====== Common Law Copyright: The Ultimate Guide to Copyright Protection Before Registration ======

**LEGAL DISCLAIMER:** This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation.

===== What is Common Law Copyright? A 30-Second Summary =====

Imagine you write a poem in your journal late at night. The moment you finish that last line, you own it. You didn't file any paperwork. You didn't mail a copy to yourself. You didn't pay a fee. The law recognizes your ownership automatically—not because you registered anything, but because the law respects the sweat of your creative brow. That invisible shield of protection is what we call **common law copyright**.

**Common law copyright** is the automatic, unregistered protection that creators receive the instant they fix an original work in a tangible form. It exists in the legal traditions of countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Unlike its more formal cousin—statutory copyright, which requires registration and comes with specific federal benefits—common law copyright is informal, immediate, and deeply personal to creators.

In the United States, this system traces its roots back centuries to English legal traditions. Today, it coexists alongside the federal [[copyright]] system established by the [[copyright_act_of_1976]]. Understanding this dual system is crucial for anyone who creates original works, from songwriters to software developers, authors to architects.

**Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:**
    * **Common law copyright protects your work the moment you create it.** As soon as you write down your novel, record your song, or save your photograph to your computer, you own the copyright. No registration is required for this basic protection.
  * **Common law copyright has significant limitations compared to statutory copyright.** While it protects against unauthorized copying, it won't let you sue in federal court or claim statutory damages and attorney's fees without registration.
  * **Your common law copyright can be lost through publication.** Once you publish your work without proper copyright notice, you may forfeit some common law protections and need to rely solely on federal [[copyright_law]].

===== Part 1: The Legal Foundations of Common Law Copyright =====

==== The Story of Common Law Copyright: A Historical Journey ====

The concept of common law copyright emerged from the English common law system centuries before the United States even existed. In 1556, England's Queen Mary attempted to control printing through the Stationers' Company, creating a system where only registered members could print books. This early form of censorship and control laid the groundwork for copyright thinking in the Anglo-American legal tradition.

The pivotal moment came in 1774 with the landmark English case of **Donaldson v. Becket**, decided by the House of Lords. This case resolved a long-running dispute between publishers who wanted perpetual monopolies over books and the public interest in accessing knowledge. The Lords ruled that copyright protection after publication lasted only for a limited term—typically 14 years with a possible renewal of 14 more years. This decision effectively split copyright into two distinct phases: the period before publication (protected by common law) and the period after publication (protected by statute).

When American colonists declared independence, they brought these English legal traditions with them. The [[u.s._constitution]] itself reflects this heritage, authorizing Congress in Article I, Section 8 to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The first federal copyright law, the [[copyright_act_of_1790]], borrowed heavily from English precedent and established the framework of federal protection for published works. However, it explicitly preserved common law rights for unpublished works. For over 180 years, American copyright law operated under a dual system: federal statutes governed published works, while common law governed unpublished creations.

This historical separation explains why common law copyright still exists today and why unpublished works receive special protection under [[copyright_law]]. The [[copyright_act_of_1976]] dramatically changed this landscape by establishing a single federal copyright system and preempting state law for all works of authorship fixed in tangible form. However, common law copyright did not disappear entirely—it remains vital for certain situations, particularly for works that fall outside federal protection or for claims arising before the effective date of federal preemption.

==== The Law on the Books: Statutes and Codes ====

While common law copyright originates from judicial decisions rather than legislation, several federal statutes shape its modern application and interaction with the statutory system.

**The Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810)**

This comprehensive statute serves as the primary source of modern copyright law in the United States. Section 102 establishes that copyright protection exists for "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression." The Act explicitly addresses the relationship between federal and common law copyright in Section 301, which preempts all state laws granting rights equivalent to copyright for works fixed in tangible form.

However, Section 301(b) carves out important exceptions where state law—including common law copyright—remains relevant:
    * **Rights against unauthorized acts** that are not prohibited by federal copyright law
  * **Violation of rights** arising under state law that are not equivalent to copyright
  * **Other civil and criminal remedies** not arising under federal law

**The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA)**

This amendment to the [[copyright_act_of_1976]] created moral rights for visual artists, protecting the integrity of their works even after sale or transfer. While VARA operates under federal law, it reflects principles borrowed from common law traditions that recognized creators' personal connections to their works.

