Compilation Copyright

I've just learned about a recent decision in a copyright infringement case (Southern District of NY) in which the (losing) plaintiff's premise, as it has been related to me, confuses me.

As I understand it, the plaintiff, a freelance writer, contributed articles to a number of issues of a magazine. The writer did not register her copyrights in these articles. The magazine did duly register its compilation copyrights. A third party republished the articles without authorization. The writer sued that party, claiming that the magazine's registration of its compilation copyright "covered" her.

I had thought, from my reading of 17 USC, that these were totally separate registrations, and that registration was a requisite for bringing an action for infringement. Indeed, that's what the court concluded. The court's ruling, granting summary judgment to the defendant, said that indeed, the third party had done wrong, but the writer, lacking registration, did not have proper standing to sue--and was not covered by the publisher's registration of a collective work.

I'm told that the ruling will be appealed on the grounds that the ruling was mistaken, and that certain precedents (a case called "Curtis v. Wyse" has been mentioned) have superseded the requirement of the law itself.

I'd like that to be true (I'm a freelance writer)--but CAN it be? Has what seems to be a clear requirement per section 411 been superseded?

Can the lawyers on this list comment?

--Dodi Schultz Received on Wed Sep 13 2000 - 22:02:59 GMT