short phrases. A band name might be protected as a trademark if it is used in commerce to identify the source of a product or service (such as musical performance services), but trademark registration is a separate process, different from copyright registration.

No. Copyright law does not protect titles and names. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is responsible for the assignment of domain names. This is done through an accredited domain name registrar, not the Copyright Office.

No. Copyright may be claimed in website content, but not in a website. A website is a location on the Internet represented by a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) that includes a domain name. Copyrights cannot be claimed in domain names and URLs. Moreover, the Copyright Act does not recognize a website as a type of copyrightable subject matter. It may be possible to register the contents of a website as a compilation, though.

You may register website content as a compilation if there is a sufficient amount of creative expression in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the content appearing on the web pages or the website as a whole. If you register a website as a compilation, it may cover both the website as a whole (the selection and arrangement of website elements) and individual works appearing on it, but only if you own the copyrights in both the compilation and the individual works appearing on the website.

A claim in a compilation applies only to the elements that are provided in the deposit copy. It does not cover previous or future iterations of the website. Nor does it cover the general layout or “look and feel” of a web page. For this reason, claims consisting solely of style sheet languages, such as Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), generally cannot be registered.

The U.S. Copyright Office now offers additional options for registering groups of updates to a news website (GRNW ) and groups of short online literary works (GRTX ). These may be useful for registering website content in some cases.

Usually, copyrights must be registered individually. Sometimes, though, the copyrights in a group of works may be registered together.

Unpublished works

Up to 10 unpublished works can be registered together using the U.S. Copyright Office’s Group Registration of Unpublished Works (GRUW ) application. They must all be created by the same author or joint authors, be in the same category of works, and be unpublished. The creator(s) must be the claimant(s). A single GRUW application is used, but each work must be uploaded as an individual, separate file. The requirement that the works must be in the same category means that they must all be literary works, or they must all be musical works, or they must all be photographs, etc. You cannot use the GRUW application to register a song and nine drawings together, for example.

Music albums

Group registration of musical works on an album also is permitted. Up to 20 musical works published on the same album may be registered together using the Group Registration of Musical Works on an Album (GRAM ) application, provided each song has at least one common author. All of the works must be first published on the same album on the same date. A work that is included in the album and that was previously published as a single may be included, however, so long as it was never published on an album before. You may also file an application to register copyrights in a group of sound recordings on a music album using the GRAM application. Similar eligibility criteria apply.

Photographs, artwork, short online literary works, and other group registration options

Options also exist for group registration of photographs (published or unpublished), published artwork (GR2D ), newspapers, periodicals, updates to a news website (GRNW ), contributions to periodicals (GRCP ), short online literary works (GRTX ), and some other kinds of works. The option to register a group of short online literary works together using the Group Registration for Short Online Works (GRTX) option is a real boon for bloggers, social media influencers, and owners of frequently updated websites.

Generally, no. You can register a group of unpublished works, and sometimes you can register a group of published works together, but generally you cannot register a mixture of published and unpublished works together at the same time. There are some limited exceptions to this rule, however.

Mandatory deposit (17 U.S.C. section 407 ) requires the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the U.S. Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition of a published work within 3 months after a work is published. Copies of all works under copyright protection that have been published or distributed in the United States must be deposited with the Copyright Office within 3 months of the date of first publication.

Mandatory deposit under 17 U.S.C. section 407 requires the owner of copyright or the exclusive right of distribution to deposit in the Copyright Office for the use of the Library of Congress two complete copies of the best edition within 3 months after a work is published. The registration process also requires a deposit of a copy, but the registration deposit does not need to be the best edition of the work. In many cases, a registration deposit also fulfills mandatory deposit requirements. The requirements for a registration deposit and a mandatory deposit are not always the same, however, so it may be necessary in some cases to make a separate mandatory deposit in addition to making the registration deposit.

Copyright fees change periodically. Copyright filing fees are in addition to any fees an attorney may charge for the attorney’s services. Different fees apply to applications to register a group of works together at the same time, and for various other kinds of registration applications. Check copyright.gov for current fee information.

Copyright fee information can be found at copyright.gov. Copyright fees change periodically, and they are in addition to any fees an attorney charges for the attorney’s services.

No. Copyright application filing fees are not refundable.

The copyright registration process typically takes between 3 and 10 months from the time an application is filed and the time a registration certificate is issued.