**The Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 107)**

While codified in federal statute, the fair use doctrine builds upon centuries of common law principles balancing creators' rights against public access. The four-factor analysis courts use today evolved from common law courts weighing similar considerations.

**The DMCA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act**

Modern legislation addressing digital copying and online infringement builds upon common law foundations while creating new statutory frameworks for enforcement.

==== A Nation of Contrasts: Jurisdictional Differences ====

Federal copyright law creates a baseline that applies uniformly across all 50 states, but common law copyright principles can vary in their application and interpretation. The following table illustrates how different jurisdictions approach common law copyright concepts:

^ Jurisdiction ^ Common Law Copyright Approach ^ Registration Benefits ^ Notable Features ^
^ **Federal (All States)** | Uniform baseline through [[copyright_act_of_1976]] | Registration required for federal lawsuits and statutory damages | Preemption of state common law for fixed works |
^ **California** | Strong historical support for creators' rights | Same as federal | State laws supplement federal protections for specific industries like entertainment |
^ **New York** | Sophisticated copyright jurisprudence | Same as federal | Major center for publishing and media industries |
^ **Texas** | Traditional common law principles | Same as federal | Growing technology sector applying copyright concepts to software |
^ **Florida** | Balanced approach favoring both creators and public | Same as federal | Strong entertainment and tourism industries |

**What does this mean for you if you live there?**

Regardless of which state you call home, common law copyright protection applies the moment you create an original work. However, if you live in California or New York—states with robust entertainment and publishing industries—you may have additional state-level protections and access to courts with deep expertise in copyright matters. If you face a copyright dispute, your geographic location affects which federal district court you would sue in, potentially influencing the legal standards applied to your case.

===== Part 2: Deconstructing the Core Elements =====

==== The Anatomy of Common Law Copyright: Key Components Explained ====

Understanding common law copyright requires grasping several interrelated concepts that work together to protect creators' rights.

=== Element: Originality ===

Originality is the cornerstone of all copyright protection, including common law copyright. For a work to receive protection, it must possess two characteristics:

**Independent Creation:** The creator must have produced the work through their own creative effort, not by copying someone else's work. Two people who independently write nearly identical poems about autumn both have valid copyrights because both works are independently created.

**Minimal Creativity:** The work must exhibit at least a slight amount of creative expression. This is a very low threshold—courts have consistently held that almost any creative choices in presentation, selection, or arrangement satisfy this requirement. The famous "sweat of the brow" doctrine that once justified protection for industrious compilation has been limited, but simple originality still triggers protection.

Real-world example: When you take a photograph, your camera angle, lighting choices, timing, and subject selection all contribute to originality. Even a snapshot of a beautiful sunset receives copyright protection because you made countless creative decisions in capturing that moment.

=== Element: Fixation ===

The fixation requirement ensures that copyright protection applies only to works that have been captured in a tangible medium. This concept distinguishes copyright from other forms of intellectual property like trade secrets, which can remain protected indefinitely without fixation.

**Common law copyright protects works from the moment of fixation**, meaning the instant you write your poem on paper, record your song on tape, or save your code to a hard drive, protection attaches. The work must be stable enough to be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a transitory moment.

Real-world example: A comedian telling an unrehearsed joke during a performance does not have common law copyright in that joke because it hasn't been fixed. However, if the comedian writes down the joke, records the performance, or even posts notes to social media, fixation occurs and copyright protection begins.

=== Element: Territorial Scope ===

Common law copyright traditionally operated strictly within the jurisdiction where it originated. An English common law copyright could not automatically extend protection to the American colonies, and vice versa.

Modern international treaties like the [[berne_convention]] have significantly expanded the territorial scope of copyright protection. The United States joined the Berne Convention in 1989, meaning American creators now receive automatic protection in all 181 member countries. However, the underlying common law principles still influence how courts interpret copyright disputes involving foreign elements.

Real-world example: If you write a novel in Ohio and an infringer publishes it in France without your permission, you can pursue legal action under French law and international treaties. Your common law copyright's territorial limitations have been effectively overcome by international agreements.

