Re: Copyright of Choreography

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 May 97 08:46:45 PDT

On Tue, 06 May 1997, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> The House Report states that "to constitute a violation of section
> 106(2) [right to prepare derivative works], the infringing work
> must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form;

Question for the list. Tyler quotes from the legislative history for this provision of the Copyright Act to support a proposition. A quick search for this text ("incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work") in Lexis, looking throughout all published (and some not) federal opinions, would indicate that this particular quoted text was only used in two cases (Lewis Galoob Toys v. Nintendo and Mirage Editions v. Albuquerque A.R.T.), both from the 9th Circuit. Just to offer some context, a search of the phrase "derivative works" in the same database comes up with 651 hits (some of which may be the same case).

Does the fact that this particular legislative history intent is only cited in two cases mean something? As a student, I am interested in the interaction between statute and legislative history, and I wonder what the professors (Tyler, of course, included) and the practitioners think? Should we, in this instance, automatically assume that the legislative history is binding or close to it? If not, how should it be interpreted?

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Wed May 07 1997 - 15:55:37 GMT