Copyright Statute Research Articles

Protecting Street Art and Graffiti as Artistic Works Under Indian Copyright Law: An Analysis

ABSTRACT Street art, known for its temporary nature and presence in public spaces, faces challenges in copyright protection. Despite these hurdles, street art is increasingly recognized as a legitimate artistic expression warranting copyright safeguards. This abstract explores how street art can be protected under copyright law, beginning with its definition and qualification as an artistic work under copyright statutes. It addresses practical and legal issues such as authorship, ownership, and the impact of public location. This study illustrates different approaches to protecting street art through circumstances and some legal precedents. It also examines the role of moral rights and public interest in balancing artists' rights with property rights and urban aesthetics. The abstract proposes legal reforms or policy interventions to enhance copyright protection for street art while maintaining its cultural integrity, contributing to the discourse on the intersection of copyright law and urban art.

Punched Holes: Piano Rolls and the Visual Representation of Sound in White-Smith v. Apollo (1908)

Abstract In its ruling on White-Smith v. Apollo (1908), the Supreme Court declared that the punched holes of a player piano roll did not constitute a form of writing, and thus fell outside the purview of copyright statutes. Because the decision was superseded by the Copyright Act of 1909, which extended copyright coverage to piano rolls and sound recordings, commentators have relegated White-Smith v. Apollo to the status of legal footnote. The case, however, deserves closer attention. It reveals much about the fault lines between the auditory experience of music and its visual representation at the beginning of the era of recorded sound. Witness testimony is notable for its disquisitions on the history of musical notation, exegeses of recently patented notation systems, and philosophical ruminations on the nature of a musical work in relationship to its visual representation and sonic instantiation. Trial proceedings show how the perforations of a piano roll, which were more evocative of traditional musical notation than soundwaves etched on a phonograph cylinder or disc, destabilized the mundanity of reading music. Moreover, this instability suggests an explanation for why the piano rolls figuring in the case featured the music of Adam Geibel. The composer was blind, and in a lawsuit about the textuality of music, his disability served to contrast musical sights and sounds. Moreover, White-Smith v. Apollo furnishes a means of bringing the player piano out of the shadow of the phonograph, giving it a place in the “separation of the senses” that media scholars identify with modernity.

Exploring authorship and ownership of plays at the time of William Shakespeare’s First Folio

ABSTRACT In this this article I evaluate how authorship of theatre occurred in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods. I explore whether individual playwrights such as William Shakespeare were viewed as authors, and thus owners, of plays at this time. I analyse the role of the Stationers’ Company as print monopolists, and the role of Elizabethan theatre companies, who took ownership of scripts for performance purposes. I examine the impact of the publication of the First Folio. I note that the publishing syndicate behind the First Folio, led by Shakespeare’s friends John Heminges and Henry Condell, had to obtain the print rights for several plays, not from Shakespeare’s estate, but from the various Stationers who had acquired publishing rights while Shakespeare was alive. Therefore, the First Folio stands as an early example, even before statutory copyright existed, of a book created via what we now describe as the ‘clearing’ of copyright licences. A consequence of the First Folio was not just the emergence of Shakespeare as the English author-figure par excellence; the First Folio coincided with a rising legal expectation that authors should be owners of dramatic texts under copyright law. Throughout the seventeenth century and into the early eighteenth century I mark how tensions between the market power of the Stationers’ Company and emerging recognition of the author’s literary property led to the first British copyright statute: the Statute of Anne in 1710.

Studi Komparasi Hukum atas Perlindungan Hukum Hak Cipta pada Media Elektronik dalam Common Law dan Civil Law

This article aims to compare the legal protection of copyright in electronic media in common law and civil law. This research adopts normative legal research methods. This method is used to understand, explain, and evaluate normative aspects of the legal system. The research results show that the Common Law system relies on precedents and previous court decisions as the main source of law. Copyright laws may be more general and may evolve through court interpretation. Copyright is automatically granted when a creative work is created without formal registration requirements. Meanwhile, the Civil Law system has more detailed and codified coverage of the law. Copyright law is often regulated in specific and detailed copyright statutes. In some Civil Law systems, copyright registration is an important requirement to obtain legal protection. Copyright may not be granted automatically and requires registration steps. Similarities in Copyright Protection The Common Law and Civil Law legal systems lie in the legal system generally recognizing copyright as the exclusive right of the owner of a work to control the use and distribution of his work. In the context of international protection, both Common Law and Civil Law generally follow international agreements such as the Berne Convention to protect copyright across borders.