=== Element: The Publication Threshold ===

Publication represents the critical moment when common law copyright begins transitioning to statutory copyright. Before publication, a work receives full common law protection against copying. After publication, federal statutory copyright typically takes over, and common law rights generally end.

**Publication** is legally defined as distributing copies or phonorecords to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. Simply showing a work to a friend or posting it privately does not constitute publication. However, posting content online where the public can access it may constitute publication depending on access restrictions and the nature of the distribution.

Real-world example: If you write a screenplay and share it with only your writing group, you maintain common law copyright. But if you upload it to a screenwriting platform accessible to industry professionals, you may have published it, triggering statutory copyright requirements.

==== The Players on the Field: Who's Who in a Common Law Copyright Case ====

Understanding the roles of different participants helps you navigate copyright disputes effectively.

**The Copyright Owner (Plaintiff)**

The creator or assignee who owns the exclusive rights to the work. As the copyright owner, you have the right to sue for infringement and control how your work is used. Under common law copyright, you may be limited in remedies available before registration.

**The Infringer (Defendant)**

The person or entity accused of violating the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Infringement occurs when someone exercises one of the exclusive rights without permission. Even innocent infringement can be liable, though damages may be reduced.

**Federal Courts**

Copyright infringement claims must be brought in federal district court under the [[copyright_act_of_1976]]. State courts generally cannot hear copyright claims after the 1976 Act's preemption provisions took effect. Federal courts apply both statutory and common law copyright principles in resolving disputes.

**The U.S. Copyright Office**

This federal agency within the Library of Congress administers the copyright registration system, maintains records of copyrighted works, and provides guidance on copyright matters. While registration isn't required for protection, it enables copyright owners to access federal court remedies.

**The Library of Congress**

As the parent institution of the Copyright Office, the Library of Congress houses the world's largest collection of copyright deposits and provides public access to registered works.

===== Part 3: Your Practical Playbook =====

==== Step-by-Step: What to Do if You Face a Common Law Copyright Issue ====

Encountering a copyright dispute—whether you're defending your rights or accused of infringement—requires careful, methodical action.

=== Step 1: Immediate Assessment ===

Before taking any action, honestly evaluate your situation:
    - **Identify the work at issue.** Precisely what creative work is allegedly protected or allegedly infringing?
  - **Determine the work's copyright status.** When was it created? Was it published or unpublished? Is it registered with the Copyright Office?
  - **Assess your relationship to the work.** Are you the original creator, an assignee, a licensee, or an accused infringer?
  - **Document everything.** Save all communications, preserve original files with metadata intact, and note dates of creation and any publication.

Example: Sarah discovers that a blog post she wrote three years ago has been republished on another website without permission. She immediately screenshots the infringing page with a timestamp, saves her original document showing her creation date, and compiles all email correspondence about the blog.

=== Step 2: Understand What Rights Have Been Violated ===

Common law copyright protects several distinct rights:
    - **Right against copying.** No one may reproduce your work without permission.
  - **Right to control first publication.** You decide when and how your work is first made public.
  - **Right to attribution (in some contexts).** While not uniformly protected, courts sometimes recognize rights to credit.
  - **Right to integrity (moral rights).** Limited protection exists under VARA for visual artworks.

Example: When Mike finds his software code on a competitor's website, he identifies violations of his right against copying and potentially his right to control distribution of his unpublished work.

=== Step 3: Consider Registration ===

Registration with the [[copyright_office]] unlocks powerful remedies but may not be immediately available:
    - **File a registration application** for your work as soon as possible, especially before any infringement occurs or escalates.
  - **Understand the timing benefits.** If registered within three months of publication or before infringement begins, you can recover statutory damages and attorney's fees.
  - **Use the Copyright Office's online system** for faster processing and immediate registration of digital works.

Example: Lisa wants maximum damages if she sues for infringement of her recently completed novel. She files her registration application within weeks of completing the manuscript, before any suspected infringement.

=== Step 4: Explore Informal Resolution ===

Before filing a lawsuit, consider less confrontational approaches:
    - **Send a polite cease-and-desist letter.** Many infringers simply don't know they're violating copyright. A professional letter often resolves the matter.
  - **Issue a takedown notice** under the DMCA if the work is posted online. The safe harbor provisions protect platforms that respond promptly.
  - **Negotiate a license.** Sometimes an infringer genuinely wants to use your work. A reasonable licensing fee may benefit everyone.

