placement of works online is intended to be an authorized distribution of those works or merely an authorized public performance or public display.
The answer to this question may vary for different types of works or vary based on the way in which works are placed online. For instance, posting a sound recording online for authorized downloading by the public may well provide evidence of publication, whereas making a sound recording available for streaming would not constitute publication, because the work is only intended to be publically performed. Similarly, posting an article on a news website that authorizes users to download articles or email them to a friend may support a finding of publication for that particular article, whereas posting the entire news website online would not constitute publication because the website as a whole is intended only for public display. Indeed, there would appear to be little basis for inferring that a copyright owner authorized a user to copy and/or distribute an entire website absent some indication to the contrary.
Because publication is premised on authorized distribution, it is ultimately for the author or the copyright owner to determine whether a work is authorized for distribution or is limited to public performance or public display. This choice may be express [e.g., an express statement that the works on a website may be downloaded or that they are available only for online display] or implied in fact [e.g., a website that provides a download option or a website that only provides a streaming option].
Authors and copyright owners who wish to clarify the publication status of their works should provide express information about what they are, or are not, authorizing others to do with their works. For instance, explicitly authorizing downloading or reproduction of all the content on a website would indicate that the works posted on that site have been published. Implicitly authorizing downloading or transmission of copies of works by offering copies for sale, free downloading, or transmission to others via email also may suggest that works subject to that implicit authorization have been published. By contrast, clearly stating that the content on a particular is available only for public display or public performance with an express prohibition on the reproduction, distribution, or transmission of any of that content would indicate that the works on that site are unpublished.
1008.3(D) Implied Nonexclusive License or Authorization
To assess the publication status of works placed online, it may be necessary to clarify the scope of any implied license purportedly granted by the copyright owner of those works. Courts have found that an implied, nonexclusive license or authorization may exist where the circumstances and the parties' conduct reflected their intent or understanding that the work would be used for a specific purpose.
Courts have considered a wide variety of factors in determining whether a nonexclusive, implied license may exist. In some cases, the grant of a license may be implied by objective conduct that "supports a finding that an implied license existed." Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 n.8 (9th Cir. 1990] (finding an implied license where the author created special effects for a horror movie and stated that the footage would be used for this purpose in both a written agreement and in its application to register the footage]. In other cases, a license may be implied by the totality of the
Chapter 1000 : 21
12/22/2014