Copyright registration is effective on the date by which the U.S. Copyright Office has received all of the following: an acceptable application, a valid payment of the correct amount of the fee, and deposit copy(ies) in acceptable form. Registration is not effective at all if the application is not approved.

No. Copyright registrations are not renewable. At one time, it was necessary to renew copyright registrations to keep them in force. For works created after January 1, 1978, renewal is not required.

You may request correction of an error in a copyright registration by filing an application for supplementary registration . If the error does not affect eligibility for registration, the Copyright Office normally will issue the Supplementary Registration.

A supplementary registration cannot be used to change certain kinds of things. Types of things that cannot be changed by supplementary registration include:

• Copyright Office annotations;
• Ownership information;
• Date of publication for a work that was registered as an unpublished work;
• Errors or omissions in the deposit copy;
• Cancellation or abandonment of the registration;
• Challenges to the validity of the registration.

Using AI-generated output in a work does not necessarily prevent registration of a copyright in the work. If a work is entirely AI-generated, then yes, copyright protection cannot be claimed. This is true even if a human provided the prompts for the output. If the output contains significant human-authored expression, however, a claim of copyright may still be made. For example, if a human writes a story and prompts an AI tool to edit it, copyright may still be claimed in the story. In addition, if a human makes substantial creative and original modifications to AI-generated output, copyright may be claimed in those modifications. And copyright may be claimed in a human’s selection, coordination and arrangement of AI-generated elements even though copyrights in the AI-generated elements themselves must be disclaimed.

The United States Copyright Office requires applicants to disclose the use of AI in the creation of a work if AI was used to create an appreciable amount of the work. When disclosure is required, it is necessary to also describe how it was used in the creation of the work, and to describe the human author’s contribution to the work. The general rule is that you do not need to disclose de minimis use of AI, but you must make an AI disclosure if more than de minimis AI-generated expression appears in the work in which you are claiming copyright or in your deposit copy. Copyright may only be claimed in the human contribution to the work.

It is not necessary to disclose minor (“de minimis”) use of AI in a copyright application. Using AI to proofread and edit a work generally does not need to be disclosed. Using AI solely for brainstorming ideas or outlining also does not generally need to be disclosed. Copyright may not be claimed in ideas or in contributions to a work that involve minimal or no creative expression. A competent attorney can help you decide when an AI disclosure should be made and what to include in it.

It may be necessary to disclose AI use in a copyright registration application even if you have made significant changes to the AI-generated content, if the AI-generated content was not de minimis. Copyright may be claimed in significant modifications that a human makes to AI-generated output. Copyright may also be claimed in a human’s selection, coordination and arrangement of AI-generated output. In these cases, however, the applicant still must identify and describe the AI-generated output and the human contribution, i.e., the modifications, selection, coordination and arrangement of it, as applicable.

Think of AI-generated output as works that are in the public domain. It is possible to own a copyright in a compilation of public domain works or in a derivative work based on public domain material. You must disclose and disclaim rights in the public domain material when you apply to register a copyright in the compilation or a derivative work based on the public domain material. In the same way, you must disclose and disclaim rights in AI-generated output when you apply to register a copyright in a compilation or derivative work based on it

To disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the creation of a work, specifically identify and describe the AI-generated content in the Limitation of Claim portion of the copyright application. In addition, you will need to specifically describe the human contribution to the work in the Author Created field. You can use the Note to Copyright Office field to further explain the nature of the AI and human contributions.

Yes. Failing to include an appropriate AI disclosure in an application for registration to the U.S. Copyright Office when required can lead to cancellation of registration or potential legal challenges to the validity of the copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office can cancel or modify a registration if it discovers undisclosed AI use, and it has done so on occasion. Even if the Copyright Office does not cancel the registration, a court may disregard a registration and refuse to enforce a copyright if it determines that a required AI disclosure was not made.

If, in your application for registration of a copyright in a work, you failed to make a required disclosure of more than de minimis AI use, then you should file a supplementary registration application to correct the record.

Yes, a copyright may be registered in a derivative work that is based on a public domain work if the modifications made in the derivative work are sufficiently original, creative, authored by a human, and fixed in a tangible medium of expression. You will need to exclude the public domain material from your claim.