Example: Tom's photograph appears on a commercial website without permission. He emails the website owner, explaining his copyright and requesting either removal or a licensing fee of $500. The website owner apologizes and pays the fee within a week.

=== Step 5: Consult an Attorney ===

Copyright disputes can become complex, especially when common law and statutory principles intersect:
    - **Seek an attorney specializing in intellectual property law** with copyright experience.
  - **Discuss the merits of your case**, potential remedies, and realistic outcomes.
  - **Consider contingency arrangements** if you're a plaintiff with strong infringement claims.
  - **Ask about alternative fee structures** if hourly rates seem prohibitive.

=== Step 6: Prepare for Litigation if Necessary ===

If informal resolution fails, prepare for federal court:
    - **File a complaint** in the appropriate federal district court.
  - **Serve the defendant** with proper legal notice.
  - **Pursue discovery** to gather evidence of infringement and damages.
  - **Prepare for mediation** as courts often require it before trial.
  - **Present your case** demonstrating ownership, copying, and damages.

==== Essential Paperwork: Key Forms and Documents ====

Navigating copyright matters requires proper documentation and official filings.
    * **Copyright Registration Application (Form TX for literary works, Form VA for visual arts, Form PA for performing arts):** The primary form for registering your copyright with the [[copyright_office]]. Each form is tailored to specific categories of creative works. The application requires identifying the work, its creation date, publication status, and authorship information. Tips: Complete applications carefully because errors can delay registration or create ownership disputes.
  * **Assignment of Copyright (Form CON):** This document transfers ownership of copyright from one party to another. An assignment must be in writing and signed by the current owner to be valid under 17 U.S.C. § 204. Tips: Always record assignments with the Copyright Office to provide public notice and establish priority.
  * **Take-Down Notice (DMCA):** Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright owners can send notices to online service providers demanding removal of infringing material. A valid notice must include: (1) a physical or electronic signature, (2) identification of the copyrighted work, (3) identification of the infringing material and its location, (4) contact information, (5) a statement of good faith belief, and (6) a statement of accuracy under penalty of perjury. Tips: Send notices to the platform's designated DMCA agent, usually listed on their website.

===== Part 4: Landmark Cases That Shaped Today's Law =====

==== Case Study: White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) ====

**The Backstory:** In the late 1800s, player piano rolls became popular. The question arose: were these rolls "copies" of the musical compositions they played? The Apollo Company manufactured and sold rolls containing compositions owned by White-Smith, including the famous "Little Brother" tune.

**The Legal Question:** Did player piano rolls constitute "copies" of musical compositions within the meaning of copyright law, thereby requiring authorization from the copyright owner?

**The Court's Holding:** In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that piano rolls were not copies of the musical composition. Writing for the majority, Justice Holmes reasoned that copyright law protects the tangible expression of ideas, not the intangible ideas themselves. Piano rolls were merely a mechanism for producing music, not a transcription of the notation that composers create.

**How It Impacts You Today:** This decision influenced Congress to enact the [[music_licensing_act_of_1909]], which created a compulsory license for mechanical reproductions. Today's digital music services operate under similar principles—streaming services can play music without permission because they've obtained mechanical licenses or operate under statutory licenses. Without this case's historical influence, the modern music industry's licensing structure might look entirely different.

==== Case Study: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991) ====

**The Backstory:** Rural Telephone Service published a telephone directory for its Kansas service area. Feist Publications created a competing directory that included information from Rural's book, arguing this information was not copyrightable because it was merely factual.

**The Legal Question:** Can a telephone directory—a compilation of factual information—receive copyright protection? Does the "sweat of the brow" doctrine justify protection for works requiring significant labor even without creative originality?

**The Court's Holding:** In a landmark 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court definitively rejected the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. Justice O'Connor wrote that copyright protection requires originality, meaning at least a minimal degree of creativity. A telephone directory arranged alphabetically is not original because alphabetical arrangement is virtually inevitable. The Court emphasized that facts are not copyrightable—only the creative expression used to present them.

