MULTIMEDIA CONTENT AND THE SUPER HIGHWAY:
RAPID ACCELERATION OR FOOT ON THE BRAKE?

FRED GREGURAS(1)
MICHAEL R. EGGER(1)
SANDY J. WONG(2)

Table of Contents

I.   Rights Issues in Multimedia Content
      A. Ownership May Not be Enough
      B. General Rights Issues
      C. Use of Literary and Other Written Works
      D. Use of Photographs
      E. Use of Film Clips
      F. Use of Music Works
II.  Importance of Patent Issues
III. Related Activities in Japan
      A. Institute of Intellectual Property Report
      B. Agency for Cultural Affairs Report
IV.  The U.S. Multimedia Clearinghouse:  A Proposal
      A. Overview
      B. Coalition Support Needed
      C. Management and Administration
V.   Conclusion

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Law firm of Fenwick & West, Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 800,
  Palo Alto, CA 94306;
  Tel. No. (415) 494-0600; Fax No. (415) 424-0859;
  Internet: [email protected]/[email protected]

2. Sandy Jane Wong, M.P.A., Two Ohlone, Portola Valley, CA 94028;
  Tel. No. (415) 851-7233;
  Internet:  [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A different type of highway builder may take us into the interactive
future.  News, entertainment, education and other productions are ready
at the on-ramp and may eventually be carried across the U.S. by the
information super highway network.  Many of the productions will contain
numerous and diverse digitized works, e.g., software, motion pictures,
video, graphics, music and photographs.  Intellectual property rights,
particularly copyright, are critical to the creation of productions or
titles that contain such multimedia content.  Currently, in many
instances, pre-existing works are not used in such content because
obtaining such rights is costly and time-consuming.  The greatest
creativity and ultimate value in multimedia products will likely come
from new creativity combined with the creativity of pre-existing works.

This paper summarizes the copyright and licensing issues involved in
creating multimedia content, describes activities in Japan with respect
to such issues, and proposes a U.S.  multimedia clearinghouse.  There is
no U.S.  clearinghouse for identifying who can authorize the right to
use copyrighted content in a multimedia product.  Eventually, such a
voluntary clearinghouse could be a "one-stop" license shopping center
where the content user pays a specified fee for a set of rights.  The
clearinghouse could provide a means to fairly compensate the owner of
the pre-existing work while making it easier to secure license rights to
such work.

The U.S. appears to have an initial worldwide, competitive advantage in
multimedia productions and titles because of its lead in market-driven
creativity in software, particularly in mass-market application software
that fills a market need.  For example, one key competitor, Japan, is
weak in mass- market application software other than video game
software.  The availability or non-availability of a clearinghouse could
increase the U.S. competitive advantage or provide the opportunity for
others to catch up.


I. RIGHTS ISSUES IN MULTIMEDIA CONTENT

A. "Ownership" May Not be Enough

Even the outright purchase of a portfolio of works, such as motion
pictures, may not provide the right of unrestricted use of the contents
of such works in multimedia products.  An assignment of all right, title
and interest in a copyrighted work, i.e., a transfer of ownership, may
leave residual rights to be dealt with such as:

-- Moral rights such as the right to prevent changes to a work that
could harm the author's reputation or honor.  In the U.S., the Visual
Artists Rights Act, 17 U.S.C. � 106A, provides protection for moral
rights for works of fine art only - paintings, drawings, some
photographs.  Moral rights in other countries are a more significant
restriction on the use of content material.

-- Payments may be required for reuse rights under production agreements
or union contracts.

-- Music sound track rights are a property separate from a movie itself.


B. General Rights Issues

The general legal rule in copyright licensing is to assume that any
right not expressly granted in the license language is reserved by the
owner.  Thus, if a specific right is not granted, you should assume you
do not have it.  If the right is needed it should be expressly included
in the license language.  The commercial rights needed for multimedia
content may include copying, in whole or part; performance rights;
public display rights; the preparation of derivative works
(modifications); and publication and distribution by any variety of
methods on all media whether now known or invented hereafter.  Use as
multimedia content may be only a portion of the original work or require
changes to the original work.  For example, in the case of a photograph,
the entire work could be used while only an extract of the text of a
book would likely be used.

