utm_source=vicetwitterus[22] The registrations can be found by searching Copyright Office records using the keyword “emoji.”[23] See 17 U.S.C. § 410. Moreover, as a technical matter, it appears that some of Apple’s registrations may not come with a presumption of validity, because they were not filed within five years of first publication.

[1] Although § 411(a) states that a copyright infringement action may be commenced once “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made,”[2] preregistration is only available where “a work is still being prepared for commercial release” and applies to only six narrow classes of work.[3] Courts that have adopted the Application Approach have relied on the text of 17 USC §410(d), which states that the effective date of a copyright registration is the day on which the application, deposit, and fee were received by the Copyright Office.[4] Proponents of this approach also reason that since § 411(a) provides an alternative means for an applicant to bring an action for copyright infringement in the event that the Copyright Office ultimately denies the application, it is inefficient—and potentially harmful—to make copyright owners wait months for a decision as the statute of limitations for filing suit runs.

[20] http://www.omniglot.com/writing/semanto-phonetic.php.[21] http://www.vice.com/read/sam-kriss-laughing-and-crying?utm_source=vicetwitterus[22] The registrations can be found by searching Copyright Office records using the keyword “emoji.”[23] 17 U.S.C. §410(c) provides that “[i]n any judicial proceedings the certificate of a registration made . . . within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.” (Emphasis added).

copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence. [2] See Joseph Weizenbaum, ELIZA—A Computer Program for the Study of Natural Language Communication Between Man and Machine, 9 Comms. of the Assoc. for Computing Machinery 36 (Jan. 1, 1966). [3] See US Copyright Office Review Board, Decision Affirming Refusal of Registration of a Recent Entrance to Paradise (Feb. 14, 2022), https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-recent-entrance-to-paradise.pdf. [4] Complaint, ECF No. 1, Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 1:22-cv-01564-BAH (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2023). A motion for summary judgment is pending. [5] US Copyright Office Review Board, Cancellation Decision re: Zarya of the Dawn, at 8 (Feb. 21, 2023), https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf. [6] Id. [7] Naruto v. Slater, 888 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 2018). [8] Kelley v. Chicago Park District, 635 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2011) (case involving a garden). [9] See 17 USC. § 411(b). [10] See 17 USC. §§ 410(c), 412. [11] US Copyright Office, Spring 2023 AI Listening Sessions, https://www.copyright.gov/ai/listening-sessions.html. [12] Urantia Foundation v. Kristen Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 1997). [13] 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,192; see also US Copyright Office, Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices § 313.2 (3d ed. 2021) (“to qualify as a work of ‘authorship’ a work must be created by a human being”; the Office “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author”). [14] 88 Fed. Reg. 16,192. [15] 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,193. [16] 17 USC. § 409(9). [17] 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,193. [18] US Copyright Office, Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices § 621.2 (3d ed. 2021), https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap600/ch600-examination-practices.pdf. [19] See 88 Fed. Reg. at 16,192-93 & nn.28 & 30. As described above, the Office rejected an author’s claim to copyright in AI-generat

Office of Legal Educ., supra note 2, at 59–60.Id. at 60 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(3)).Id. (citing 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(B), 18 U.S.C. 2319(c)(3)).Id.Id. at 18.­ 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Office of Legal Educ., supra note 2, at 21.See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)–(6).

[13] Compendium § 206. [14] 17 U.S.C. § 410(a); Compendium § 209. [15] Compendium § 211.

Having a registration is usually a prerequisite to bringing an infringement action. Furthermore, if the registration is obtained within five years of first publication, the certificate of a registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.17 U.S.C.§410(c). Finally if the registration is obtained before the infringement begins, a prevailing copyright owner has access to an award of statutory damages and attorneys fees.

The question before the Court is: “What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under § 101 of the Copyright Act?” The Court declined to review petitioner's second question, which asked whether courts should give additional judicial deference to a copyright registration, beyond the statutory deference required by 17 U.S.C. § 410(c).Copyright OpinionsSecond Circuit Seeks Guidance on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Issue: Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 15-1164-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2016)Calabresi, J.

The question before the Court is: “What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under § 101 of the Copyright Act?” The Court declined to review petitioner's second question, which asked whether courts should give additional judicial deference to a copyright registration, beyond the statutory deference required by 17 U.S.C. § 410(c).Copyright OpinionsSecond Circuit Seeks Guidance on Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Issue: Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 15-1164-cv (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2016)Calabresi, J. In a class action brought on behalf of owners of pre-1972 sound recordings, the Second Circuit reserved decision on the district court's denial of summary judgment for the defendant and certified a “significant and unresolved issue of New York law” to the New York Court of Appeals: whether New York common law recognizes a right of public performance for sound recordings, and the “nature and scope” of any such right should one exist.

Under some circumstances, the issuance of a registration creates a presumption of validity. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). The court concluded, however, that the Copyright Office’s determination of registrability is not akin to an agency’s promulgation of rules having the power of law, which are afforded Chevron deference.