**How It Impacts You Today:** This case fundamentally changed how databases and compilations are protected. If you create a database, website, or compilation, mere effort won't protect it—you need creative selection, coordination, or arrangement. This affects businesses in data-driven industries and clarifies that you can freely use factual information from others' works, as long as you don't copy their creative expression.

==== Case Study: Mazer v. Stein (1954) ====

**The Backstory:** Gorham Manufacturing Company created and sold statuettes of male and female figures. Mazer and his partners had designed these statuettes, registered them as works of art with the Copyright Office, and later discovered that Stein was manufacturing and selling replicas without permission.

**The Legal Question:** Can a work of art receive copyright protection even if it's intended for commercial use as a utilitarian object (in this case, lamp bases)? Does the dual-purpose nature of a work disqualify it from copyright?

**The Court's Holding:** The Supreme Court held that copyright protection extends to works of art regardless of their intended commercial purpose or whether they serve a utilitarian function. The statuettes were copyrightable because they contained artistic expression separate from their utilitarian function as lamp bases. Congress subsequently codified this principle in the [[copyright_act_of_1976]], protecting artistic features that can be identified separately from utilitarian aspects.

**How It Impacts You Today:** This case protects creators of artistic objects even when their creations serve practical purposes. If you design a decorative chair, a sculptural lamp, or an ornamental knife, your artistic elements receive copyright protection even though the objects are functional. This principle underlies modern design protection and helps artists maintain rights over their creative expressions.

==== Case Study: Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. (2nd Cir. 1939) ====

**The Backstory:** Author Arthur Wimpy wrote a play about a Brooklyn prizefighter named "Harold Sh恋." After selling rights to adapt the story, the resulting film "The Broadway Melody" bore substantial similarities to the play. The producers argued their film was substantially different and that any similarities were unprotected ideas rather than protected expression.

**The Legal Question:** What test should courts apply to determine whether a derivative work infringes the original? When does copying of expression cross the line into actionable infringement?

**The Court's Holding:** Judge Learned Hand, writing for the Second Circuit, articulated what became known as the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test for substantial similarity. Courts should abstract the ideas from the original work, filter out unprotected elements (ideas, scenes à faire, unprotectable expression), and compare what remains against the accused work.

**How It Impacts You Today:** This case established analytical frameworks still used today to distinguish protected expression from unprotected ideas. When courts assess whether your creative work infringes someone else, they use similar reasoning to separate protectable creative choices from unprotectable underlying ideas. This test provides both protection for creators and breathing room for subsequent creators building on ideas.

===== Part 5: The Future of Common Law Copyright =====

==== Today's Battlegrounds: Current Controversies and Debates ====

The digital revolution has reignited debates about the fundamental nature and scope of common law copyright protection.

**The Registration Requirement Debate**

Critics argue that mandatory registration creates barriers for individual creators and small businesses who lack resources to navigate complex federal processes. They advocate for simplified registration or expanded recognition of common law rights. Conversely, supporters of current requirements argue that registration creates valuable public records, enables enforcement mechanisms, and maintains orderly copyright administration. Proposed reforms include creating tiered registration systems with different levels of protection and streamlining digital submission processes.

**Artificial Intelligence and Authorship**

Perhaps no issue generates more controversy than whether works created by artificial intelligence can receive copyright protection. Current law requires human authorship for copyright protection, but AI systems increasingly produce creative works indistinguishable from human creations. Courts are beginning to confront questions about AI-generated art, music, and writing. Some argue that AI training on copyrighted works constitutes infringement, while others contend that transformative AI use represents fair use. The resolution of these questions will significantly reshape copyright law.

**Moral Rights in the United States**

Unlike European and Canadian systems that strongly protect moral rights—creators' rights to attribution and integrity—the United States offers only limited moral rights protection through VARA. Debates continue about whether American law should expand moral rights to match international standards, particularly as American creators work increasingly in global markets where such rights are expected.

**Fan Fiction and Transformative Use**

The explosion of fan fiction, fan art, and transformative works raises questions about the boundaries of fair use and how common law principles should balance original creators' rights against creative community practices. While some rights holders aggressively pursue fan creators, others embrace fan engagement as marketing. Courts continue to struggle with establishing clear standards for transformative use.