Copyright infringement is the unauthorized exercise of any of the exclusive rights of copyright ownership. This means that doing any of the following acts without the copyright owner’s permission may constitute copyright infringement:

• Reproduction (making a copy of the work);
• Distribution of a copy of the work;
• Creation of a derivative work based on the work;
• Public display of the work or a copy of it;
• Public performance of a work other than a sound recording; or
• Public performance of a sound recording via digital audio transmission (livestreaming).

There are some defenses and statutory exemptions from infringement liability that may apply in some circumstances. The most notable of these is Fair Use. In addition, Congress has established a system of compulsory licensing for certain kinds of works and a fair number of other kinds of statutory licenses and exemptions, some of which are very detailed and complex.

Willful copyright infringement is a crime punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Copyright infringement may also result in civil liability for damages and may provide a basis for injunctive relief.

Actual damages, including lost profits, may be recovered for copyright infringement if they can be proven. In some cases, a court may require disgorgement of the infringer’s profits.

Statutory damages may be recovered without proof of actual damages if certain criteria are met. The amount of statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000 per work or up to $150,000 if the infringement was willful. Eligibility for statutory damages is conditioned on timely registration.

In some cases, attorney fees may be awarded, conditioned on timely registration of the copyright.

The maximum amount that may be awarded in a Copyright Claims Board (CCB) proceeding is $30,000. Within this limit, statutory damages are capped at $15,000 per work.

A copyright infringement claim may be filed in federal court or with the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). Different procedures, remedies, and eligibility rules apply to each of these options. You should consult with an attorney to determine which option is most appropriate for your situation.

Yes. Proof of knowledge of the existence of the copyright is not required to establish liability for copyright infringement, and liability for copyright infringement may exist even in the absence of intent to infringe. Innocent infringement is still infringement, although the amount of damages awarded may be significantly lower in such cases.

Yes. Copyright infringement is actionable whether the unauthorized use is for profit or not. The absence of a profit may help support a “fair use” defense in some cases, but it is just one of several factors that courts weigh. Even nonprofit use of a copyrighted work without the owner’s permission can result in liability for infringement.

As one example, a nonprofit private foundation that prepared and distributed via satellite a program called Classic Arts Showcase used an approximately five-minute-long clip of the performance of an opera singer copied from a movie. It was sued for copyright infringement. The court held “that despite the fact that the Foundation’s use was limited and had an educational and non-commercial purpose, the use of the performance footage from Carnegie Hall in CAS programming is likely to adversely impact the value and market for the licensing of these performance clips. On balance, and in the absence of disputed issues of material fact, we conclude that the copying of the Pons clip is not protected by the doctrine of fair use.” Video-Cinema Films v. Lloyd E. Rigler-Lawrence L. Deutsch Found., No. 04 Civ. 5332 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2005).

Liability for copyright infringement may exist even if the author is credited. Giving the author credit does not eliminate the need to secure permission from the copyright owner to use the work. Copyright infringement differs from plagiarism in this respect.

No. Analog or other nondigital performance of a sound recording does not infringe the copyright in the sound recording. Unlike other kinds of works, the “public performance” right in sound recordings only extends to digital transmissions of a performance of the recording. (This is also known as “livestreaming” the recording.) An analog radio broadcast of a sound recording does not infringe the copyright in the sound recording.

Having said that, it is important to distinguish between the copyright in the sound recording and the copyright(s) in the work performed on a sound recording. A sound recording of the performance of a song, for example, implicates at least two copyrights: one in the sound recording and one in the musical composition that is performed in the recording. In some cases, there might also be a separate copyright in lyrics. Even if a public performance of a sound recording does not violate the rights of the owner of the sound recording copyright, it might violate a music composer’s and/or lyricist’s copyright.

“Input ” infringement refers to the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work in AI training. “Output ” infringement is the use of AI to generate output that infringes a copyright.

Yes. AI-generated output infringes a copyright when it substantially reproduces the protected expression of an existing work, even if the AI user did not consciously intend to copy a specific work. An independently created work, however, does not infringe the copyright in an identical or substantially similar work. Creating an identical work is infringement only if copying occurred. Copying may be proved circumstantially by proof that the creator of the second work had access to the first work and that the second work is substantially similar to the first. In the case of AI-generated output, access might be established by proof that the AI tool was trained on the copyrighted work, at least if the AI tool did not have guardrails in place to minimize the risk of output infringement.