Multimedia content use is not clearly covered in many existing
traditional rights agreements such as publishing agreements.  These
imprecise agreements can be a source of litigation, as illustrated by a
recent lawsuit.  Ten freelance writers, backed by the National Writer's
Union, filed suit in federal court against the N.Y. Times, Time Inc.,
Newsday, and two electronic publishers in December 1993 alleging that
certain articles by the writers were made available on an on- line
service and published on CD-ROMs without authorization or added
compensation, Tasini v. NY. Times, 93-8678 (S.D. N.Y.).  At a minimum,
this case is causing a refocus on electronic rights in publishing
agreements.

It is not always clear who owns rights in pre-existing copyrighted
works.  It is also dangerous to assume that a work is in the public
domain.  There is no U.S. clearinghouse for identifying who can
authorize the right to use copyrighted content in a multimedia product.
There is no required copyright registration system in the U.S. or
elsewhere in the world so the absence of a registration in a centralized
recording system, such as the U.S. Copyright Office, is not conclusive
in terms of identifying owners.  In addition, since March 1989, there
has been no requirement in the U.S. to put a copyright notice on a
published work as a condition of protection.  Copyright protection
arises when a work is fixed in any tangible medium of expression.
17.U.S.C. � 102(a).  This has long been the case in most other
countries.  As a result, the fact there is no copyright registration for
a work or that the work has no copyright notice, provides no assurance
that the work is in the public domain.  Use of such a work, without
identifying and obtaining a license from the owner, may result in
copyright infringement.  The result is that the contents of many current
multimedia products have been created as original works.

"Fair use" is a possible defense to copyright infringement but is
unlikely to be available in a commercial transaction.  17 U.S.C. � 107.
Fair use generally is limited to the private, non�commercial or
educational use of a copyrighted work.  Fair use is determined on a
case-by-case basis and is based on an assessment of factors including
the amount of the copyrighted material that is used and whether such use
can potentially harm the copyright owner's market.  For example, the
fair use defense may be available for the personal use of copyrighted
material but not for a commercial distribution of a multimedia work
which contains part of a pre-existing work.

Privately-owned rights clearance agencies are available to attempt to
identify the owner of a pre-existing work and negotiate a license on a
work-by-work basis.  Traditional license and fee schedules probably will
not fit multimedia content usage because of the nonsequential nature of
many such works.  For example, there could be a branch back to a
photograph with background music any number of times in the presentation
of the content.

Content providers known as "stock houses" and media libraries are an
alternative to obtaining the rights to specific works through rights
clearance agencies.  The "stock houses" maintain libraries of video
clips, photographs, illustrations, music and sound effects that can be
licensed for use in a multimedia product.


C. Use of Literary and Other Written Works

The owner of a work has the following exclusive rights under the U.S.
Copyright Act: copying, preparing derivative works (making
modifications), distribution and for specified categories of works,
public performance and public display rights.  17 U.S.C. �106.  No one
else may exercise these rights without authorization of the owner.

The Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. ("CCC") was established primarily
to protect the rights of owners of printed materials against
unauthorized photocopying.  The CCC collects and distributes royalties
to publishers.  The CCC has also begun to address the electronic use of
printed works protected by copyright.  Thus, the CCC could be a
candidate for the administrator of the multimedia clearinghouse
discussed below.

A publisher of a book may hold rights only to publish the work in its
original hard copy form.  The publisher may not have the right to
publish it a second time, let alone authorize its use as multimedia
content.  A license from the author may be needed in order to use any
part of it as multimedia content.  The "electronic rights" and other
specific provisions of the publishing agreement are key.


D. Use of Photographs

A book may also contain photographs of interest to the developer of a
multimedia product.  A publisher of a work that contains a photograph
may have only a one-time use right rather than outright ownership of the
photograph.  The publication agreement may also impose additional
restrictions on use of the photograph: minimum size, resolution, number
of copies, time period, etc.  Thus, a developer of a multimedia product
may need to negotiate with the photographer to obtain rights to the
photograph.  The "stock house" may be an effective alternative for
photographs in some cases.  Fees still must be negotiated for the
specific type of multimedia usage.

The American Society of Media Photographers has established a Media
Photographers Copyright Agency to protect its member photographers'
works, which they license specifically for electronic reproduction.
This is part of the trend for rights owners to establish collective
organizations to monitor possible infringements and sometimes help
finance litigation against infringements.

A recently filed lawsuit illustrates an important copyright issue
relating to photographs.  In February 1994, a stock photography agency
filed a $1.4 million lawsuit against New York Newsday for copyright
infringement involving image sampling.  The plaintiff, FPG
International, which has a portfolio of stock photos available for
licensing, asserted that Newsday scanned photos from an FPG catalog, and
then electronically "sampled" parts of the images for use in a cover
photo illustration.  According to the complaint, because Newsday, an FPG
customer, did not seek a license, its front-page photo illustration was
an unauthorized derivative work of the copyrighted photographs.