==== On the Horizon: How Technology and Society are Changing the Law ====

Several technological and social developments promise to reshape common law copyright in coming years.

**Blockchain and Copyright Registration**

Blockchain technology offers intriguing possibilities for copyright registration and enforcement. Immutable ledgers could create tamper-proof records of creation dates and authorship, potentially simplifying proof of ownership. Some proposals suggest using blockchain for digital copyright management, creating systems where licensing and royalty distribution happen automatically through smart contracts. However, significant questions remain about blockchain's interaction with existing federal registration systems and whether blockchain timestamps would satisfy statutory requirements.

**Automated Content Identification**

Major platforms now use sophisticated algorithms to identify copyrighted content automatically. These systems can detect music, video, and images across millions of posts. While this technology helps rights holders enforce their copyrights, it also generates false positives affecting legitimate uses. Future developments will likely focus on improving accuracy, creating better appeals processes, and ensuring that automated systems don't stifle legitimate speech and creativity.

**The Metaverse and Virtual Works**

As virtual and augmented reality environments become more sophisticated, questions arise about copyright protection for virtual objects, spaces, and experiences. If you create a virtual building, avatar costume, or digital landscape, should you receive the same copyright protection as their physical counterparts? The answer appears to be yes—fixation in digital form triggers copyright protection—but edge cases involving generative AI and automated content creation will require ongoing legal development.

**International Harmonization**

The gap between U.S. copyright law and international standards continues to narrow as more countries adopt Berne Convention principles. Future harmonization efforts may address remaining differences in moral rights, duration of protection, and exceptions and limitations. As digital works move instantaneously across borders, pressure increases for consistent global copyright standards.

**Prediction:** Within the next decade, we expect significant legislation addressing AI-generated content, updated safe harbor provisions for platform liability, and potentially new federal provisions recognizing digital common law copyright principles. Courts will continue developing tests for substantial similarity and fair use that account for digital distribution and AI capabilities.

===== Glossary of Related Terms =====
    * [[copyright]] — The exclusive legal right to control the reproduction, distribution, and adaptation of creative works, existing under both common law and statutory frameworks.
  * [[copyright_act_of_1976]] — The primary federal statute establishing modern copyright law in the United States, preempting state common law for fixed works.
  * [[copyright_office]] — The federal agency within the Library of Congress responsible for administering copyright registration and record-keeping.
  * [[berne_convention]] — The major international treaty establishing minimum copyright standards among member nations and providing automatic cross-border protection.
  * [[statutory_copyright]] — Copyright protection arising from federal registration under the Copyright Act, providing enhanced remedies not available under common law.
  * [[fair_use]] — A legal doctrine permitting limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, and education.
  * [[infringement]] — Unauthorized exercise of exclusive copyright rights, including copying, distributing, performing, or displaying protected works.
  * [[derivative_work]] — A new work based on one or more existing copyrighted works, such as translations, adaptations, or updated versions.
  * [[fixation]] — The requirement that copyrighted works be captured in a tangible medium of expression, making them sufficiently stable to be perceived and reproduced.
  * [[dmca]] — The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, federal legislation addressing digital copyright issues including safe harbor provisions for online service providers.
  * [[public_domain]] — Creative works not protected by copyright, either because copyright expired, was forfeited, or was never applicable.
  * [[exclusive_rights]] — The specific rights granted to copyright owners, including reproduction, distribution, public performance, display, and creation of derivative works.
  * [[licensing]] — Permission granted by a copyright owner allowing another party to exercise certain exclusive rights under specified conditions.
  * [[registration]] — The formal process of recording copyright claims with the Copyright Office, required to sue in federal court for works after 1978.
  * [[work_for_hire]] — A work created by an employee within the scope of employment, or a specially commissioned work meeting statutory requirements, where the employer or commissioning party owns the copyright.

===== See Also =====
    * [[copyright_infringement]]
  * [[fair_use_doctrine]]
  * [[dmca_takedown_notice]]
  * [[copyright_registration_process]]
  * [[international_copyright]]
  * [[derivative_works_and_adaptations]]
  * [[music_copyright]]