Tag: American Law Institute

Categories
Copyright Copyright Theory

Professor Justin Hughes on “Restating Copyright Law’s Originality Requirement”

The following post comes from Ryan Reynolds, a 3L at Scalia Law and Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterBy Ryan Reynolds

In the 89 years following the publishing of the first Restatement of Law in 1932, the American Law Institute’s (ALI) Restatements have become an important tool for those in the legal community to better understand different bodies of law. Despite the success of the Restatements, however, their expansion into different areas of law has not always been received with open arms. Such is the case with the Restatement of Copyright. Since the project was revealed in 2015, many have voiced their skepticism of the project, questioning both its utility and whether its supporters truly want to restate the law or instead reform it. It is against this backdrop that Professor Justin Hughes’ forthcoming article, Restating Copyright Law’s Originality Requirement, finds itself situated.

In his forthcoming article, Prof. Hughes provides a detailed review of the draft Restatement’s treatment of one of the threshold requirements for copyright protection: the “originality” requirement. This requirement is established per §102(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which states that “[c]opyright protection subsists . . . in original works of authorship [emphasis added].” To determine whether a work is sufficiently original to be copyrightable, however, the Supreme Court created a two-pronged test in its seminal 1991 Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co. opinion. First, the work must be “independently created by the author,” which means that the author created the work without knowingly copying another’s work; second, the work must possess a “modicum of creativity”—which, by all accounts, is a very low bar.

Prof. Hughes concludes that, despite the inspiration for the project “by academics who felt the pace of reform of copyright law . . . has been too slow, [and] in the wrong direction,” the draft Restatement “stick[s] to a centrist, sometimes minimalist, narrative of Feist’s two-step framework.” This notwithstanding, Prof. Hughes notes that there are several “occasional missteps” and “a few points of genuine concern” with the current draft Restatement.

The Draft Restatement’s Treatment of The “Originality Requirement”

As noted by Prof. Hughes, the draft Restatement follows the general framework of Feist with § 5 “‘Originality: In General,’” stating in 5(b) that, “‘[f]or a work to be original, the work must be independently created by its author, as discussed in § 6, and must embody expression that is at least minimally creative, as discussed in § 7.’”

In his review, Prof. Hughes examines § 6 and § 7 respectively, beginning first with § 7’s treatment of Feist’s modicum of creativity requirement.

§ 7’s Treatment of the Modicum of Creativity Requirement

Describing it as the “true heart of the draft Restatement’s originality exercise,” Prof. Hughes commends the draft Restatement for what it does well while also criticizing it on several grounds. As for what he believes it does well, Prof. Hughes approves of the language shift from 7(a)’s, which focuses on “expression that is…minimally creative,” to 7(b) and 7(c)’s, which focuses on the author’s “choices.” While acknowledging that others have criticized the section for “this sleight of hand,” Prof. Hughes believes that this properly reflects the “shift from what courts are supposed to do to what courts actually do [emphasis in original].” As explained by Prof. Hughes, while Feist directs courts to look for a modicum of creativity, the Supreme Court’s 1903 Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. decision prohibits judges from making “aesthetic judgments” on what is and is not creative. To resolve this tension, Prof. Hughes explains that courts look to the creative choices in the creation of a work to determine minimal creativity. Therefore, Prof. Hughes believes the draft Restatement’s focus on author’s “choices” accurately reflects the practice of courts; however, as it barely mentions Bleistein, it does not adequately explain to the reader what it is doing.

Further, Prof. Hughes criticizes § 7 for not following its treatment of author’s “choices” consistently where 7(c) is concerned. The relevant language of 7(c) says that “‘[t]he minimal-creativity requirement is not satisfied by choices . . . (such as . . . the tools used to produce the work . . . ).’” Prof. Hughes argues that this provision is incorrect, as “[t]he artist’s choice of which tools to use is part of the creative process. The sculptor’s choice of which chisel to pick up—width of blade, angle of blade, hardness of steel, etc.––may be an expressive choice.”

Another problem Prof. Hughes identifies with the draft Restatement of § 7 is that “Section 7(b) clearly seems intended to limit ‘selection, coordination, and arrangement’ as possible bases for original expression to ‘compilation’ works.” While the current draft of 7(b) states that, “In the case of a compilation [emphasis in original], choices regarding the selection, coordination, or arrangement of elements can satisfy the minimal creativity requirement even if those elements are not themselves original,” the 2018 version “did not have this limitation and was more open-ended.” As expressed by Prof. Hughes, “This intent to limit selection, coordination, and arrangement of bases for minimal creativity to the category of ‘compilation’ works is not an accurate reflection of case law [emphasis in original].”