This issue is currently being litigated, but at least one court has ruled that knowingly making unauthorized copies of copyright-protected works to use in AI training can infringe the copyrights in them even if performing operations on the works during the training process does not. The focus in these cases is on the question of fair use.

The best way to avoid copyright infringement liability is to focus on creating original work rather than copying other people’s works. If a decision is made to use another person’s work, the most effective way to avoid infringement liability is to secure written permission from the copyright owner. In terms of secondary liability, compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is probably the best way for a website owner or other online service provider to avoid contributory liability for user-provided content that infringes another person’s copyright.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA ) is a 1998 federal law that modernizes copyright laws for the digital age. It attempts to balance the rights of copyright owners with the interests of online service providers such as ISPs, social media platforms, and website owners. Its two most significant sets of provisions are the one establishing a notice-and-takedown procedure for addressing claims of online copyright infringement and the one prohibiting circumvention of copyright protection measures.

By complying with the notice-and-takedown procedures set out in the DMCA, a website owner or other online service provider may get the benefit of the DMCA’s safe harbor from contributory liability for user-provided content that infringers another person’s copyright.

Yes. DMCA notices must be signed under penalty of perjury, and the DMCA provides additional financial penalties and damages for including a misrepresentation in a DMCA notification or counter-notification.

Yes, linking to infringing content could put you at risk of contributory liability for facilitating infringement, but if a website owner or other online service provider complies with DMCA requirements, it provides a safe harbor from contributory liability for facilitating access to infringing content. To qualify for this safe harbor, the website owner or other online service provider must meet the following criteria:

• No actual knowledge that the linked site contains infringing material;
• No reason to believe that infringement is occurring there (No facts or circumstances that should have made the infringement apparent);
• Expeditious removal of the link upon receiving a valid notice or upon acquiring knowledge of the infringing activity; and
• No financial benefit from the infringement.

No. The DMCA makes it unlawful to provide or distribute false copyright management information (CMI) with the intent to induce or conceal infringement.

No. Copyright infringement can occur only if copyright protection exists. A public domain work is not protected by copyright, so there is nothing to infringe. Therefore, copying, distributing, performing, or displaying a public domain work is not copyright infringement. Copying, distributing, performing or displaying a work that is a modification or a compilation of a public domain work or works, however, could be copyright infringement if the modification or compilation is protected by copyright.

Yes, you can make a derivative work that is based on a public domain work without incurring liability for copyright infringement. Making a derivative work based on a public domain work is not infringement. Public domain works are not protected by copyright, so there is nothing to infringe.

In copyright law, the public domain is the universe of all things that are not protected by copyright for any reason.

Anything that is not protected by copyright is in the public domain. This includes:

• Unprotectable subject matter (facts, information, ideas, methods, processes, inventions, titles, names, slogans, short phrases, common geometric shapes, familiar symbols, unoriginal compilations systems (e.g., ordering things alphabetically), works created by U.S. government employees, natural objects formed or shaped by natural forces without human involvement (e.g., driftwood); works created by nonhuman animals; machine-generated output and AI-generated output except to the extent of the human contribution to it;
• Works that are no longer protected by copyright due to the expiration of the term of copyright;
• Works with copyrights that have lapsed due to failure to renew the copyright at a time when renewal was required;
• Works with copyrights that have lapsed due to failure to comply with a copyright requirement that existed at the time, such as failure to affix a copyright notice to a copy of a work that was published and printed prior to 1989;
• Works that have been dedicated to the public domain by the copyright owner.

No. Most online works are protected by copyright. Publishing a work to the Internet is not equivalent to dedicating the work to the public domain. This is true even if a work is published to the Internet without a copyright notice. It is dangerous to assume that a work is free to use just because it has been uploaded to the Internet.

Yes. Works created by federal employees in the course of the employment are in the public domain. Works created for the federal government by independent contractors, on the other hand, are not necessarily in the public domain. Works the federal government acquires through transfers of ownership are not necessarily in the public domain either

An orphan work is one as to which the owner of the copyright is difficult or impossible to ascertain or find. Orphan works are not necessarily in the public domain.

Creative Commons-licensed works are not necessarily in the public domain. A work with a “CC0 ” (CC Zero) dedication may have the effect of dedicating it to the public domain. Other kinds of Creative Commons licenses, however, do not have that effect. Creative Commons “share alike” licenses, such as CC BY-SA 2.5 ,might authorize sharing of the work only if the user properly attributes the work to the author. The license may include other restrictions and conditions on use. Works that are shared subject to conditions have not been dedicated to the public domain.

No. Copyright infringement can occur only if copyright protection exists. A public domain work is not protected by copyright, so there is nothing to infringe. Therefore, copying, distributing, performing, or displaying a public domain work is not copyright infringement. Copying, distributing, performing or displaying a work that is a modification or a compilation of a public domain work or works, however, could be copyright infringement if the modification or compilation is protected by copyright.

Yes, you can make a derivative work that is based on a public domain work without incurring liability for copyright infringement. Making a derivative work based on a public domain work is not infringement. Public domain works are not protected by copyright, so there is nothing to infringe.

No. If you make a derivative work that is based on a public domain work, you can only claim copyright in the derivative work, not in the original public domain work. Creating a derivative work that incorporates elements of a public domain work does not “resurrect” the copyright that has entered the public domain. Once a work loses copyright protection and enters the public domain, it stays there.

Copyright may be claimed in the modifications to the work that are made in a derivative work, but not in the public domain work. It will be necessary to exclude the public domain material from your claim if you seek to register a claim in the derivative work.

If the two derivative works are similar to each other but were independently created – that is to say, if no copying of one derivative work by the creator of the other derivative work occurred – then two different people could be owners of copyrights in the same derivative work. The probability of this occurring without even subconscious, unintentional copying is not necessarily great, but it is within the realm of possibility.

Yes, a copyright may be registered in a derivative work that is based on a public domain work if the modifications made in the derivative work are sufficiently original, creative, authored by a human, and fixed in a tangible medium of expression. You will need to exclude the public domain material from your claim.

No. Any number of people can make derivative works based on the same public domain work. If each derivative work is original , creative, authored by a human, and fixed in a tangible medium, then each creator of a derivative work can claim and register a copyright in the work he or she created. The derivative works must be original, though. If one derivative work based on a public domain work is a copy of another one, then the second derivative work does not satisfy the originality requirement for copyright protection, and only the first derivative work would receive copyright protection.

Yes, if the selection, coordination or arrangement of them is sufficiently creative and original, then a compilation copyright may be claimed in a collection of public domain works. The owner of a copyright in a compilation of public domain works, however, does not acquire copyrights in the public domain works themselves.

Fair Use is a copyright doctrine that allows use to be made of copyrighted material for certain purposes and in certain ways without permission. It is a defense to copyright infringement.

Courts consider four factors when deciding whether a particular use is fair use or not:

1. Purpose and character of the use. Nonprofit use is more likely to be fair use than use for commercial gain is. Transformative use is more likely to be fair use than non-transformative use is.
2. Nature of the work. Use of a factual or nonfiction work is more likely to be fair use than use of a highly creative work (such as fiction) is.
3. Amount and substantiality of the portion(s) used. Copying a small part of a work is more likely to be fair use than copying a lot of it is. Copying the heart of a work is less likely to be fair use than copying peripheral elements of a work is.
4. Effect on the market for the work. The more a newly created work serves as a market substitute for the original, the less likely it is to be fair use. A work that competes in the same market against the original is not likely to be fair use. A work that does not compete in the same market with the original work (such as parody) is likely to be fair use.

None of these factors, standing alone, is determinative. In every case, courts must consider all four factors and decide how much weight to ascribe to each one relative to the other. Fair use analysis is very fact-dependent.

No. Crediting the author can be good practice but it does not obviate the need for fair use analysis or permission.

Many people incorrectly believe that bright-line numerical rules exist to determine how much copying of a work is fair use. This is a misconception. The substantiality of the portion copied also has to be considered. Copying even a couple of bars of a song may tip the scales against fair use if those bars are the heart of the work.

One persistent myth in popular copyright lore is that copying no more than a specified number of words in a literary work is automatically fair use. Some versions of this myth set the limit at 20; others, at 25, 30, or 50. None of these claims is true. A haiku poem, for example, might have as few as three words. Yet a haiku poem can be fully protected by copyright. Copying a haiku in full is not likely to be fair use. There are no simple mathematical rules you can apply to evaluate fair use. Courts apply the four-factor test to evaluate whether fair use has been made of a work or not.