The Artistic Use Defence in Trademark Dilution Cases – Hermès’ Legal Setback in Its Attempt to Prevent Others from Using Its Iconic Birkin Handbag

Abstract This opinion explores what constitutes a trademark parody in an artistic context and when it crosses the line of trademark infringement in dilution cases which occur beyond the traditional trademark protection from the likelihood of confusion. This is shown by analysing the latest two decisions regarding trademark parody handed down by the German Frankfurt am Main Regional Court in a case in which Hermès has suffered a setback in its attempt to prevent a fashion label from using its iconic Birkin handbag at the Berlin fashion show in 2023. While parody is considered a protected form of speech or artistic expression, no clear-cut legal rule separates a legitimate parody from an infringing use, in particular in cases of so-called mixed expressions where the reference to the protected trademark is not closely tied to commercial use but still happens outside of a purely artistic context. Compared to the statutory copyright’s flexible fair use defence, there is simply too little case law available to draw on in trademark dilution law. The few rigid defences German courts have cobbled together in trademark cases illustrate that trademark could benefit from a clearer identification of use categories. The following analysis of these decisions aims at highlighting that urgent trademark reforms are necessary in the area of art-related fair use defences. Furthermore, the following analysis will illustrate how big corporations like Hermès can fail when attempting to use trademark rights to control the meaning not only of wealth and exclusivity but also of conspicuous consumption and the equally conspicuous display of wealth, status and power in male-dominated domains.

АВТОРЛЫҚ ҚҰҚЫҚТЫҢ ДАМУ ХРОНОЛОГИЯСЫ: АҚШ, АНГЛИЯ, ФРАНЦИЯ ЖӘНЕ ҚАЗАҚСТАН РЕСПУБЛИКАСЫНДА АВТОРЛЫҚ ҚҰҚЫҚ НЕГІЗДЕРІНІҢ ҚАЛЫПТАСУ ТАРИХЫ

A thorough revision of copyright law is extremely necessary due to a significant increase in the material value of literary and artistic property, as well as serious problems with its protection. The copyright statute encompasses three main copyright policies: copyright must encourage learning to avoid copyright censorship; copyright must protect and expand the public domain; and copyright is to provide public access to copyrighted materials.The main purpose of this article is to study the development of copyright law, the general principles of this topic and the analysis of the sources of copyright law.Currently, digital technologies with their potential for mass dissemination of information have become a catalyst for such profound social changes that it is time to rethink the basics of copyright law as intangible property rights, its evolution and scope, exceptions and limitations, taking into account the modern needs of technological innovation, progress and revolution. Librarians, as information professionals, also have their rights and responsibilities in relation to copyright. The article attempts to study the historical development of the copyright law, as a process of unification and harmonization and its application in the library sphere, the rights and obligations of librarians, as well as restrictions and protection of copyrights.

Competitive advantage in the international market of laws: the case of copyright law

ABSTRACT This article identifies efficiency, certainty, and agility as essential facilitators of a copyright system’s ability to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) to the cultural and creative industries in today’s knowledge economy. The article further provides a set of principles and rules that enable these characteristics in copyright law. Whereas some of these copyright principles and rules are inherently compatible and, hence, can concurrently serve the efficiency, certainty, and agility of copyright law, the co-existence of some of them requires legislative and judicial balancing, as neither of them should defeat the purpose of the other. Furthermore, given the role that legal efficiency, certainty, and agility play in the sustainability of copyright law, legislatures should weigh these characteristics in the copyright law balance when enacting or amending copyright statutes. Courts also should consider these qualities when reconciling competing copyright law interests via statutory interpretation. Both types of balancing are necessary to ensure that the economic competitive advantage of copyright law does not prejudice its fairness foundations. From a business strategy perspective, firms in the cultural and creative industry may want to consider the efficiency, certainty, and agility of a copyright system when choosing their investment destinations.

