Copyright in the United States
La protección del Copyright en los Estados Unidos se refiere, según la ley 17 U.S.C.A. § 102, a "obras originales con autoría plasmadas sobre cualquier medio de expresión tangible que puedan ser percibidos, reproducidos o comunicado de cualquier otro modo, ya sea directamente o gracias a la ayuda de alguna maquina o sistema, con el fin de su difusión". El Copyright funciona concediendo al autor el derecho de excluir a otros.
El Copyright protege los siguientes elementos:.
En los Estados Unidos, todo trabajo software es considerado obra literaria, recogido en la definición del artículo 17 U.S.C") § 101.
Se está trabajando mucho respecto al Copyright de los programas informáticos, ya que se pretende llegar a la altura de los demás elementos protegidos por Copyright. De esta forma se busca proteger tanto los elementos literales del software como los derivados que son por ejemplo su estructura, su secuencia y su organización. Estos aspectos no literales del software, no obstante, pueden ser protegidos únicamente si cumplen el requisito de que su implementación incorpora ideas originales por parte del autor del programa. En Computer Associates vs Altai, el Segundo Circuito propuso el test de Abstracción-Filtro-Comparación, un método que consiste en distinguir los aspectos aplicables a un Copyright diferenciándolo de todo lo que es común utilitario y de dominio público.
El Copyright únicamente afecta a los trabajos originales. La creación de una obra es considerada cuanto esta es plasmada sobre un medio tangible por primera vez (17 U.S.C. § 101). Los circuitos difieren en esta definición para que el software pueda ser amparado por la ley del Copyright y el derecho penal por infringirla. Los gráficos, sonidos o la mera apariencia de la interfaz del software puede ser incluido como trabajo audiovisual para su protección por tanto, un programa software puede infringir esta ley aunque no se haya copiado nada de código.[6] El conjunto de operaciones sobre el que se construye la interfaz gráfica de un programa no puede ser protegida por la ley del Copyright en los Estados Unidos, dando de antecedente el caso de Lotus contra Borland, pero si lo queremos proteger podemos emplear el método de las patentes. La ley no es muy clara sobre las copias temporales, como las que podamos tener en la caché o en las memorias RAM de los ordenadores, son "fijas" a efectos prácticos de la ley de Copyright.[7] El noveno circuito sostiene que cualquier trabajo derivado, debe ser protegido en el acto.[8] En el caso Apple contra Microsoft el tribunal estableció que para demostrar una infracción de uso y diseño se deberá ser específico con los elementos que una interfaz infringe los derechos de otra. La combinación de elementos de interfaz de usuario particular de un programa no esta protegida por la ley de Copyright.
History of software copyright in the United States
Historically, computer programs were not protected by copyright as they were not considered fixed or tangible objects: object code was considered a utilitarian good produced from the source code and not a creative work. Due to a lack of precedent, this result was achieved when deciding how to handle copyrights for computer programs. The Copyright Office attempted to classify computer programs by making an analogy: the blueprints of a bridge and the resulting bridge compared to a program's source code and the resulting executable object code,[9] which caused the Copyright Office to issue copyright certificates under its "Doubt Rule."
In 1974, the Commission on New Technology Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was established. It decided that “computer programs, to the extent that they embody an author's original creation, are copyrightable.”[9][10] In 1980, the United States Congress added the definition of "computer program" to 17 U.S.C. § 101 and amended 17 U.S.C. § 117 to allow the owner of the program to make another copy or adaptation for use in a computer.[9].
This legislation, along with court decisions such as Apple v. Franklin") in 1983, clarified that copyright law gave computer programs the copyright status of literary works. Many companies began to claim that they "licensed" but did not sell their products, to avoid transferring rights to the end user through the first sale doctrine (see Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology"). These software license agreements are often labeled as end user license agreements (EULA).
In 1998, the United States Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which criminalizes evasion of copy protection (with certain exceptions), destruction, or mismanagement of copyright information, but includes a provision to exempt Internet service providers (ISPs) from liability for infringement if one of their customers uses it. infringe Additionally, the DMCA extends protection to those who copy a program for maintenance, repair or backup purposes, as long as these copies "are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program is no longer legitimate." 17 U.S.C.") § 117.
License Agreement and End User Rights
The Copyright Act expressly permits copies of a work to be made in some circumstances, even without the permission of the copyright owner. In particular, "copy owners" may make additional copies for archival purposes, "as an essential step in the use of the computer program," or for maintenance purposes. Additionally, "copy owners" have the right to resell their copies under the first sale doctrine and 17 U.S.C. § 109).
These rights only apply to "copy owners." Most software vendors claim that their products are "licensed, not sold", thus circumventing Title 17, section 117 of the United States Code (17 U.S.C. "§ 117). American courts have taken different approaches when faced with these software license agreements. In the cases of MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc."), Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co. and Microsoft v. Harmony, several federal courts held that “licensed, not sold” language in an End User License Agreement (EULA) was effective. Other courts have held that “no bright line rule distinguishes mere licenses from sales… The label placed on a transaction is not determinative.” The Ninth Circuit took a similar view (in the specialized context of bankruptcy) in the case of Microsoft Corp. v DAK Industries, Inc..
By contrast, in the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the copyright owner cannot object to the resale of software sold digitally, in accordance with the rule of exhaustion of copyright on the first sale when ownership is transferred, and therefore questions the “licensed, not sold” EULAs in the European Union.
fair use
Fair use is a defense to a charge of copyright infringement under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976. This section describes some of the uses of copyrighted software that courts have found fair. In the case of Galoob v. Nintendo"), the Ninth Circuit held that modifying copyrighted software for personal use was fair. In the case of Sega v. Accolade"), the Ninth Circuit held that making copies in the course of reverse engineering is fair use, when it is the only way to obtain access to the “ideas and functional elements” of the copyrighted code, and when “there is a legitimate reason to seek such access.”
Copyleft
A copyleft is a type of copyright license that allows the work to be redistributed (with or without changes) provided that these rights are also granted to the recipients.