Accessories

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In copyright law, an accessory is a work that occurs in the context of another (main) work and only plays a subordinate role alongside it. Many copyright regulations in the world provide for a restriction on copyright law ( limitation regulation ), which allows works to be reproduced without permission, as long as they appear only as accessories. The term is also used in the area of personal rights , especially the right to one's own image . In Germany, for example, the use of portraits of persons is fundamentally dependent on the permission of those portrayed; However, this is not required if the people only represent accessories next to a landscape or other location. In addition, the term is used colloquially for meaningless and unimportant or unimportant details.

Germany

copyright

standard

57 UrhG - Insignificant accessories
The reproduction, distribution and public reproduction of works are permitted if they are to be regarded as insignificant accessories in addition to the actual object of the reproduction, distribution or public reproduction.

History and rationale

The copyright restrictions for insignificant accessories found their way into German copyright law with the entry into force of the Copyright Act (UrhG) on January 1, 1966. Previously there was no corresponding regulation. The official justification mentions Article 9 (6) of the British Copyright Act of 1956 as a “similar regulation” , but where the exemption only applies to the exploitation of works of the visual arts in film and television. The German legislator saw “no sufficient reason” for such a restriction. He makes the necessity of the barrier exemplarily based on the fact that otherwise the authors of paintings, which are also photographed in the course of filming in an interior space, would first have to consent to their use in the film. However, this seems to him "not justified, insofar as these works are only insignificant accessories in the film and play no role at all for the plot of the film."

Von Gamm sees the accessory barrier as the result of a weighing of interests; It is not a matter of using the work in the general interest or to indirectly promote the interests of the author, but rather that "such a reproduction of a work as a mere insignificant accessory in the exploitation of another work does not affect the copyright and legal exploitation interests in the work used".

requirements

In accordance with the legislative intention, works of any kind (written works, works of art, musical works, etc.) can be considered as accessories. In order to be able to assess the character as an insignificant accessory, the actual object of the utilization must first be determined (“main object”); In relation to this, the work in question must be an insignificant accessory. It is not necessary that the main object is protected by copyright; it doesn't even have to be an "object" in the narrower sense - a person can also be the main object of exploitation.

According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), it can be assumed to be immaterial "if the work could be left out or replaced without the average viewer noticing [...] or without the overall effect of the main object being influenced in any way". In addition, the insignificance is also given if the work is actually perceived as such by the viewer when looking at the main object of exploitation, but "according to the circumstances of the individual case, no matter how insignificant the content of the main object of exploitation is to be granted, but rather because of its randomness and arbitrariness it is of no importance for this ”. In the opinion of the BGH, a work can only be an accessory if it "does not achieve a minor or secondary importance in addition to the object of the actual exploitation", which is usually no longer the case as soon as it is "recognizable style or mood-forming [... ] or underlining a certain effect or statement [...] is included in the actual object of the exploitation, fulfills a dramaturgical purpose [...] or is otherwise characteristic ".

This assessment must take into account all the circumstances of the individual case from the point of view of an objective average observer (and not on the basis of the intention of the user of the actual object). This includes, in particular, checking the specific context of the utterance.

In the opinion of the BGH as well as the prevailing literature opinion, the limitation regulation of § 57 UrhG should generally be interpreted narrowly.

Legal consequences

Works may be copied , distributed and publicly reproduced (e.g. broadcast ) as accessories according to the wording of the regulation without permission . In the list, the only explicitly named right of exploitation that is missing is the exhibition right ( § 18 UrhG), which for reasons of logic is not compatible with the presence of ancillary property. The exemption from public reproduction ( Section 15 (2) UrhG) also includes, in particular, making available to the public ( Section 19a UrhG), which occurs when a work is posted on the (freely accessible) Internet and there from a public of places and can be perceived at times of their choice.

In principle, use as an insignificant accessory is also accompanied by a ban on changes ( Section 62 UrhG). The obligation to indicate the source ( § 63 UrhG) does not exist in the case of reproduction ( § 63 Paragraph 1 UrhG), but within the framework of § 63 Paragraph 2 UrhG in the case of public reproduction, if and to the extent that the custom requires such an indication. However, according to the widespread opinion, such a custom will hardly ever exist when reproducing insignificant accessories.

