Tyler T. Ochoa | Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal

Tyler T. Ochoa

Tyler T. Ochoa

External Links

Santa Clara Law Faculty Page

Publications

1984 and Beyond: Two Decades of Copyright Law
Author: Tyler T. Ochoa Abstract During the past two decades, engineers, authors, publishers, consumers, lawyers and academics have witnessed extraordinary developments in the technological landscape, often leading to equally dramatic developments in the law of copyright. Many of these developments have been chronicled (or foreshadowed) in the pages of the Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal. To celebrate the Journal’s 20th Anniversary, this essay will place a number of articles which have appeared in the Journal in their historical context by taking a look back on how the law of copyright has changed during the past twenty years.		clara computer copyright court first internet protection right software state Volume 20 Issue 1 Page 167 Download the article.

Copyright, Derivative Works and Fixation: is Galoob a Mirage, or Does the Form(Gen) of the Alleged Derivative Work Matter?
Author: Tyler T. Ochoa Abstract The Copyright Act gives a copyright owner the exclusive right “to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work.” Does the Copyright Act require that a derivative work be “fixed in a tangible medium of expression” in order to be infringing? Existing case law is contradictory, stating both that a derivative work does not need to be “fixed” but that it does need to be embodied in some “concrete or permanent form.” This contradiction stems from the fact that although the statutory language does not appear to require fixation, reading the statutory language literally would render illegal merely imagining a modified version of a copyrighted work. This contradiction can be eliminated by recognizing that what Congress intended was to prohibit the public performance of an unfixed derivative work, as well as the reproduction, public distribution, public performance or public display of a fixed derivative work. Congress’ intent can be fully implemented by holding that the exclusive right to prepare derivative works is dependent upon, rather than independent of, the other four exclusive rights. The advantage of this interpretation is that it leaves all private performances of a derivative work, whether fixed or unfixed, outside the realm of copyright infringement.		copyright copyrighted derivative display fixation fixed original public right version Volume 20 Issue 4 Page 991 Download the article.

Copyright Law: The Last Five Years of Journal Coverage
Author: Tyler T. Ochoa		copyright journal Volume 25 Issue 1 Page 3 Download the article.

Protection For Works Of Foreign Origin Under The 1909 Copyright Act
Author: Tyler T. Ochoa Abstract One of the principal goals of the 1909 Copyright Act was to simplify and streamline the formalities required to obtain copyright protection. Before the 1909 Copyright Act, authors had to register their works before publication in order to be eligible for copyright protection; and notice of the registration had to be included on all copies published in the United States. If a work was published anywhere in the world before registration, or if the notice was omitted when the work was published domestically, the work went into the public domain. Under the 1909 Act, however, authors only had to publish their works with proper copyright notice in order to be eligible for copyright protection. This change introduced an ambiguity with regard to works first published outside the Untied States. If a work had to be published with proper notice to receive copyright protection, but notice was required only on copies published in the United States, what was the effect if a work was first published outside the United States without proper notice? Some courts held that mere publication in a country with whom the U.S. had copyright relations was sufficient to invest a work with a federal statutory copyright; while others held that such a work neither received a federal statutory copyright nor was it placed in the public domain by foreign publication without notice. This uncertainty can result in copyright terms that differ by as much as one hundred years, depending on how the ambiguity is resolved. In this article, the author concludes that Congress most likely intended that works first published outside the United States without proper notice were not eligible for copyright protection and became part of the public domain. This result means that such works were eligible for the copyright restoration for works of foreign origin that became effective in 1996, and that parties utilizing such works should be treated as reliance parties under the restoration statute, rather than as ordinary infringers.		copyright first foreign notice protection publication published state united without Volume 26 Issue 2 Page 285 Download the article.

Copyright © 2008 | Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal