FEDERAL · 17 U.S.C. · Chapter 1
Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
17 U.S.C. § 117
Title17 — Copyrights
Chapter1 — SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
This text of 17 U.S.C. § 117 (Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
17 U.S.C. § 117.
Text
(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b)Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.—Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of t
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Apple Computer, Inc., a California Corporation v. Franklin Computer Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation
714 F.2d 1240 (Third Circuit, 1983)
Alcatel Usa, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dgi Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
166 F.3d 772 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
Sega Enterprises Ltd., a Japanese Corporation v. Accolade, Inc., a California Corporation
977 F.2d 1510 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
387 F.3d 522 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc.
542 F.3d 1007 (Third Circuit, 2008)
Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
447 F.3d 769 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Vault Corporation v. Quaid Software Limited
847 F.2d 255 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)
Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon
542 F.3d 748 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Sys. Eng'g, Inc.
924 F.3d 32 (Second Circuit, 2019)
Arthur Young & Company v. City of Richmond
895 F.2d 967 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
Itofca, Inc. v. Megatrans Logistics, Inc.
322 F.3d 928 (Seventh Circuit, 2003)
Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc.
797 F.2d 1222 (Third Circuit, 1986)
Krause v. Titleserv, Inc.
402 F.3d 119 (Second Circuit, 2005)
Dsc Communications Corporation v. Pulse Communications, Inc., Defendant-Cross
170 F.3d 1354 (Federal Circuit, 1999)
Clifford Scott Aymes v. Jonathan J. Bonelli, Doing Business as Island Swimming Sales, Inc., and Island Recreational
47 F.3d 23 (Second Circuit, 1995)
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc.
562 F. Supp. 775 (C.D. California, 1983)
National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
552 F. Supp. 89 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
Secure Services Technology, Inc. v. Time & Space Processing, Inc.
722 F. Supp. 1354 (E.D. Virginia, 1989)
Micro-Sparc, Inc. v. Amtype Corp.
592 F. Supp. 33 (D. Massachusetts, 1984)
Foresight Resources Corp. v. Pfortmiller
719 F. Supp. 1006 (D. Kansas, 1989)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2565; Pub. L. 96–517, §10(b), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 3028; Pub. L. 105–304, title III, §302, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2887.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
house report no. 94–1476
As the program for general revision of the copyright law has evolved, it has become increasingly apparent that in one major area the problems are not sufficiently developed for a definitive legislative solution. This is the area of computer uses of copyrighted works: the use of a work "in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, retrieving, or transferring information." The Commission on New Technological Uses is, among other things, now engaged in making a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this field and it will, on the basis of its findings, recommend definitive copyright provisions to deal with the situation.
Since it would be premature to change existing law on computer uses at present, the purpose of section 117 is to preserve the status quo. It is intended neither to cut off any rights that may now exist, nor to create new rights that might be denied under the Act of 1909 or under common law principles currently applicable.
The provision deals only with the exclusive rights of a copyright owner with respect to computer uses, that is, the bundle of rights specified for other types of uses in section 106 and qualified in sections 107 through 116 and 118. With respect to the copyright-ability of computer programs, the ownership of copyrights in them, the term of protection, and the formal requirements of the remainder of the bill, the new statute would apply.
Under section 117, an action for infringement of a copyrighted work by means of a computer would necessarily be a federal action brought under the new title 17. The court, in deciding the scope of exclusive rights in the computer area, would first need to determine the applicable law, whether State statutory or common law or the Act of 1909. Having determined what law was applicable, its decision would depend upon its interpretation of what that law was on the point on the day before the effective date of the new statute.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1998—Pub. L. 105–304 designated existing provisions as subsecs. (a) and (b), inserted headings, and added subsecs. (c) and (d).
1980—Pub. L. 96–517 substituted provision respecting limitations on exclusive rights in connection with computer programs for prior provision enunciating scope of exclusive rights and use of the work in conjunction with computers and similar information systems and declaring owner of copyright in a work without any greater or lesser rights with respect to the use of the work in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, retrieving, or transferring information, or in conjunction with any similar device, machine, or process, than those afforded to works under the law, whether this title or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on Dec. 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by the court in an action brought under this title.
house report no. 94–1476
As the program for general revision of the copyright law has evolved, it has become increasingly apparent that in one major area the problems are not sufficiently developed for a definitive legislative solution. This is the area of computer uses of copyrighted works: the use of a work "in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, retrieving, or transferring information." The Commission on New Technological Uses is, among other things, now engaged in making a thorough study of the emerging patterns in this field and it will, on the basis of its findings, recommend definitive copyright provisions to deal with the situation.
Since it would be premature to change existing law on computer uses at present, the purpose of section 117 is to preserve the status quo. It is intended neither to cut off any rights that may now exist, nor to create new rights that might be denied under the Act of 1909 or under common law principles currently applicable.
The provision deals only with the exclusive rights of a copyright owner with respect to computer uses, that is, the bundle of rights specified for other types of uses in section 106 and qualified in sections 107 through 116 and 118. With respect to the copyright-ability of computer programs, the ownership of copyrights in them, the term of protection, and the formal requirements of the remainder of the bill, the new statute would apply.
Under section 117, an action for infringement of a copyrighted work by means of a computer would necessarily be a federal action brought under the new title 17. The court, in deciding the scope of exclusive rights in the computer area, would first need to determine the applicable law, whether State statutory or common law or the Act of 1909. Having determined what law was applicable, its decision would depend upon its interpretation of what that law was on the point on the day before the effective date of the new statute.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
1998—Pub. L. 105–304 designated existing provisions as subsecs. (a) and (b), inserted headings, and added subsecs. (c) and (d).
1980—Pub. L. 96–517 substituted provision respecting limitations on exclusive rights in connection with computer programs for prior provision enunciating scope of exclusive rights and use of the work in conjunction with computers and similar information systems and declaring owner of copyright in a work without any greater or lesser rights with respect to the use of the work in conjunction with automatic systems capable of storing, processing, retrieving, or transferring information, or in conjunction with any similar device, machine, or process, than those afforded to works under the law, whether this title or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on Dec. 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by the court in an action brought under this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
17 U.S.C. § 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/17/117.