Individual cases

The example in the official justification, according to which, for example, images in the background of film or television scenes are to be qualified as accessories, is considered to be too extensive by the prevailing literary opinion, because such images could very well be characteristic of the corresponding scene (which is contrary to an accessory character ). In the opinion of large parts of the literature, there is no insignificant accessory if works are recognizable in the background of the furniture advertised in advertising brochures or catalogs that match the objects offered in terms of style, color or in a similar way. There was at times disagreement at the upper court after the OLG Cologne in a similar case largely affirmed the accessory character because it considered the entire furniture catalog to be the main subject. However, the BGH then countered this with reference to the "extensive provision" of the actual subject matter; as such, he only assessed the specific photograph, taking into account the "circumstance arising from the context of the publication that the defendant in this photo had arranged some of the furniture sold by it in a certain way for advertising purposes in order to provide the customer with this to show a possible use situation and the resulting aesthetic effect of this furniture ".

If, in the context of a documentary film, music happens to be heard from an open window during a street scene, the reproduction can, according to the official justification and the commentary literature, take place regularly without permission under the accessories barrier. However, this is only possible if the music is not technically processed afterwards, for example to improve the recording quality. If a two-second rhythm sequence is extracted from a sound carrier and placed under a new piece of music as a defining part in a continuous loop, the insignificance required for the accessory barrier is missing.

Right to your own picture

Section 23 Paragraph 1 No. 2 KUG
[Without the consent required under Section 22, the following may be distributed and displayed:]
Pictures in which the people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other location

The accessory exception in the area of personal rights precedes its copyright counterpart in time and was already found in the original version of the Art Copyright Act (KUG) of January 9, 1907. The regulation relates to "pictures" of people, which means that it is linguistically different from the " Portraits ”(ie images in which one or more people are the main thing) stands out, which may only be distributed and publicly displayed with the consent of the person depicted ( Section 22 KUG). For example, if a person is an accessory to a picture and someone cuts the representation of the person out of the context of the environment, he creates a portrait - if it is used, the accessory exception can no longer be claimed.

In any case, it is necessary that the landscape or other location characterize the content of the picture. The portrayal of the person must be subordinate in such a way that it could be omitted without the subject and character of the image being changed; in this respect it must not itself be the subject of the picture. If there is a content-related relationship between the person's image and the actual object, this is contrary to classification as an accessory. According to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, the accessory property presupposes that the person concerned is, as it were, by chance in an environment that is the actual subject of the illustration. This requirement is no longer fulfilled if the landscape or other location is itself a mere “accessory” to another main object (such as a photographed celebrity); In this case, an uninvolved third party cannot be copied with recourse to the accessory exception.

Design law

In the German Design Act, there is no express limitation regulation that would allow the reproduction of a design as an insignificant accessory. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that such use is possible without permission or remuneration. When reforming the design law in 2004, the German legislature assumed that the copyright barrier for insignificant accessories would apply analogously to design law. Some of the literature does not want to follow this construction; Instead, Cornels , for example , believes that use as a mere insignificant accessory does not constitute use within the meaning of Article 12 of Directive 98/71 / EC on the legal protection of designs.

Austria

The Austrian Copyright Act provides for an accessory regulation since October 1st, 2015. According to the newly inserted § 42e Austrian Copyright Act, works may be “reproduced, distributed, broadcast on the radio, made available to the public and used for public lectures, performances and demonstrations if they are used only by chance or incidentally and without reference to the actual object of the exploitation act become". According to the explanations given by the Federal Government to the draft law, the regulation is based on the consideration that such use does not affect the interests of the author. The exception provision follows the German parallel provision (see above), but according to the materials, the scope of application of § 57 dUrhG should be “considerably broader”, while its prerequisites should be “individually stricter” than those of the Austrian regulation. The assessment is based on an objective standard.

In the opinion of the Supreme Court (OGH), the required insignificance presupposes that the accessory is an object “which is of less than minor or subordinate importance, whereby the prerequisites for this must not be exceeded in order not to exclude the exception provision Robbing effectiveness ”. Insignificant accessories should be assumed if the work could be omitted or replaced without affecting the overall effect of the main object. In connection with the German Federal Court of Justice, the Supreme Court no longer considers this to be fulfilled if the work is recognizably style or mood-setting, a certain effect or statement is included underlining the actual object of the exploitation, fulfills a dramaturgical purpose or is otherwise characteristic .

The limitation regulation can apply to works of all genres. With regard to the indication of the source, which is fundamentally required in the case of free use of works, Section 57 (4) UrhG must be observed, according to which this can be omitted if it is not to be expected according to the customs and usages applicable in fair dealings.