No. Use for educational purposes often is fair use, but that is not always the case. If a teacher makes photocopies of a textbook and distributes them to his students in lieu of purchasing copies or requiring the students to purchase their own copies of the book, it will have a very negative effect on the market for the textbook. A significant negative impact on the market for a work can outweigh the “purpose and character of the use” factor in some cases, even if the purpose of the use is educational.

Showing a movie for entertainment purposes may require a license. A license may not be necessary, though, if the showing is for educational purposes, it is part of face-to-face teaching activities in a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar location devoted to educational instruction, and the copy of the movie being shown was lawfully obtained.

The first sale doctrine allows the owner of a lawfully acquired, physical copy of a work to sell, lend, or give away that particular copy without the copyright owner’s permission. This is why selling copies of your old books at a garage sale does not expose you to liability for infringing the copyright owner’s exclusive right to distribute copies of the work.

Yes, The owner of a copy of a computer program may make an archival copy of it. This is one of the statutory exemptions from copyright infringement liability.

No. The Copyright Act allows people to photograph and draw buildings that are visible in public places without incurring liability for copyright infringement.

Yes. Fair use is not the only defense or exemption from copyright liability that allows the use of copyrighted material without permission. Several other exemptions and defenses exist.

Yes. A searchable database of fair use decisions is available online. The U.S. Copyright Office maintains a database of judicial decisions on fair use called the “Fair Use Index .” It is searchable.

If you are not sure if a use you want to make of a work is fair use, the safest course is to secure permission from the copyright owner. Copyright litigation can be expensive and there are a lot of gray areas in fair use law. Gambling on a favorable judicial decision on fair use can be costly and risky.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA ) is a 1998 federal law that modernizes copyright laws for the digital age. It attempts to balance the rights of copyright owners with the interests of online service providers such as ISPs, social media platforms, and website owners. Its two most significant sets of provisions are the one establishing a notice-and-takedown procedure for addressing claims of online copyright infringement and the one prohibiting circumvention of copyright protection measures.

The DMCA provides a safe harbor to website owners and other online service providers that comply with the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provisions. To get the benefit of this safe harbor, a website owner or other online service provider must:

• Receive no direct financial benefit from the infringement;
• Designate a copyright notifications agent to receive and handle DMCA notifications;
• Promptly remove content upon receiving a substantially compliant written notice of takedown request;
• Inform the user who provided the content that it has been removed.

The user may serve a written counter-notice if the user believes the content was removed in error because it does not infringe a copyright or because it is fair use. If the counter-notice is valid, the service provider may restore the content within the statutory period of time, unless the original complainant files a lawsuit.

A website owner or other online service provider who is in compliance with these requirements is protected from contributory liability for infringement and also from liability for removing the content.

By complying with the notice-and-takedown procedures set out in the DMCA, a website owner or other online service provider may get the benefit of the DMCA’s safe harbor from contributory liability for user-provided content that infringers another person’s copyright.

Yes. DMCA notices must be signed under penalty of perjury, and the DMCA provides additional financial penalties and damages for including a misrepresentation in a DMCA notification or counter-notification.

Yes, linking to infringing content could put you at risk of contributory liability for facilitating infringement, but if a website owner or other online service provider complies with DMCA requirements, it provides a safe harbor from contributory liability for facilitating access to infringing content. To qualify for this safe harbor, the website owner or other online service provider must meet the following criteria:

• No actual knowledge that the linked site contains infringing material;
• No reason to believe that infringement is occurring there (No facts or circumstances that should have made the infringement apparent);
• Expeditious removal of the link upon receiving a valid notice or upon acquiring knowledge of the infringing activity; and
• No financial benefit from the infringement.

The DMCA prohibits circumventing technological protection measures used by copyright owners to control access to their works. Bypassing a password system to gain unauthorized access to copyright-protected material or services (e.g., a streaming service) is an example.

The DMCA also prohibits making, importing, offering, providing or trafficking in circumvention technologies, products, services, or components.

The DMCA provides some exceptions and authorizes the Register of Copyrights to adopt exemptions from the DMCA’s prohibition against circumvention. The Register of Copyrights has exercised that authority on occasion.