Internationally Driven, but Domestically Aware, Legislation in Troubled Times: The First Copyright Statute in China

Abstract We use the 1910 Copyright Code of the Great Qing Dynasty (Qing Copyright Code) as a lens to understand China’s initial encounter with international intellectual property norms, examine the dynamic political economy in which the law was enacted, and provide an overview of the structure and important provisions of the Qing Copyright Code. We argue that, although foreign pressure was an important factor shaping the Qing Copyright Code, the Code was designed not to protect the economic interests of foreigners in China but to achieve a pair of distinct goals: advance China’s national interests in accessing Western knowledge and incentivize the production and dissemination of knowledge in the country. This argument is substantiated by not only the political economy of the legislation but also the later implementation of the law.

Realising a ‘Right’ to Research in Nigeria and South Africa: The Role of the Executive Arm of Government

Development agendas and plans such as South Africa’s National Development Plan 2030 and Nigeria’s National Development Plan 2021–2025, indicate the need for, and benefits of, development research to sharpen countries’ innovative edge and to contribute to global scientific and technological advancement. Recent scholarship has highlighted the positive impact on national development of copyright exceptions allowing for the right to research. This can be in the form of either a complete defence to copyright infringement, or, as user rights. However, the realisation of a right to research has been limited by a copyright legislative framework that may be challenging to interpret. Other hindrances to realising the right to research are limited access to courts for interpretation due to limited resources and also as a result of the inherent institutional limitations of courts to consider only the case pleaded by parties before them. In this environment, the role of the executive arm of government in driving the realisation of a right to research is crucial. Yet, there’s been no executive action to provide for the much-needed clarification to concretise and promote the right to research to actualise development goals. Focused on Nigeria and South Africa, this paper explores the duties imposed on the institutions of executive government and applies administrative law principles to indicate a policy toolkit within copyright statutes that may be deployed to realise a right to research and engender guidance for researchers, copyright owners, users and audience of research.

Privatizing Copyright

Much has been written, and much is understood, about how and why digital platforms regulate free expression on the internet. Much less has been written— and even much less is understood—about how and why digital platforms regulate creative expression on the internet—expression that makes use of others’ copyrighted content. While § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act regulates user-generated content incorporating copyrighted works, just as § 230 of the Communications Decency Act regulates other user speech on the internet, it is, in fact, rarely used by the largest internet platforms—Facebook and YouTube. Instead, as this Article details, creative speech on those platforms is governed by a series of highly confidential licensing agreements with large copyright holders. Yet despite the dominance of private contracting in ordering how millions of pieces of digital content are made and distributed on a daily basis, little is known, and far less has been written, on just what the new rules governing creative expression are. This is, in fact, by design: these license agreements contain strict confidentiality clauses that prohibit public disclosure of any and all of their contents. This Article, however, pieces together clues from publicly available court filings, news reports, and leaked documents. The picture it reveals is a world where the substantive law of copyright is being quietly rewritten. Agreements between digital platforms and rightsholders remove the First Amendment safeguard of fair use, insert a new moral right for works previously deemed ineligible for moral rights protection, and use other small provisions to influence and reshape administrative, common, and statutory copyright law. Further still, recent changes or lobbied-for changes to copyright’s public law seek to either enshrine the primacy of such private governance or altogether remove copyright rulemaking processes from government oversight, cementing the legitimacy of the new private governors. Changing copyright’s public law to enshrine the primacy of such private governance insulates the new rules of copyright from the democratic process, transforming public participation in, and public oversight of, the laws that shape our daily lives. Creative expression on the internet now finds itself at a curious precipice: there is a seeming glut of low-cost or free content, much of it created directly by and distributed to users—yet increasingly regulated by an opaque network of rules created by a select few private parties. An understanding of the internet’s democratizing potential for creativity is incomplete without a concomitant understanding of how the new private rules of copyright may shape, and harm, that creativity.