United States

An exemption for insignificant accessories is essentially achieved in two ways under American law.

On the one hand, subordinate uses can be covered by the general fair use clause . However, the fair use defense regularly fails, for example, when a work is completely copied.

On the other hand, the principle of de minimis non curat lex (“The law does not care about the little things”) as a general legal principle is also fully applicable in copyright law. In the case law of the appeal court, for example, the digital cutting of a six-second sequence consisting of three notes from a sound carrier and its constant repetition in the background of a new piece of music ( sampling ) were rated as a de minimis case. In a widely received decision, the appellate court for the second district differentiated two legitimate subcases of de minimis use: (1) purely formal interventions that are so trivial that legal punishment is ruled out; and (2) acquisitions so trivial extent that the quantitative level of a "substantial similarity" (substantial similarity) is not exceeded for the acquired work. In the case at issue, the poster of a work of art was visible as part of the backdrop during a television program, with the poster being wholly or partially, but clearly recognizable in the picture in nine excerpts, each approx. Two to four seconds long for a total of almost 27 seconds . The court no longer regarded this use as de minimis . In contrast, the same court considered the de minimis test to have been fulfilled in another film issue: Photos of the plaintiff were visible over a span of one and a half minutes from eleven camera positions for a maximum of six seconds each and a total of about 36 seconds; however, they were shown from a great distance and were so difficult to see in the film that an average viewer would not have been able to make out the subject at all.

A common - restrictive - subtest for the de minimis case asks whether an average viewer would recognize the use of the foreign work. A world-famous textile retailer who used the photo of a model wearing an extravagant, purposeless piece of jewelery on it as part of an advertising campaign, was denied access to the de minimis principle with regard to the representation of the designer jewelery, among other things because that The bizarre design of the piece of jewelery immediately catches the eye and the viewer assumes that such fashion advertising is a well-composed presentation in which the models are equipped "from head to toe" with clothing and accessories from the advertiser's range.

literature

  • Rainer Jacobs: What is “casual”? A contribution to § 57 UrhG . In: Wolfgang Büscher et al. (Ed.): Law enforcement: legal realization through substantive law and procedural law. Festschrift for Hans-Jürgen Ahrens on his 70th birthday . Heymanns, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28593-5 , p. 225-231 .

