Re: comment on copyright case?

On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Laurie Urquiaga <urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Publisher's Copyright of Magazine Issue Won't Protect Individual Authors
> >
> > Copyright registration of an entire issue of a magazine does not
> > extend protection to the individual articles within the magazine,
> > a federal court in New York ruled. The U.S. District Court for
> > the Southern District of New York found that an author's failure
> > to obtain copyright registration of her columns left her without
> > a remedy for "abject and reprehensible" copying by another
> > publisher. (IP Law Weekly -- For complete story, see
> > http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/A21143-2000Apr13.html)
>
> Although I'm just a lowly 1L, it seems to me that the summary judgment
> order was wrong in this case. Failure to register copyright prohibits
> statutory damages, but isn't the copyright owner still entitled to
> actual and consequential damages? What's the point of the 1976 change
> removing the need to register if registration is still required for
> protection?

A number of people have posted a reference to the section 411 prerequisite of a registration in order to bring suit. That's true, but, assuming the article's quotation of the judge is accurate, the judge seems to go further, equating the registration with the copyright itself:

   "This language indicates that the copyright protection afforded a    compilation is distinct from that afforded to the discrete works    that comprise the compilation. Therefore, the Conde Nast    Registrations afford copyright protection only to the particular    issues of Allure being registered. This protection does not extend    to the individual and independent works within the magazine as    distinct works in and of themselves," the court wrote.

So, I think the court was, indeed confused, in that it seems to have held that the failure to register the individual articles forfeited copyright in the articles; rather than holding that the registration of the compilation was ineffective to meet the 411 requirement as it applies to the individual article.

The distintion here is that, under the court's apparent construction, the author is at the end of the road, and out of luck. Under the correct construction, the author could register and re-bring the suit (absent any statute of limitation problem) and, at least in theory, seek actual damages.

-- 
Terry Carroll         |   "The United States is located in
Santa Clara, CA       |   the District of Columbia."
carroll[_at_]tjc.com       |
Modell delendus est   |       Uniform Commercial Code s. 9-307(h)