연출저작권 인정 여부에 관한 고찰

A director of the musical or theater is the person responsible for the all element of a performance. But the copyrights of the musical or theater director is not protected by the Korean Copyrights Act. First of all terms of copyright, the term “work” means a creative production that expresses human thoughts and emotions and the term “author” means a person who creates a work. The right of the director of the musical or theater is regulated as a performer not an author. According to the Copyrights Act §2②, the term “performer” means a person who gives a stage performance by expressing works through acting, dancing, musical playing, singing, narrating, reciting or other artistic means or by expressing things other than works in a similar way, including a person who conducts, directs or supervises a stage performance. Thus a director of the musical or theater is a performer and the rights of the director is protected as the neighboring copyright. But the director who contribute their thinking and insights to play or musical performance might contribute creatively to a production is protected as the copyright. A theater production or a musical production can be broken into two parts, the words on the page and the work on stage. The directors right about the work on stage shall be protected as the writers right about the words on the page can be protected. The current copyright statutes seem easily to accommodate co-authorship. A director’s copyright would instigate a complex, cumbersome array of derivative copyrights that would stymie and ultimately prevent multiple productions of a playwright’s script.

연출저작권 인정 여부에 관한 고찰

A director of the musical or theater is the person responsible for the all element of a performance. But the copyrights of the musical or theater director is not protected by the Korean Copyrights Act. First of all terms of copyright, the term “work” means a creative production that expresses human thoughts and emotions and the term “author” means a person who creates a work. The right of the director of the musical or theater is regulated as a performer not an author. According to the Copyrights Act §2②, the term “performer” means a person who gives a stage performance by expressing works through acting, dancing, musical playing, singing, narrating, reciting or other artistic means or by expressing things other than works in a similar way, including a person who conducts, directs or supervises a stage performance. Thus a director of the musical or theater is a performer and the rights of the director is protected as the neighboring copyright. But the director who contribute their thinking and insights to play or musical performance might contribute creatively to a production is protected as the copyright. A theater production or a musical production can be broken into two parts, the words on the page and the work on stage. The directors right about the work on stage shall be protected as the writers right about the words on the page can be protected. The current copyright statutes seem easily to accommodate co-authorship. A director’s copyright would instigate a complex, cumbersome array of derivative copyrights that would stymie and ultimately prevent multiple productions of a playwright’s script.

The Protection of Performers’ Rights under the Copyright Act 2022: A Critique

The protection of Neighbouring Rights is an essential aspect of the legal regime of copyright in every jurisdiction. This is more so in Nigeria where there has been an explosion of the film industry, musical performances and radio and television broadcasting which these rights protect and an even greater explosion of technology with which rights protectable under copyright statutes can be infringed upon. The Nigerian Copyright Act Cap. C28 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 made copious provisions for the protection of Neighbouring Rights in Part II thereof. However, over time, these provisions became inadequateto secure the protectable interests of performers with the increase in open and sleuth technology and the tenacity of infringers to undermine the interests of rights owners. The agitation of stakeholders to review the statute to accommodate new challenges in the industry has yielded fruit with the signing into law of the new Nigerian Copyright Act 2022 by former President Muhammadu Buhari. This paper looks at the provisions of the new Act to ascertain how well they protect performers’ rights against the background of the challenges that led to a review of the old Act. The paper does a comparison of the new provisions with the old provisions and with provisions in similar jurisdictions outside Nigeria. The paper finds that the new Act has greatly improved the protection available to performers and adequately meets international standards.

Factors motivating students' intention to accept online learning in emerging countries: the case study of Vietnam