No. The DMCA prohibits linking to software or devices that are designed to bypass digital rights management (DRM) protections

Copyright management information (“CMI”) is information conveyed in connection with copies or other embodiments of a work relating to the title, author, copyright owner, and terms of use for the work. A copyright notice is an example of copyright management information.

No. The DMCA makes it unlawful to provide or distribute false copyright management information (CMI) with the intent to induce or conceal infringement.

Reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving interoperability of systems is often protected as fair use or by the DMCA. Also, discovering a trade secret by fair and honest means does not violate trade secret law. If reverse engineering is accomplished through the use of theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage, then the discovery is not “by fair and honest means.” Moreover, reverse engineering can also be unlawful if an applicable contract prohibits it. Under the DMCA, it is unlawful to bypass technological protection measures (such as encryption or password authentication), unless doing so comes within an exemption for security research or another applicable exemption. Using the results of reverse engineering to create a substantial copy or derivative work that harms the original product’s market value, may constitute copyright infringement. If a patented invention is discovered through reverse engineering, exploiting it may result in liability for patent infringement.

Content that is generated entirely by an AI (artificial intelligence) system or tool is not protected by copyright. Copyright protection exists only for works created by humans, as explained in an article in Cokato Copyright Attorney (The Law Blog of Thomas James).

On the other hand, copyright may be claimed in the human contribution to an AI-generated or AI-assisted work. For example, if a human prompts an AI tool to create a series of specified images and then the human selects images from the output and arranges them in a creative way, copyright may be claimed in the selection and arrangement of the images. Similarly, copyright may be claimed in additions and modifications to AI-generated output that are made by a human, provided they are sufficiently creative and original.

Using AI-generated output in a work does not necessarily prevent registration of a copyright in the work. If a work is entirely AI-generated, then yes, copyright protection cannot be claimed. This is true even if a human provided the prompts for the output. If the output contains significant human-authored expression, however, a claim of copyright may still be made. For example, if a human writes a story and prompts an AI tool to edit it, copyright may still be claimed in the story. In addition, if a human makes substantial creative and original modifications to AI-generated output, copyright may be claimed in those modifications. And copyright may be claimed in a human’s selection, coordination and arrangement of AI-generated elements even though copyrights in the AI-generated elements themselves must be disclaimed.

The United States Copyright Office requires applicants to disclose the use of AI in the creation of a work if AI was used to create an appreciable amount of the work. When disclosure is required, it is necessary to also describe how it was used in the creation of the work, and to describe the human author’s contribution to the work. The general rule is that you do not need to disclose de minimis use of AI, but you must make an AI disclosure if more than de minimis AI-generated expression appears in the work in which you are claiming copyright or in your deposit copy. Copyright may only be claimed in the human contribution to the work.

It is not necessary to disclose minor (“de minimis”) use of AI in a copyright application. Using AI to proofread and edit a work generally does not need to be disclosed. Using AI solely for brainstorming ideas or outlining also does not generally need to be disclosed. Copyright may not be claimed in ideas or in contributions to a work that involve minimal or no creative expression. A competent attorney can help you decide when an AI disclosure should be made and what to include in it.

It may be necessary to disclose AI use in a copyright registration application even if you have made significant changes to the AI-generated content, if the AI-generated content was not de minimis. Copyright may be claimed in significant modifications that a human makes to AI-generated output. Copyright may also be claimed in a human’s selection, coordination and arrangement of AI-generated output. In these cases, however, the applicant still must identify and describe the AI-generated output and the human contribution, i.e., the modifications, selection, coordination and arrangement of it, as applicable.

Think of AI-generated output as works that are in the public domain. It is possible to own a copyright in a compilation of public domain works or in a derivative work based on public domain material. You must disclose and disclaim rights in the public domain material when you apply to register a copyright in the compilation or a derivative work based on the public domain material. In the same way, you must disclose and disclaim rights in AI-generated output when you apply to register a copyright in a compilation or derivative work based on it

To disclose the use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) in the creation of a work, specifically identify and describe the AI-generated content in the Limitation of Claim portion of the copyright application. In addition, you will need to specifically describe the human contribution to the work in the Author Created field. You can use the Note to Copyright Office field to further explain the nature of the AI and human contributions.

