17 U.S.C. § 2

REPEAL OF EXISTING RULE AND ADDITIONAL RULEMAKING BY LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 17 CasesGoogle Scholar

“(a)Repeal and Replace.—As of the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 1, 2014], paragraph (3) of section 201.40(b) of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended and revised by the Librarian of Congress on October 28, 2012, pursuant to the Librarian’s authority under section 1201(a) of title 17, United States Code, shall have no force and effect, and such paragraph shall read, and shall be in effect, as such paragraph was in effect on July 27, 2010.“(b)Rulemaking.—The Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall determine, consistent with the requirements set forth under section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, whether to extend the exemption for the class of works described in section 201.40(b)(3) of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as amended by subsection (a), to include any other category of wireless devices in addition to wireless telephone handsets. The determination shall be made in the first rulemaking under section 1201(a)(1)(C) of title 17, United States Code, that begins on or after the date of enactment of this Act.“(c)Unlocking at Direction of Owner.—Circumvention of a technological measure that restricts wireless telephone handsets or other wireless devices from connecting to a wireless telecommunications network—“(1)(A) as authorized by paragraph (3) of section 201.40(b) of title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, as made effective by subsection (a); and“(B) as may be extended to other wireless devices pursuant to a determination in the rulemaking conducted under subsection (b); or“(2) as authorized by an exemption adopted by the Librarian of Congress pursuant to a determination made on or after the date of enactment of this Act under section 1201(a)(1)(C) of title 17, United States Code,may be initiated by the owner of any such handset or other device, by another person at the direction of the owner, or by a provider of a commercial mobile radio service or a commercial mobile data service at the direction of such owner or other person, solely in order to enable such owner or a family member of such owner to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when such connection is authorized by the operator of such network.“(d)Rule of Construction.—“(1)In general.—Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter the scope of any party’s rights under existing law.“(2)Librarian of congress.—Nothing in this Act alters, or shall be construed to alter, the authority of the Librarian of Congress under section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code.“(e)Definitions.—In this Act:“(1)Commercial mobile data service; commercial mobile radio service.—The terms ‘commercial mobile data service’ and ‘commercial mobile radio service’ have the respective meanings given those terms in section 20.3 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.“(2)Wireless telecommunications network.—The term ‘wireless telecommunications network’ means a network used to provide a commercial mobile radio service or a commercial mobile data service.“(3)Wireless telephone handsets; wireless devices.—The terms ‘wireless telephone handset’ and ‘wireless device’ mean a handset or other device that operates on a wireless telecommunications network.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 45 cases, 1929–2016 · leading case: Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973). · cites it 6× “Finally, petitioners argue that 17 U. S. C. § 2 , which allows States to protect unpublished writings, [6] does not authorize the challenged state provision; since the records which petitioners copied had previously been released to the public, petitioners contend that they had,…”

Batjac Prods. Inc., a California Corp. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., a Delaware Corp. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, 160 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “, 17 U.S.C. § 2 (repealed effective 1978) (referring to the “right[s] of the author or proprietor of an unpublished work”).”

Martha Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham Ctr. of Contemporary Dance, Inc., 224 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 2× “See 17 U.S.C. § 2 (1976 ed.) (“Nothing in this title shall be construed to annul or limit the right of the author or proprietor of an unpublished work, at common law .”

Terry Gilliam, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976). “463 (1940); 17 U.S.C. § 2 . The law is apparently unsettled with respect to whether a broadcast of a recorded program constitutes publication of that program and the underlying script so as to divest the proprietor of the script of his common law copyright.”

Edgar H. Wood Assocs., Inc. v. Skene, 197 N.E.2d 886 (Mass. 1964). · cites it 3× “7, which alludes to “that section of the Copyright Act which expressly saves state protection of unpublished writings but does not include published writings, 17 U. S. C. § 2 [1958]. ” 2 In these two cases the Supreme Court has held that the States may not contravene the Federal…”

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964). “§ 1338 (a), and that section of the Copyright Act which expressly saves state protection of unpublished writings but does not include published writings, 17 U. S. C. § 2 . 8 U. S. Const., Art. VI.”

Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). “Former 17 U.S.C. § 2 provided as follows: Nothing in this title shall be construed to annul or limit the right of the author or proprietor of an unpublished work, at common law or in equity, to prevent the copying, publication, or use of such unpublished work without his…”

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 830 N.E.2d 250 (NY 2005). “909 Act would not be interpreted to deny any existing common-law protection, Congress explicitly stated that the Act “shall [not] be construed to annul or limit *553 the right of the author or proprietor of an unpublished work, at common law or in equity, to prevent the copying,…”

Cont'l Cas. Co., Plaintiff-Appellee-Appellant v. Hulbert T. E. Beardsley & H. T. E. Beardsley, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Appellees, 253 F.2d 702 (2d Cir. 1958). · cites it 2× “Beardsley contends that the January, 1939, publication was one so limited as not to terminate his common law protection as preserved and codified in 17 U.S.C.A. § 2 . 5 The facts developed below indicate that in January, 1939, Beardsley had a supply of 100 sets of the forms…”

Pub. Affairs Assocs., Inc., Trading as Pub. Affairs Press v. Vice Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, 284 F.2d 262 (D.C. Cir. 1960). · cites it 2× “17 U.S.C. § 2 : “Rights of author or proprietor of unpublished worlt.”

Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc. v. Victor Decosta, Capital Cities Broad. Corp. v. Victor Decosta. Cbs Films Inc. v. Victor Decosta, 377 F.2d 315 (1st Cir. 1967). · cites it 2× “He argues that a character is not copyrightable — by which we must understand *320 that it is not within the scope of Congress’s power under the copyright clause —and that in any event a creation in the form of a public performance is protective as an unpublished work under 17…”

Siegel v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 542 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (C.D. Cal. 2008). “See 17 U.S.C. § 2 (repealed). Given that the portion of the pre-exist-ing material at issue had yet to achieve statutory copyright protection when it was first published in More Fun Comics, Yol.”

Show all 45 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.