Prof. Hughes also criticizes the draft Restatement both for what it chooses to say and chooses not to say about creativity. As to the former, while comments to § 7 do not provide a definitive definition of what is or is not original, they do provide a list outlining what minimal creativity requires. While to Prof. Hughes this list is helpful, it is also imperfect and raises concerns. One concern he highlights is its potential to raise the minimal-creativity bar, thereby narrowing copyright’s protections. To this point, Prof. Hughes highlights that, in the draft Restatement’s list, it provides that creativity must be “‘making non-obvious choices from more than a few options.’” As Prof. Hughes breaks down, “[t]hat appellate court dictum is directly contradictory to the Supreme Court’s statement in Feist . . . that the minimal-creativity requirement . . . can be met by ‘some creative spark, ‘no matter how crude, humble, or obvious’’[emphasis in original].”

As to what the draft Restatement chooses not to say about creativity, Prof. Hughes first believes that, to improve, the draft Restatement should “includ[e] . . . a discussion of how choices that manifest individual personality,” such as the decisions of photographers on how they take pictures, are “protectable original expression.” To this point, Prof. Hughes believes that “the most serious shortcoming” of § 7 is the Reporters’ decision not to address Bleistein—which, in the cited words of Prof. Barton Beebe, “‘directly connected ‘originality’ with personal expression.’” Second, Prof. Hughes believes that § 7 should acknowledge “‘intellectual’ choices” as “part of the minimal-creativity equation.”

§ 6’s Treatment of The Independent Creation Requirement

Moving onto his review of § 6, Prof. Hughes first points to its language: “A work meets the independent-creation criterion for originality if the author has contributed some expression to the work without copying that expression from any preexisting work.” While Prof. Hughes believes that the “formulation is ok,” he quickly points out issues he sees with the section’s comments and Reporters’ Notes. First, Prof. Hughes notes that Comment a’s statement “that ‘[f]or expression to be independently created, it must come from the mind of the author’ . . . arguably conflates the two Feist prongs”—a conflation he notes Comment b also likely commits. As Prof. Hughes explains, “the independent production requirement is that the expression be made or brought into the world by a person who had not experienced the same expression previously [emphasis in original],” and therefore “[i]t is not necessary that it ‘come from the mind of the author.’” As Prof. Hughes illustrates, “If a person throws a set of dice one hundred times and writes down the resulting dice totals from each roll on a list, that list was ‘independently-created’ under Feist.”

Prof. Hughes is also critical of the discussion of “novelty” in Comment b, which says that “‘the expression need not be novel or unique.’” While he believes the Reporters’ Notes make an important point, he sees the use of the word “novelty” as simply “too loaded with patent law baggage.” As he explains, the independent-creation standard for Copyright is different from patent law’s “novelty” standard, as “[c]opyright’s independent-creation requirement does not mean that the thing cannot already exist in the world.” Therefore, as there may be confusion in using the word “novelty,” Prof. Hughes recommends removing it altogether.

Lastly, Prof. Hughes also questions the amount of attention the Comments and Reporters’ Notes to § 6 dedicate to nonhuman authorship. After providing an overview of the current limited case law surrounding this issue, he concludes that, while “[t]hese issues are fun conjecture for academics, . . . [they] are so rarefied as to wonder why the draft Restatement discusses them at all.”

Categories
Copyright Legislation

Professors Balganesh and Menell on “The Curious Case of the Restatement of Copyright”

The following post comes from Ryan Reynolds, a 3L at Scalia Law and Research Assistant at CPIP.

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksBy Ryan Reynolds

In 2015, the American Law Institute (ALI) made the announcement that it would restate an area of law that is dominated by a detailed statute—the Restatement of Copyright. ALI’s Restatements have played an important role in the development of the law, with judges, lawmakers, and law students referring to them as important tools in understanding different bodies of law. In the nearly one hundred years since ALI’s formation, however, its Restatement projects have historically eschewed legal fields dominated by statutes, instead focusing on common law topics. Therefore, when ALI announced its plan to create a Restatement of Copyright, there were many who were skeptical of the project.

It is in this context that Professors Shyamkrishna Balganesh and Peter Menell provide insight in their forthcoming article in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Restatements of Statutory Law: The Curious Case of the Restatement of Copyright. While Profs. Balganesh and Menell support a Restatement of Copyright, they argue against ALI’s application of the traditional Restatement format to an area of law dominated by a detailed federal statute. They argue that such an application ignores the analytical mismatch between the traditional Restatement format and statutory domains that will create more confusion than clarity. To resolve this mismatch, Profs. Balganesh and Menell argue for several modest changes that would allow the project to serve as a template for future statutory Restatements.

Historical Origins of the “Mismatch”

Looking to the origins of ALI, Profs. Balganesh and Menell illustrate that, from the beginning, it purposely avoided areas of law principally governed by statutes. ALI’s conception of its core function then, as now, was to resolve the uncertainty and complexity of American law—which, at the time of ALI’s formation, was derived from judge-made law that lacked general agreements on legal principles. Therefore, ALI provided guidance to judges and those involved in the legal field with the first Restatements of the law. These Restatements distilled black-letter rules of law from the disparate court decisions across the country and were seen as clear statements of the law.