E. Use of Film Clips

Films and related works are loosely divided into motion pictures and
other films.  Film libraries other than commercial motion pictures often
have fee schedules for traditional uses of content.  The problem is that
multimedia products generally do not fit into traditional uses.  Thus,
special negotiations may be required to cover the exact usage in the
multimedia product.

The use of commercial motion picture footage is more complicated and
expensive, assuming that rights can be acquired at all.  A film
distributor probably does not have the authority to grant multimedia
content rights but could be helpful in identifying who has such
authority.  Use of any music rights, names and likenesses of
actors/actresses in such content will require separate authorizations
and payment of additional fees.  Multimedia content use is not likely to
be part of a normal fee schedule so fees will probably have to be
individually negotiated.


F. Use of Music Works

Music encompasses a number of different licensing rights.  The good news
is that procedures and policies for obtaining rights to use a musical
composition are well established.  It is also usually clear who owns the
rights being sought.  The bad news is that one normally has to negotiate
with several different parties to obtain all needed rights for use as
multimedia content.

-- A mechanical license is needed for the right to make and distribute
material objects in which a recording of a musical composition is
embodied such as a record, tape or CD.  This license is authorization
only from the composer of the work, not the performer.  A compulsory
mechanical license is generally available under the U.S. Copyright Act,
17 U.S.C. � 115.

-- A synchronization license is needed to authorize the synchronization
of a musical composition with visual images of a multimedia work.  No
compulsory license is available for this right.  Rights must be obtained
through a clearing agency.  Most synchronization licenses limit the
number of seconds the composition can be used in a work.  Because
multimedia works are not sequential, a composition could be played many
times in a given use.  Thus, again, multimedia content does not fit into
traditional fee schedules.

-- Another exclusive right of the owner of a musical composition is to
control public performances.  17 U.S.C. � 106(4).  A multimedia product
may need a public performance license.  Some licenses are available from
ASCAP and BMI which are discussed below.

-- A master recording license is needed for the right to use a
particular performance of a specific artist of the underlying
composition.  No compulsory license is available for this right.

The two major performing rights organizations, the American Society of
Composers, Authors & Publishers ("ASCAP") and Broadcast Music
Incorporated ("BMI") only grant public performance licenses, i.e., the
rights to perform a copyrighted musical work in public.  Neither of
these organizations grants rights to use such works in multimedia
products.  There is one special clearance agency, the Harry Fox Agency
("HFA"), which is a clearinghouse for obtaining music rights.  HFA
reportedly provides licensing and royalty collection services to over
12,000 music principals, which is a substantial amount of the music
rights in the U.S.

The first apparent lawsuit involving music available through a network
is illustrative of the copyright issues and also of a general legal
issue which the super highway administrator must face.  Late last year,
Frank Music Corp.  filed a class action copyright infringement lawsuit
against CompuServe in federal court in New York.  The suit, filed on
behalf of over 140 music publisher- principals of HFA and backed by the
National Music Publishers' Association, alleges copyright infringement
of Frank Music's works composition "Unchained Melody," and more than 500
musical compositions owned by HFA's other principals.

CompuServe offers a computer-based on-line information and electronic
communication service.  Subscribers can "upload" literary, graphic and
musical works for storage in databases and also "download" such works.
CompuServe was sued on the basis that its maintenance of the bulletin
board from which musical compositions in the form of "MIDI files" are
"uploaded" and "downloaded" constitutes copyright infringement.  MIDI
files are computerized information -- usually an arrangement of a
popular song -- that can be played through a musical synthesizer.  The
complaint claims that CompuServe has control over the nature and content
of materials and knew or should have known the nature and content of
materials stored and downloaded.

MIDI/Music Forum is one of about 1,700 bulletin board services carried
but not owned or managed by CompuServe.  Such services are owned and
managed by third parties from whom CompuServe obtains warranties against
copyright infringement.  The Forum's manager reportedly stated that
subscribers who place songs into the database have been warned that they
must have the legal right to do so.

CompuServe could be liable for approximately $70 million in damages and
costs.  The complaint also requests preliminary and permanent
injunctions against further infringement; an order requiring CompuServe
to purge the MIDI files during the pendency of this dispute; that
CompuServe deliver for destruction all articles and devices in its
possession from which infringing copies of the works can be made; and
costs and attorneys' fees.

