Page:Copyright Office Compendium 3rd Edition - Full.djvu/635

, Third Edition parties' conduct. See, e.g., Falcon Enterprises, Inc. v. Publishers Service, Inc., 438 Fed. App'x. 579, 581 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the parties' conduct demonstrated the existence of an ongoing nonexclusive, implied license where the plaintiff received a fee each time he sent copyrighted images to the publisher for publication over a period of several years). However, express or explicit limits on use may supersede an implied license, particularly if the copyright owner conveys those limits before the work is delivered to the licensee. See Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 500-501 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding no implied license where architect presented the client with proposed contracts containing an express provision stating that the drawings could not be used without his agreement or without appropriate compensation).

A variety of factors may be relevant in determining whether a copyright

owner published website content by impliedly authorizing users to make copies of that

content. Examples of factors that may be considered include the following:

• Whether there are indications on the website or webpage relevant to the work indicating that the copyright owner intends for the work to be distributed to the user via download, saving, printing, or emailing, such as the presence of a "download," "save," or "email" button for a particular work.

• Whether the copyright owner expressly reserved copyright rights in the work or explicitly prohibited the reproduction or distribution of the work in whole or in part.

• Whether the copyright owner employed barriers to the reproduction or distribution of the work, such as technological measures that disable or impair a web browser's print, copy, and/or save capabilities.

• Whether the copyright owner permitted the work to be streamed or displayed, but did not expressly permit the work to be copied or downloaded.

1008.3(E) Intermediate or Buffer Copies Made in the Course of Streaming

When a work is performed or displayed online through streaming or browsing, temporary copies of that work are routinely made due to the way in which the internet operates. These intermediate copies are necessary to perform or display the work online. If the means of achieving a public performance or public display constituted a distribution in all cases, the right of public performance and public display would cease to be distinct and separate exclusive rights in the online environment. That would be contrary to Congress's clear intention to explicitly recognize the divisibility of exclusive rights in the 1976 Act.

As discussed above, the U.S. Copyright Office does not consider a work "published" when it is made available online through a public performance or public display unless the copyright owner authorizes the end user to retain copies of that work. The fact that the user's computer or other device makes intermediate copies, buffer copies, or other temporary digital copies during a performance or display of that work is irrelevant to this determination. Authorizing the performance or display of a work does not necessarily mean that the copyright owner authorized the end user to retain copies of

Chapter 1000 : 22

12/22/2014 Chapter _00 : 22