When Congress amend the Copyright Act in 1976, it provide for priority application of claims under state law that were correlate with copyright claims in a certain way. Under section 301 of the Copyright Act, a state law claim is protect if the claim seeks to protect “a common or equitable right equivalent to one of the exclusive rights already protect under copyright law under section 106 of the Copyright Act.”
Federal copyright law applies to the scope requirements.
Where the specific work to which a state claim applies is a type of work protected by copyright law under sections 102 and 103—the protection requirement. Climb the relevant parts of Article 301 of the Copyright Act are as follows. Section 301 [Application of Priority to Other Laws]. Common to works fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978. Subject to copyright protection as provided for in Sections 102 and 103. All rights equivalent to statutory or equitable rights. And exclusive rights falling within the general scope of copyright as provided for in section 106. Whether or not arising before or after the preceding date, month, date, etc., shall be governed solely by the Code of this Title.
After January 1, 1978, no one may have such rights in these works under case law or state law.
Nothing in this title code shall void or limit any right or remedy under case law. Or state law with respect to any of the following. A work that is not fix in a tangible medium of expression. And a subject of protection that does not fall under the subject of copyright as provide for in Articles 102 and 103; [omitted]. Activities that infringe common law or equitable rights that are not equivalent to the exclusive rights within the general scope of works as provided for in Article 106. Unlike broadcasting, the game did not meet the requirements for protection, so the NBA the Federal District Court concluded that the claim for fraudulent use was not excluded under federal law [939 SUPP. at 1097]. A federal district court called the separate analysis of a claim for misuse relating to a match and a claim related to the 스포츠중계 of such a match “partial preemption” [Id. at 1098, n. 24].
At that time, the Federal District Court significantly expanded the INS judgment. And relied on a series of misappropriation judgments. Previously issue by the New York State Court in relation to radio broadcasting. The court in this case judges that the requirements for protection are satisfice with respect to both broadcasting. And game if the reproduction. Or illegal use is partially relate to the copyright protection subject of game broadcasting. Therefore, this court rejects not only the partial priority principle. But also the radical conclusion that “it is possible for the plaintiff to claim both the copyright infringement on broadcasting. And the illegal use of the right to play”.
The court in this case appropriately limited the judgment of the INS case. And held that in the case of a claim for illegal use of “latest news”. The application was not exclude according to the principle of priority under the federal law. Because such claims do not meet the general scope requirements. However, the Chamber held that the broader theory present in the radio broadcasting. Case on which the District Court relies was exclude by federal law. When Congress apply copyright protection to simulcast.