CompuServe argues that it is not responsible for any infringements
because the Music Forum is managed by a third party.  This argument does
not address CompuServe's possible contributory infringement liability.
CompuServe's position is that, when information is being provided at the
price of a magazine subscription, you cannot review and censor such
information, and that any copying or distribution originates with
subscribers.  CompuServe cites a 1991 federal court ruling which held
that CompuServe was a distributor rather than a publisher with the
result that CompuServe had no duty to screen a database for defamatory
statements and was not liable for such statements because it did not
know or have reason to know of them.  Cubby, Inc. v CompuServe Inc., 776
F. Supp. 135 (S.D. N.Y 1991).  See also the following decisions in which
database providers were held liable: Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Frena,
839 F. Supp 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (summary judgment of copyright
infringement granted against a bulletin board service that allowed its
subscribers to upload and download the plaintiff's copyrighted
photographs; lack of knowledge not a factor); Dun & Bradstreet v.
Greenmoss Builders, 472 U.S. 749 (1985).  These cases seem to indicate
that the MIDI/Music Forum should also have been sued but, of course,
targeting CompuServe which has the deep pocket will create the broadest
precedent.  The implications of this line of cases are potentially far-
reaching.  Unless Congress intervenes, these cases may establish the
scope of the duty of the administrator of the super highway for policing
data that flows through the network.

Another recent case discussed the test for substantial similarity when a
digital sample of a copyrighted composition is used.  In Janus v. A&M
Records, 827 F. Supp. 282 (D. N.J. 1993) the court held there can be
infringement if the portion copied is of great qualitative importance
i.e., value, to the whole work even if the two works are not similar in
their entirety.  Thus, if a new music work is based on small digital
samples of others' compositions there could be infringement if any
sample used is of key value to the pre-existing composition.


II. IMPORTANCE OF PATENT ISSUES

While copyright issues are the focus, patents are also important
intellectual property in multimedia products even when the primary
element is copyrighted content.  This is particularly true for
multimedia products delivered on CD-ROM where the presentation process
is an element of the product along with the content.  The Compton patent
controversy illustrates this point.  The Compton patent claims cover the
basic technique for searching and retrieving information of all types of
media from a CD-ROM and other storage devices.  The U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office reexamined this patent and invalidated the claims in
March, 1994; however, this decision may still be appealed.  Thus, even
if clearances are obtained for copyrighted content, the process of
presenting that content as part of a multimedia product could infringe a
patent.


III. RELATED ACTIVITIES IN JAPAN

Japan is trying to create a communication infrastructure to parallel the
U.S. super highway.  In addition, several groups in Japan are studying
various aspects of multimedia, including copyright clearance issues.
The initial reports of committees of the Institute for Intellectual
Property and Agency for Cultural Affairs are summarized below.  No
action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the reports.

In early 1994, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry ("MITI")
and the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications ("MPT") announced an
objective to develop key technologies for a nation-wide information
super highway.  The intent is to connect homes and businesses in Japan
with a rapid, interactive communications network (fiber optic cable) by
the year 2010, which is ahead of the U.S. super highway target date.
MPT acknowledged the U.S. lead in communications technology.  MPT
believes such a gap would place the Japanese economy "in a precarious
position" in the 21st century.


A. Institute of Intellectual Property Report

The Multimedia Committee of the Institute of Intellectual Property (the
"Committee") was commissioned by MITI to study multimedia intellectual
property issues in Japan.  In February 1994, the Committee distributed
its initial report for worldwide comment.  The Committee proposed the
establishment of a collective administration center (the "Digital
Information Center") in which information on copyrighted works could be
readily accessible and clearance approval efficiently obtained.  The
Committee believes the Center would encourage the creation of new
multimedia works by using pre-existing material.  Copyright holders
would register their work on a voluntary basis.  The Center would store
licensing information for works such as music, information and graphics.
A description of the work, owner contact information, royalty fees and
licensing conditions would be available.  The report acknowledged the
considerable expense of establishing and maintaining such a database.
Developers would select and use works by paying royalties to the Center,
which in turn would pay the copyright owners or their agents.  The owner
would set the amount and method of payment, such as a running royalty, a
lump�sum royalty, or a combination of the two approaches.  The owner
would also impose licensing conditions, such as restricting a license to
reproduction or internal use only.