PurposeThis paper, employing the model integrated from Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Technology Acceptance (TAM), will examine factors affecting Vietnamese students' acceptance behaviour towards online learning. The research aims at finding out the motivating factors and measuring their influence on students' intention to accept digital transformation in learning. Based on the results, the authors propose some valuable suggestions to encourage acceptance of online learning behaviour, to enhance and apply digital transformation to higher education in Vietnam, especially in the Covid-19 pandemic, when most of the schools all over the world were forced to close.Design/methodology/approachThe research team used 913 responds' non-convenient probability sampling method, focusing on students currently studying at undergraduate education institutions across the country, studying different training majors, in different academic years. With the questionnaire designed through qualitative research, a preliminary quantitative study with 53 responses has been conducted. Based on the results, the authors completed the questionnaire then conducted a formal quantitative survey. Cronbach alpha, EFA, CFA and SEM have been used to explore the meanings of data collected.FindingsThe results from analysing 913 undergraduates reveal that Attitude (influenced by Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use), IT Ability and Self-study Ability impact the intention of accepting online learning at the beginning and digital transformation in the future. Meanwhile, Subjective Norm and Financial Ability do not have any role in fostering the intent of accepting new studying mode among Vietnamese students because of IR4.0 and the low expense for online learning. Research findings are the premise for the authors to provide suggestions for students, institutions on enhancing their digital transformation process through their changing behaviours in the relationship with other stakeholders surrounding the learning process of students.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors found that previous studies only focused on one or two factors according to the TAM or TPB model; or have not clarified all the stages in the process of changing learning methods behaviour. Therefore, this study combined both models to analyse in more detail the above process as well as exploit new influencing factors to complete the research scale. The main limitation of this study was that the sample has been taken in 2020 when the Covid-19 pandemic is forcing all students to online learning, even they are willing or not.Practical implicationsThe research is conducted in the context of Covid-19 outspread, the society has inevitably transitioned to digital transformation, especially with the education sector. Based on the results of analysing the changing process among students from accepting online learning to their intention to change the learning behaviour, the authors proposed some recommendations for universities that build the landscape for study; for lecturers – the most important factor in connecting the students to the working world with knowledge and skills; and especially for students, who need to have actively in receiving knowledge and self-study in the era of IR4.0.Originality/valueThis study adds to the existing literature related to solutions to motivate intention to accept online learning in higher education institutions. With online learning gradually being adopted around the world, the study examined the factors driving the intention to study online in emerging countries. In particular, the study focuses specifically on the case of Vietnam. This result from this study can serve as a guide for higher education institutions as a premise to develop future research directions. It may be useful for studies at higher education institutions in emerging countries similar to Vietnam; in-depth research into research subjects at higher education institutions; or study countries with cultures, customs and habits equivalent to Vietnam, etc. Finally, we are certain that the material presented in this manuscript will not infringe any statutory copyright and that the manuscript will not be submitted elsewhere while being reviewed by the Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education assessment.

Unintended Authors: Piracy, Plagiarism and Property in Victorian Popular Culture

The introduction to this special issue of the Victorian Popular Fictions Journal, “Unintended Authors,” argues that Victorian popular fictions crucially relied on incoherently regulated global artistic markets that made bargain-basement grabbing and reselling comme il faut. The absence of clear and uniform copyright statutes, case law, and trade practices across national, colonial, linguistic, and generic borders surprisingly did not obstruct nineteenth-century authorship; rather these conditions did the work of cultivating an extraordinary proliferation of scrappy innovators creatively reusing antecedents. A cast of rogue publishers, theatrical adaptors, and proto brand managers take centre stage here in an effort to recognize the collaborative, appropriative, and reiterative dimensions of nineteenth-century fictional entertainment.

Retelling Copyright: The Contributions of the Restatement of Copyright Law

The provisions at issue in the draft Restatement of Copyright Law on which ALI membership will vote at ALI’s upcoming annual meeting are central to copyright doctrine and have been the subject of numerous court decisions over the past several decades of technological and industry change: originality, fixation, categories of copyrightable subject matter, the idea-expression distinction, and authorship and ownership. This abundance of legal activity on copyright law demonstrates the value to the profession of this project retelling copyright. In contrast to the dramatic criticism of this Restatement project alleging political capture or illegitimate law reform, the draft’s provisions are routine and straightforward. They will surprise no one and are almost boring in their adherence to and synthesis of the copyright statute and judicial interpretations of it. Far from being radical or ill-advised, the Restatement of Copyright Law is a reasonable and welcome addition to the work of the ALI.
 Part I of this Article situates the current Restatement of Copyright Law in the historical context of other ALI projects, drawing parallels in their purposes, processes, and political tensions. Part II describes the controversy over a “retelling” of copyright law as misguided insofar as it fails to account for the practice of interpretation as part of the practice of law that is constrained by professional standards. Part III describes the analysis and exposition of the provisions of the draft portions of the Restatement of Copyright Law presented to the ALI membership for discussion and vote this year as unremarkable but also beneficial, achieving the ALI’s goals of clarification and simplification of the sprawling federal case law interpreting and applying the 1976 Copyright Act.