Remarks

  1. ↑ See for example Thomas Fuchs, Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Copyright Law) of September 9, 1965. Historisch-synoptische Edition 1965–2013. Section 57, accessed on June 3, 2015.
  2. ↑ See von Gamm, Copyright Law, 1968, § 57 Rn. 1; Gerstenberg in Schricker, Copyright, 1st edition 1987, § 57 Rn. 1; Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 2.
  3. ↑ See the official justification , BT-Drs. 4/270 of March 23, 1962, p. 75 f. Art. 9 para. 6 Copyright Act [1956]: “The copyright in an artistic work is not infringed by the publication of a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematograph film, if by virtue of any of the three last preceding subsections the making of that painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or film did not constitute an infringement of the copyright. ” See The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk), Copyright Act 1956. Part I. Section 9, accessed June 3, 2015.
  4. ↑ See the official justification, BT-Drs. 4/270 of March 23, 1962, p. 76.
  5. ↑ See the official justification, BT-Drs. 4/270 of March 23, 1962, p. 75.
  6. ↑ See von Gamm, Copyright Law, 1968, § 57 Rn. 1. So subsequently also Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 57 UrhG Rn. 1.
  7. ↑ See von Gamm, Copyright Law, 1968, § 57 Rn. 2; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 1.
  8. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 16; Dreier in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act, 6th edition. 2018, § 57 Rn. 1 f .; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 8th.
  9. ↑ See Jacobs, What is “casual”? A contribution to § 57 UrhG, 2016, op.cit., P. 227.
  10. ↑ a b c See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 27.
  11. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 21, with further references from the literature; OLG Munich, judgment of June 9, 1988, 6 U 4132/87 = NJW 1989, 404 - works of art in advertising brochures; Dreier in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act, 6th edition. 2018, § 57 Rn. 3; Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 57 UrhG Rn. 2; Thomas Glückstein, comment on BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014 - I ZR 177/13 - Furniture catalog, in: Journal for Copyright and Media Law, 59, No. 7, pp. 573-575, here p. 574; Jacobs, what is "casual"? A contribution to § 57 UrhG, 2016, op.cit., P. 228.
  12. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 22nd
  13. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 19 (“like all legal barriers to copyright”). So also Dreier in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act, 6th edition 2018, § 57 Rn. 2 (“tends to be narrow”); von Gamm, Copyright Act, 1968, Section 57 Rn. 1 ("particularly narrow [] interpretation" because of the above balance of interests); Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 11; Lüft in Wandtke / Bullinger, Practical Commentary on Copyright, 4th edition 2014, § 57 Rn. 1; Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 57 UrhG Rn. 1; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 6; Jacobs, what is "casual"? A contribution to § 57 UrhG, 2016, op.cit., P. 227.
  14. ↑ See Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 2.
  15. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 15, with further references from the literature.
  16. ↑ See Dreyer in Heidelberger Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 57 Rn. 14; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 2, 7.
  17. ↑ See Dietz / Spindler in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 63 Rn. 10 ..
  18. ↑ See Dietz / Spindler in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 63 Rn. 11.
  19. ↑ See Dietz / Spindler in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 63 Rn. 12 (“for technical reasons”); oA in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 63 p. 3; Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 63 UrhG Rn. 8th.
  20. ↑ In this sense Dreier in Dreier / Schulze, Copyright Act, 6th edition. 2018, § 57 Rn. 2; von Gamm, Copyright Act, 1968, Section 57 Rn. 2; Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 10; Nordemann-Schiffel in Fromm / Nordemann, Copyright , 12th edition. 2018, § 57 Rn. 2; Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 57 UrhG Rn. 2; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 9; Jacobs, what is "casual"? A contribution to § 57 UrhG, 2016, op.cit., P. 229.
  21. ↑ See OLG Munich, judgment of June 9, 1988, 6 U 4132/87 = NJW 1989, 404 - works of art in advertising brochures; Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 10 (because the spatial situation created and shown as a whole is aimed at evoking certain incentives in the viewer and making him more interested); Lüft in Wandtke / Bullinger, Practical Commentary on Copyright, 4th edition 2014, § 57 Rn. 2; Schack, Art and Law, 3rd ed. 2017, Rn. 286; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 11.
  22. ↑ See OLG Cologne, judgment of 23 August 2013, 6 U 17/13 .
  23. ↑ See BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014, I ZR 177/13 = NJW 2015, 2119 - Furniture catalog, Rn. 19, 23. Thomas Glückstein, comment on BGH, judgment of November 17, 2014 - I ZR 177/13 - Furniture catalog, in: Journal for Copyright and Media Law, 59, No. 7, pp. 573-575, here P. 573 f .; Jacobs, what is "casual"? A contribution to § 57 UrhG, 2016, op. Cit., P. 228; Felix Stang, comment on BGH GRUR 2015, 667 - Furniture catalog, in: Commercial legal protection and copyright, 117, No. 7, pp. 670–672, here p. 671.