Yes. Failing to include an appropriate AI disclosure in an application for registration to the U.S. Copyright Office when required can lead to cancellation of registration or potential legal challenges to the validity of the copyright. The U.S. Copyright Office can cancel or modify a registration if it discovers undisclosed AI use, and it has done so on occasion. Even if the Copyright Office does not cancel the registration, a court may disregard a registration and refuse to enforce a copyright if it determines that a required AI disclosure was not made.

If, in your application for registration of a copyright in a work, you failed to make a required disclosure of more than de minimis AI use, then you should file a supplementary registration application to correct the record.

“Input ” infringement refers to the unauthorized use of a copyrighted work in AI training. “Output ” infringement is the use of AI to generate output that infringes a copyright.

Yes. AI-generated output infringes a copyright when it substantially reproduces the protected expression of an existing work, even if the AI user did not consciously intend to copy a specific work. An independently created work, however, does not infringe the copyright in an identical or substantially similar work. Creating an identical work is infringement only if copying occurred. Copying may be proved circumstantially by proof that the creator of the second work had access to the first work and that the second work is substantially similar to the first. In the case of AI-generated output, access might be established by proof that the AI tool was trained on the copyrighted work, at least if the AI tool did not have guardrails in place to minimize the risk of output infringement.

This issue is currently being litigated, but at least one court has ruled that knowingly making unauthorized copies of copyright-protected works to use in AI training can infringe the copyrights in them even if performing operations on the works during the training process does not. The focus in these cases is on the question of fair use.

Creative Commons-licensed works are not necessarily in the public domain. A work with a “CC0 ” (CC Zero) dedication may have the effect of dedicating it to the public domain. Other kinds of Creative Commons licenses, however, do not have that effect. Creative Commons “share alike” licenses, such as CC BY-SA 2.5 ,might authorize sharing of the work only if the user properly attributes the work to the author. The license may include other restrictions and conditions on use. Works that are shared subject to conditions have not been dedicated to the public domain.

Yes. Copyrights and interests in them can be transferred. A voluntary transfer of copyright ownership is called an assignment of the copyright.

Yes. A copyright owner may grant a license to another person or persons (including corporate “persons”) to use the work. The license may specify the kinds of uses the licensee is permitted to make.

Yes. Copyright transfers must be in writing. Oral transfers are not enforceable.

An exclusive copyright license must be in writing. Nonexclusive licenses can be oral, but a writing is strongly recommended.

No. Recordation of a copyright transfer or license can be advantageous, but it is not mandatory

Yes. A copyright owner may grant a license of any or all of the rights of copyright ownership. The grant may include all of the copyright owner’s rights, only one of the owner’s rights, or a specified subset of the owner’s rights. Thus, for example, a copyright owner might grant a licensee the right to publicly display the work while not permitting the licensee to make or distribute copies.

Yes, a copyright license may be either exclusive or nonexclusive.

A copyright license usually will remain in effect even if ownership of the copyright is transferred to someone else.

A statutory license is a license to make specified uses of certain kinds of copyrighted works that Congress grants in a statute. The statute may specify the terms of the license, such as a requirement to pay a royalty and the manner of calculating the amount of the royalty that must be paid. Congress has created statutory licenses primarily for musical works and sound recordings.

A compulsory license is a statutory license that allows anyone to use a particular kind of copyrighted work without the owner’s permission, provided a fee is paid and prescribed legal procedures are followed. One of the more popular compulsory licenses is the statutory license to make and distribute copies of a recording of a cover version of a song.

A mechanical license is a license to make and distribute copies of a recording of a musical work.

Yes, a compulsory license to make and sell a cover version of another person’s song exists, subject to some conditions. The Copyright Act allows anyone to make a recording of a cover version of a nondramatic musical work, but the owner of the copyright in the musical work must have the first chance to do so. In addition, a royalty must be paid.

It is not mandatory to have an attorney represent you in music and sound recording license matters. You may represent yourself in music and sound recording licensing matters. Music and sound recording regulations, requirements and procedures are detailed and complex, however, so the assistance of a competent attorney can be very beneficial.

No. Copyright transfer forms are not available from the Copyright Office.

In copyright law, it is a statutory right of an author to terminate a transfer or license after 35 years. Specific requirements apply to the timing and making of the termination request. You should consult an attorney if you are considering exercising a termination right or if another person has exercised, or intends to exercise, a right to terminate a transfer or grant of a license to you.