The Committee believes that incentives other than royalties are needed
in order to motivate voluntary participation.  The Committee suggested
that the Center be enabled to issue warnings of copyright infringement
on behalf of registrants and to take other steps to prevent unauthorized
exploitation of registered works.  Dealing with the moral rights of an
author requires more study, according to the Committee, in order to
assure compliance with the Berne Copyright Convention.  Clarification
would be needed that an author may consent not to exercise the author's
moral rights.  Part of the database entry for a registered work could be
that an author has consented not to exercise such rights or requires
users to deal with the author on an individual basis with respect to
proposed modifications to the author's work.


B. Agency for Cultural Affairs Report

In November 1993, the Subcommittee on Multimedia of the Copyright
Council (the "Subcommittee") of the Ministry of Education's Agency for
Cultural Affairs proposed an organization (the "Copyright Rights-
Information Centralization Organization") for the clearance of rights in
pre-existing works to be used as content for multimedia products.  the
Subcommittee believes such an Organization would be useful to both the
creators of multimedia products and the owners of pre-existing works and
would also contribute to the general public's enjoyment of cultural
products.

According to the Subcommittee, formation of the Organization would
result in the simplification of licensing procedures and is a
precondition to the collective administration of rights.  The
Organization would centralize information on ownership administered by
the respective organizations currently representing rights owners of
various kinds of works and offer such information through a single
channel.  The Subcommittee proposed the following action steps:

-- The existing organizations representing rights owners should
consolidate the contents of information on rights ownership and create
information databases;

-- Common standards should be established for information elements,
taking into account the needs of users and owners;

-- The Agency for Cultural Affairs should study how to promote the
establishment of the Organization since it would lay the foundation for
the creation and development of a multimedia society and would
contribute to the enjoyment of cultural products by the general public.

The Subcommittee believed it would be difficult, at least at the outset,
to create a single organization to administer rights for all kinds of
preexisting works because of the different nature of the works and their
ways of use.  Therefore, the Subcommittee proposed that cooperation
should be sought from the existing administration organizations to
support the formation of the Organization.  With respect to moral
rights, at a minimum the identity of authors would be provided in the
database so authors could be dealt with on an individual basis.  A
registered consent subject to compliance with licensing conditions was
also discussed as a possibility.

The Subcommittee indicated that further study was needed to determine
what entity and rules would govern the entire system of collective
administration of such rights, including whether a general system is
possible under which certain rights to royalty payments would be
exercised exclusively through the Organization.


IV. THE U.S. MULTIMEDIA CLEARINGHOUSE: A PROPOSAL

A. Overview

-- The clearinghouse would cover copyright interests only at the outset,
probably with emphasis on only a subset of types of works, for example,
works other than musical compositions and motion pictures.

-- Copyright owners would participate on a voluntary basis.

-- The initial phase would probably be only to establish a database of
information without royalty payment administration.  The eventual
administration of royalty payments is possible.

-- "Routine" or standard license rights could be defined which reflect
creative needs with associated royalty payments.  The purpose of
defining routine rights is to avoid ambiguity which could lead to
litigation.  Rights other than "routine" rights would be addressed on a
case-by-case basis with the rights owner identified in the data base.
Royalties would be set by the owner.

-- Registrants would offer nonexclusive licenses, priced differently
based on the scope of rights, the geographical territory, the term of
the license and other factors.  To protect licensees, the copyright
owner would warrant that he has the right to grant such licenses.

The overall strategy would be to start small and to build incrementally
after launching the multimedia clearinghouse.  The clearinghouse should
initially deal only with copyrights and not patents.  Dealing with
copyright interests will be a difficult challenge by itself.  In
addition, other groups are working on patent clearinghouses.  An example
is the small coalition of seven companies which expect to form a "patent
pool" for users of the MPEG-2 (Motion Picture Experts Group) video
standard.  This collaboration is the outgrowth of muddled intellectual
property rights issues surrounding this standard.  Implementation relies
greatly on both voluntary participation and a collaborative spirit on
the part of the patent holders.

Types of copyrighted works could be incrementally added to the
clearinghouse, because of the wide variety of types of works, the
different ways they are used and the difficulty of gaining support and
cooperation of existing administrative organizations.  In fact, some
existing administrative organizations for certain types of works, such
as musical compositions, may be adequate.

The clearinghouse could first function solely as a database search
system.  The basic elements of the database would include: (1) name of
the work; (2) licensing conditions; (3) royalty fees; and (4) contact
information on the copyright owner or agent.  Nominal service fees would
be paid by both copyright owners and licensees to use the clearinghouse.