Perma.cc and Web Archival Dissonance with Copyright Law

This is a preprint. Please review and cite LRSQ published version. Harvard’s Perma.cc offers the solution to linkrot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to web materials disappears with the passage of time, resulting in “broken links” and disappearance of material from the Web. This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and caselaw. It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web. This analysis includes detailed analysis of “transformative use” and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107. It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. The article concludes that Perma.cc’s archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions, that Perma.cc, its “registrar” library and institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk, and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address web archival storage for scholarly purposes. In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to web materials. The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc); so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles or books.

Perma.cc and Web Archival Dissonance with Copyright Law

Harvard’s Perma.cc offers the solution to link rot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to Web materials disappear with the passage of time, resulting in “broken links” and disappearance of material from the Web. This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and case law. It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web. This analysis includes detailed analysis of “transformative use” and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107. It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. The article concludes that Perma.cc’s archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions; that Perma.cc, its “registrar” library, institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk; and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address Web archival storage for scholarly purposes. In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to Web materials. The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc) so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles, or books.

'Fair Use' through Fundamental Rights: When Freedom of Artistic Expression allows Creative Appropriations and Opens up Statutory Copyright Limitations

This chapter discusses the evolution in jurisprudential understanding of the relationship between copyright and freedom of artistic expression in the European Union. It demonstrates how courts in France and several other EU member states have accepted a “fair use” approach that applies fundamental rights as external limitations to copyright law, in compliance with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights but contrasting with the recent conflicting position of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The chapter first analyses the application of freedom of artistic expression to copyright law on a case-by-case basis and shows that, although long contested, such an approach is now mandated by EU primary law, thus “flexibilizing” significantly the legal framework in this area. It then examines the balancing act between fundamental rights and copyright, with particular attention paid to the weight the judiciary should afford freedom of artistic expression versus copyright law in cases of creative appropriation, in order to comply with the obligations resulting from European, national, and international human rights provisions. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion and evaluation of the growing need for legislative reform to render freedom of artistic expression fully compatible with copyright law in the context of creative reuses of protected works.

Are foreign copyright works protected in Nigeria?

Despite Nigeria's treaty obligations, Nigerian courts have, in the last quarter of a century, consistently but erroneously held that the Nigerian copyright statute does not protect copyright works of foreign persons. The purport of the decisions is that foreign persons cannot sue to protect their copyright in Nigeria. Given that the decisions of three trial courts and a Court of Appeal decision were never appealed to the Supreme Court, they arguably remain good precedent. The decisions suggest that foreign direct investors who need copyright protection are exposed in Nigeria. Relying on two of these cases, a leading intellectual property law text echoed this erroneous position. This article demonstrates that the decisions were reached in ignorance of applicable statute. As such, the decisions should not be followed by trial courts irrespective of the rule of binding judicial precedent. The article outlines various mechanisms within the copyright statute that extend the protection of the Nigerian copyright statute to foreign works. This article goes further than previous works. Unlike earlier works, this article suggests the path trial courts should tread, despite the rule of precedent, in distinguishing this line of cases to hold that foreign corporations incorporated in many treaty countries and foreign works emanating from many treaty countries are protected in Nigeria. Unlike earlier works, this article demonstrates that lower courts may refer this issue to higher courts for interpretation and guidance under the case stated procedure. Whilst other works made passing references to the Copyright (Reciprocal Extension) Order 1972 (the 1972 Order), that arguably extends copyright to foreign works under the Copyright Act 1970, none cited judicial authority that held that the 1972 Order made under the repealed Copyright Act 1970 is still valid under the current Copyright Act. None referred to the Interpretation Act that supports this judicial authority. Unlike previous work, this article reveals that if the Microsoft case that is the most significant of these cases is appealed to the Nigerian Supreme Court, the court will extend the time within which the Microsoft Corporation can appeal and reverse Microsoft and the line of cases identified in this article.