It is for this reason that, soon after ALI approved a Restatement of Business Associations, fear arose among its membership that it was a subject too steeped in statutory provisions to fit the Restatement model. To address this fear, then ALI Director William Draper Lewis prepared a report outlining a framework to adapt Restatements to statutorily dominated legal fields. At its core, this framework advocated for placing the statutory provisions of subjects governed by uniform statutory law front and center. To Mr. Lewis, the primary value of these Restatements would not consist in distilling black-letter rules of law but would instead be the clarification of interpretive principles, providing the relevant judicial and executive efforts surrounding the statutory text.

Despite Mr. Lewis’ efforts, however, ALI ultimately abandoned the project and never revisited the framework of Lewis’ report. Following this affair, ALI’s Restatements avoided direct engagement with fields dominated by statutory law, instead using model codes as an alternative. That changed in 2015 when ALI announced the Restatement of Copyright project.

The “Mismatch” in the Current Restatement Initiative

As Advisors on the Restatement of Copyright project, Profs. Balganesh and Menell take time to outline their experience and criticism of the project’s use of the traditional Restatement model to copyright law. Despite ALI initially indicating that the project would focus on common law features of the Copyright Act, the first circulated draft indicated that its scope had expanded to include federal statutory provisions. To create its distilled black-letter rules of law, Profs. Balganesh and Menell note that the draft paraphrased, condensed, and reworded the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act. These changes were such that the “lack of attention to the text, legislative history, and administrative context of copyright law . . . would not aid busy judges in identifying pertinent sources for interpreting statutory provisions.”

To illustrate their criticism of the mismatch, Profs. Balganesh and Menell provide an in-depth case study of ALI’s efforts to restate the Copyright Act’s distribution right. As they explain, the interpretation of the distribution right has been subject to significant interpretive controversy. With the rise of peer-to-peer file sharing in the early 2000s, the distribution right was the subject of massive litigation. While some courts interpreted a violation of the distribution right narrowly to require proof that sound recordings placed in a share folder were actually downloaded by a third party, other courts read it broadly so that merely “making available” a sound recording through a peer-to-peer network could constitute a violation. As argued by Profs. Balganesh and Menell, the legislative history of the Copyright Act demonstrates Congress’ intention for a broad reading of the distribution right. This legislative history was not considered by a court until the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in Diversy v. Schmidly, where the court held that the distribution right included liability for “making available” copyrighted works to the public. This same interpretation was also reached by the Copyright Office in a 2016 report prepared at the request of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property & the Internet.

At its core, Profs. Balganesh and Menell criticize ALI’s draft of the distribution right for not presenting faithfully all the pertinent interpretive sources and instead improperly stepping into the role of a judge by making an interpretive decision itself. Despite it’s claiming not to do so, Profs. Balganesh and Menell argue that the draft intentionally put aside a meaningful discussion of the legislative history to adopt an interpretation of the distribution right that rejected the “making available” approach to liability. Further, in its formulation of its black-letter law, the draft relied solely upon court decisions interpreting the statute prior to the Diversy decision, where the legislative history was not understood, and at no point presented the language of the statute itself. Despite their raising of these concerns to ALI, Profs. Balganesh and Menell state that ALI only “double[d] down,” committing to its textualist interpretation while “purporting not to take a position.”

Proposed Remedies for the “Mismatch”

To remedy the mismatch in the current project, Profs. Balganesh and Menell first propose that the Restatement should modify its perspective. In the traditional model, Restatements purport to speak from the perspective of an “excellent common-law judge.” When it is extended to statutory areas of law, however, Profs. Balganesh and Menell argue that this perspective is inappropriate. As statutory interpretation relies on the discretion of judges, a black-letter rule prescribing a singular interpretation of the statutory language steps beyond the role of a Restatement to only clarify the law. Profs. Balganesh and Menell propose that the Restatement should instead act to aid judges in exercising their discretion by providing them with a forthright explication of the materials that inform statutory interpretation, such as an overview of the relevant legislative history or interpretive approaches by other courts.

Second, Profs. Balganesh and Menell propose an update to the Restatement template. Keeping with the idea from Mr. Lewis’ report, Profs. Balganesh and Menell propose that the traditional black-letter law section of the Restatement be replaced with the actual and complete text of the statutory provisions. They then propose that the Restatement lay out sources of interpretation available to a judge in the context of the statute. Since interpretation begins with the text of the statute, placing the text front and center, then followed by relevant interpretive tools, respects the role of a judge while ultimately aiding in the interpretive exercise. Last, Profs. Balganesh and Menell propose reworking the preamble to the Restatement of Copyright as an objective primer to the history surrounding the Copyright Act’s formation. Due to the complex and unique history surrounding the Act’s evolution, Profs. Balganesh and Menell argue that such a preamble would allow an interpreter from the outset to see some of the relevant tools and sources that could be used in interpreting its provisions.