Voluntary participation and pricing for certain defined routine uses
could be early features of the clearinghouse.  For example, there would
be different pricing for internal use within a business as opposed to a
public performance.  "Routine" uses would add precision to the scope and
nature of rights granted in order to avoid litigation since ambiguity
has been a major source of lawsuits.  "Routine" or standard uses would
be defined by the type of work, but might be categorized based on some
of the following factors:

-- Whether the work will be used internally only or distributed publicly
on a CD-ROM, through a network or otherwise.  License manager software
could help measure use on all types of networks in both private and
public networks.

-- The number of times a copyrighted work is used in a multimedia
product, e.g., one time versus multiple times.

-- Whether the entire work is used or only a portion of the work and if
only a portion, the size of the extract or sample, i.e., seconds or
minutes, words or pages, etc.

-- Whether the work is used in its original form or is modified or
otherwise transformed by the multimedia product The administration of
royalty payments could be added at some point.  Service fees would also
be charged for collecting royalties and for clearance services.  Actual
delivery of a work could be made through the super highway as the
clearinghouse evolves.

The clearinghouse should be pro-competitive rather than anti-competitive
since it could be used by any rights holder or developer.  The
clearinghouse could request a business review letter from the antitrust
division of the U.S.  Department of Justice for added protection.


B. Coalition Support Needed

The success of the clearinghouse depends on substantial participation by
both product developers and copyright owners.  Both must perceive the
clearinghouse as reliable and easy-to-use.  Each group has its own
economic incentives.  Copyright owners can project generating greater
royalties.  Content users will favor the establishment of such a
clearinghouse as a means to help create new products without having to
create totally new content.  The more extensive the choice of
copyrighted works, the greater the use of the clearinghouse.

The economic incentives for participation would not likely be adequate
at the outset to cause content owners to participate.  A coalition of
influential businesses, private industry and public trade groups would
be needed to persuade copyright owners to participate in the
clearinghouse.  Over time, the clearinghouse would provide a greater
opportunity for copyright owners to increase royalty revenues.  The
availability of a clearinghouse could also discourage unauthorized use
of copyrighted content by making it easier to obey the copyright law.

Copyright licensing organizations are gaining momentum as a means to
ensure that intellectual property owners do not lose royalties from the
unauthorized electronic use of their works.  The primary targets of the
monitoring and enforcement actions are distributors and resellers.  The
clearinghouse could assist in such enforcement efforts.

Many groups could provide important support for the establishment and
use of the clearinghouse, including the following: American Society of
Journalists and Authors, American Society of Media Photographers,
Artists Rights Foundation, The Authors Guild, Center for Creative
Imaging, the Digital Audio-Visual Council, Interactive Multimedia
Association, National Press Photographers Association, National Writers
Union, and the San Francisco's Multimedia Development Group.


C. Management and Administration

The administrator of the multimedia clearinghouse could be the CCC, an
existing private rights clearance agency or a completely new entity.
Using an existing entity with clearance experience makes the most sense.
The existing clearing agencies would be important at least through the
startup phase and possibly indefinitely if a royalty administration
function is not implemented or if the type of work is not generally
included in the clearinghouse.

Some initial funding could come from the federal government's support of
the super highway initiative.  On-going funding could come from service
fees associated with both owners and licensees use of the clearinghouse.


V. CONCLUSION

Given the evolution of multimedia standards coalitions, drawing
television closer to the computer and communications worlds via the
identification of major interfaces and protocols needed for interactive
applications and services, it is timely to complement this activity with
a fair means of encouraging new creativity while fairly providing
compensation for prior creativity - the multimedia copyright
clearinghouse.

Multimedia content will be in the fast lane on the super highway.  The
U.S.  appears to have an initial worldwide, competitive advantage in
multimedia productions and titles because of its lead in market-driven
creativity in software, particularly in mass-market application software
that fills a market need.  The availability or non-availability of a
copyright clearinghouse could increase the U.S.  competitive advantage
or provide the opportunity for others to catch up.


June 18, 1994


1. Law firm of Fenwick & West, Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 800,
  Palo Alto, CA 94306;
  Tel. No. (415) 494-0600; Fax No. (415) 424-0859;
  Internet: [email protected]/[email protected]

2. Sandy Jane Wong, M.P.A., Two Ohlone, Portola Valley, CA 94028;
  Tel. No. (415) 851-7233;
  Internet:  [email protected]

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.