  24. ↑ See the official justification, BT-Drs. 4/270 of March 23, 1962, p. 76; Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 10; Obergfell in Büscher / Dittmer / Schiwy, industrial property rights, 3rd edition 2015, § 57 UrhG Rn. 2; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 10. Different view of Gamm, Copyright Law, 1968, § 57 Rn. 2.
  25. ↑ See Dreyer in Heidelberger Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 57 Rn. 13; Kirchmaier in Mestmäcker / Schulze, commentary on German copyright law, status: 55th AL 2011, § 57 Rn. 10; Vogel in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 57 Rn. 10.
  26. ↑ See BGH, decision of June 1, 2017, I ZR 115/16 - Metall auf Metall III, Rn. 37.
  27. ↑ See Philipp Allfeld, Commentary on the Law on Copyright in the Fine Arts and Photography of January 9, 1907. In addition to an appendix, containing the treaties of the German Reich with foreign states for the protection of copyright with explanations and enforcement provisions, Beck, Munich 1908, § 23.
  28. ↑ See Götting in Schricker / Loewenheim, Copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 23 KUG Rn. 81; Löffler / Ricker, Handbook of Press Law, 6th edition 2012, chap. 43 para. 28; Schertz in Götting / Becker, Handbook of Personality Law, 2008, § 12 Rn. 63.
  29. ↑ Götting in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 23 KUG Rn. 82; Löffler / Ricker, Handbook of Press Law, 6th edition 2012, chap. 43 para. 28.
  30. ↑ See OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of August 18, 1989, 14 U 105/88 = GRUR 1989, 823, 824 - accident photo; OLG Oldenburg, judgment of November 14, 1988, 13 U 72/88 = NJW 1989, 400, 401; OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of May 14, 2014, 6 U 55/13 ; Götting in Schricker / Loewenheim, copyright, 5th edition 2017, § 23 KUG Rn. 81; Löffler / Ricker, Handbook of Press Law, 6th edition 2012, chap. 43 para. 28; Schertz in Götting / Becker, Handbook of Personality Law, 2008, § 12 Rn. 63; Stefan Ernst, Google StreetView: Copyright and personal rights issues on the street panorama, in: Computer und Recht, 2010, No. 3, pp. 178–184, here p. 180.
  31. ↑ See Dreyer in Heidelberger Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 23 KUG Rn. 48.
  32. ↑ See BGH, judgment of October 28, 1960, I ZR 87/59 ; Dreyer in Heidelberg Commentary on Copyright , 4th ed. 2018, § 23 KUG Rn. 48.
  33. ↑ See BGH, judgment of April 21, 2015, VI ZR 245/14 , Rn. 23.
  34. ↑ Jann H. Cornels, Die Barriers des Designrechts , V&R unipress, Göttingen 2015, ISBN 978-3-8471-0435-3 , p. 121.
  35. ↑ Official justification, BT-Drs. 15/1075 of May 28, 2004, p. 54.
  36. ↑ Jann H. Cornels, The Barriers of Design Law , V&R unipress, Göttingen 2015, ISBN 978-3-8471-0435-3 , pp. 135 f.
  37. ↑ Cf. 687 of Beilagen XXV. GP (PDF file), p. 12.
  38. ↑ Cf. Guido Donath, Austria: the copyright amendment 2015 - a first overview, in: Commercial legal protection and copyright, international part, 64, no. 12, 2015, pp. 1118–1119, here p. 1118.
  39. ↑ Cf. 687 of Beilagen XXV. GP (PDF file), p. 12; Doubtful about the intended narrower scope of application: Mirjam Hönisch and Thomas R. Schmitt, The Austrian Copyright Novelle 2015 - Make New From Old ?, in: Commercial legal protection and copyright, International Part, 65, No. 1, 2016, p. 1 –11, here p. 3 (scope of application through inclusion of broadcasting, speaking, performing and showing rights even further).
  40. ↑ Mitterer in Kucsko / Handig, copyright , 2nd edition 2017, § 42e Rn. 10.
  41. ↑ OGH, September 26, 2017, 4 Ob 81 / 17s = MR 2017, 325, 327 - picture of the poacher . Mitterer in Kucsko / Handig, copyright , 2nd edition 2017, § 42e marginal no. 6th
  42. ↑ Ciresa in ders., Austrian copyright law, status: 19th EL 2017, § 42e Rn. 5.
  43. ↑ Ciresa in ders., Austrian copyright law, status: 19th EL 2017, § 42e Rn. 12.
  44. ↑ Patry, Patry on Copyright , Status: 9/2017 (via Westlaw), § 10:10.
  45. ↑ For the relationship between the examination of fair use as an affirmative defense and the (priority) examination of de minimis use as a prerequisite for the violation, see Patry, Patry on Fair Use , as of: 5/2017 (via Westlaw), § 2 :8th.
  46. ↑ Never / Never, Never on Copyright , status: 102. EL 2017, § 8.01 [G].
  47. ↑ Never / Never, Never on Copyright , status: 102. EL 2017, § 8.01 [G]. See Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue v. William Wrigley, Jr., Co. , 505 US 214, 231: “[T] he venerable maxim de minimis non curat lex ('the law cares not for trifles') is part of the established background of legal principles against which all enactments are adopted, and which all enactments (absent contrary indication) are deemed to accept. "
  48. ^ Newton v. Diamond , 388 F.3d 1189, 1193 (9th Cir. 2004) (Graber, J., dissenting), cert. denied , 545 US 1114 (2005).
  49. ↑ Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. , 126 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1997). See also Patry, Patry on Copyright , status: 9/2017 (via Westlaw), § 9: 156.
  50. ↑ Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp. , 147 F.3d 215, 217 (2d Cir. 1998).
  51. ↑ Goldstein, Goldstein on Copyright, status: Lfg. 2017-1, § 7.0.2.
  52. ↑ On Davis v. The Gap, Inc. , 246 F.3d 152, 173 (2d Cir. 2001).