Re: comment on copyright case?

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
>
> I beg Ms. Friedman's pardon. There are several cases so holding, but
> they are distinguishable. See, e.g., Woods v. Universal City Studios,
> Inc., 920 F.Supp. 62, 64 (S.D.N.Y.1996), in which the court held that
> copyright registration for a collective work satisfies the registration
> requirements of Sec. 411(a) for an infringement action based on
> constituent parts, but only where the owner of the copyright for the
> collective work also owns the copyright in the constituent parts. In
> the case Ms. Urquiaga mentioned, the owners of the copyright in the
> collective work and the copyright in the individual contribution were
> NOT the same; so the holdings do not conflict.

    Thank you, but I wasn't thinking of the Woods case, either. I was thinking of a case that involved copyright in a photo that was published in a periodical, and what I'm recalling, perhaps erroneously, is a holding that the copyright in the periodical protected the photo.

--
Jessica R. Friedman, Esq.
Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10111
Tel: (212) 841-5700
Fax: (212) 841-5725
E-mail:  jfriedman[_at_]reboul.com

Visit us at <http://www.reboul.com/>.