U.S. Code » Title 17 » CHAPTER 11— SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS

17 U.S.C. § 1101

Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Unauthorized Acts.—Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved—(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.(b)Definition.—In this section, the term “traffic” has the same meaning as in section 2320(e) 11 See References in Text note below. of title 18.(c)Applicability.—This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.(d)State Law Not Preempted.—Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.(Added Pub. L. 103–465, title V, § 512(a), Dec. 8, 1994, 108 Stat. 4974; amended Pub. L. 109–181, § 2(c)(3), Mar. 16, 2006, 120 Stat. 288.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 2320 of title 18, referred to in subsec. (b), was amended generally by Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, § 818(h), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1497, and, as so amended, provisions similar to those formerly appearing in subsec. (e) are now contained in subsec. (f).

The date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–465, which was approved Dec. 8, 1994.

Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–181 added subsec. (b) and struck out heading and text of former subsec. (b). Text read as follows: “As used in this section, the term ‘traffic in’ means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Armstrong v. Eagle Rock Ent., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Armstrong v. Eagle Rock Ent., Inc., 655 F. Supp. 2d 779 (E.D. Mich. 2009). · cites it 3× “) Also, a finding that Plaintiff consented for purposes of state law would not necessarily foreclose Plaintiffs claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1101 . 1 As Plaintiff explained in his reply brief regarding his motion for leave to amend, Fundamentally speaking, the Court’s determination…”
Kiss Catalog v. Passport Intern. Prods., Inc., 350 F. Supp. 2d 823 (C.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 5× “In August 2004, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to add an anti-bootlegging claim under 17 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(3). More recently, in October 2004, Plaintiffs amended their Complaint a second time in order to add a claim of copyright infringement.”
Cortes v. Sony Corp. of Am., 108 F. Supp. 3d 18 (D.P.R. 2015). · cites it 3× “(hereinafter “Defendants”), alleging direct and vicarious copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of the United States, 17 U.S.C. § 1101 , the Puerto Rico Trademark Act, P.”
United States v. Moghadam, 175 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999). “See 17 U.S.C. § 1101 (corresponding to § 512 of the URAA, 108 Stat.”
In re Porter, 498 B.R. 609 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2013). · cites it 2× “Specifically, the Artists’ claim HSP violated 17 U.S.C. § 1101 , more commonly known as the “Anti-Bootlegging Statute.”
Gaines, Emhof, Metzler & Kriner v. Nisberg, 843 F. Supp. 851 (W.D.N.Y. 1994). “17 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.” Item 1, ¶ 11. On November 12, 1991, one of plaintiffs partners, James Metzler, spoke at a conference in New York City and distributed copies of the Subject Work.”
Sierra-Pascual v. Pina Records, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 2d 196 (D.P.R. 2009). “, and other unnamed defendants, for the violation of his exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1101 , by publishing, synchronizing with images, and distributing the song “Noche Triste” without Sierra’s consent.”
United States v. Martignon, 346 F. Supp. 2d 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). “at 4974 (codified by 17 U.S.C. § 1101 ). II. DISCUSSION This decision analyzes the constitutionality of Congress’ enactment of the anti-bootlegging statute.”
Kiss Catalog, Ltd. v. Passport Int'l Prods., Inc., 405 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (C.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 5× “Rea, to whom this case was originally assigned, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Seventh Claim for Relief for violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1101 , the anti-bootlegging statute, finding that § 1101(a)(3) violated the “for limited Times” requirement of the Copyright Clause and…”
Conrad v. AM Cmty. Credit Union, 750 F.3d 634 (7th Cir. 2014). “We don’t know how limited; but maybe it didn’t authorize posting photos or videos on the internet, or at least on some of the internet sites on which they were posted; and in that event such posting may have violated the provision of the Copyright Act that forbids unauthorized…”
COMERICA BANK & TRUST, N.A. v. HABIB, No. 1:17-cv-12418 (D. Mass. Jan. 6, 2020). · cites it 6× “However, Comerica does assert that Habib’s video of “Guitar” violated the anti-bootlegging statute, 17 U.S.C. § 1101 . Id. feature Prince’s “spontaneous interactions with his fellow band members and the audience, as well as the singing of the crowd.”
United States v. Martignon, 492 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 512, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 1101 , provides a civil cause of action for a performer whose performance was recorded without her consent, while Section 513, codified at 18 U.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.