Masterfile overcomes Muench / Houghton precedent in recent case:

[SoylentGreen]

Masterfile overcomes Muench / Houghton precedent in recent case:

Many readers of the forum are aware of the Muench / Houghton case which cast great doubt about the validity of the copyright registration of collective works (i.e. bulk registration):

http://www.trademarkandcopyrightlawblog.com/2010/05/articles/copyright/copyright-registration-for-collective-works-muench-v-houghton-mifflin/

---


In a recent case, (Masterfile Corporation v. Martin Gale), Masterfile appears to have overcome this precedent:

http://ut.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111004_0000751.DUT.htm/qx

The judge mentions specifically “the court declines to apply the reasoning in Muench to this case. The disputed images in this case were registered as part of a collected work in an automated database. "Registration of a collection extends copyright protection to each copyrightable element in the collection." King Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F.Supp. 2d 812, 841 (M.D. Tenn. 2006); See Nimmer on Copyright, §7.16{B}[2][c]. Masterfile owns, for the purposes of copyright registration, the copyrights of each of the individual images at issue. (Pigeon Decl., ¶ 2.) Because Masterfile owns the constituent parts of the collection the registration of the collection extends copyright protection to the constituent parts. See King Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F.Supp. 2d 812,841 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).”.

---


At this point I’ll refer the reader to the “King Records, Inc. v. Bennett” case mentioned above (it’s an interesting read, by the way):

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=5857437617727137969&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Search for “i. Effect on Ownership of Compilation Registration” in the document.
and then “2. Copyrighted "Work”

At the very bottom of the document the judge states, “[20] Other than the registrations for "Don't Fall Asleep at the Wheel," "Fraulein," "Amazing Grace," and possibly "Take This Job and Shove It," it appears to the Court that the remaining registrations are also compilation registrations. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary for the Court to decide the status of the remaining registrations because only one sound recording on each of them has been infringed in this lawsuit. Thus, whether the registrations are considered compilations and a constituent part has been infringed, or the registrations are that of separate works and one work on each registration has been infringed, the result is the same: one statutory award for each.”

---


Some important facts/implications stand out:

1) Interestingly, the judge in the Masterfile/Martin Gale case took the statement “Registration of a collection extends copyright protection to each copyrightable element in the collection.” from the King/Bennett case as the precedent.  HOWEVER, the judge in the King/Bennett case ACTUALLY concluded later on that “There is no doubt that these registrations constitute compilations and not registrations of separate works on a single form. First, Plaintiff concedes that it registered these songs as compilations. Second, the individual sound recordings are not listed on the registrations. The registration lists the title of the albums and the fact that the registration covers sound recordings, but does not list the individual sound recordings. The fact that the label copy deposited with the Copyright Office identifies the individual sound recordings does not change the registration from a compilation to that of multiple separate works on a single form. Third, the Court notes that this case strongly resembles UMG Recordings, Inc. in which the court found that registration of an album constitutes a registration of a compilation even though it contains multiple sound recordings that can be registered separately. 109 F.Supp.2d at 224-25. Thus, the Court holds that these two registrations are compilation registrations and a separate statutory award is not warranted for each sound recording contained therein.[20] As seventeen "works" containing the twenty-two sound recordings have been infringed, the Plaintiff is awarded $10,000 per work for a total of $170,000.”

I can only guess that the judge in the Masterfile case took note that MF had put names/descriptions of each photo in the collection(s).

2)  the judge in the Masterfile Corporation v. Martin Gale case implies that “copyright registration” as a collection (or “bulk”) is somehow different for “photographers” than it is for “image libraries”.

3)  the judge in the Masterfile Corporation v. Martin Gale case makes a distinction between copyright registration by “photographers” and “image libraries”, but has used a copyright dispute about music as a precedent in a case involving images.

S.G.

[Peeved]

So it appears that the judge is not interpreting the law properly! I hope the defendants appeal!

[SoylentGreen]

The "law" doesn't make much reference to "individually copyrighted" or "copyright of collective collective works".
There's only prior court precedents, guidelines from the copyright office, and some books on law (authored by judges/lawyers) to go by.
So, it's really a matter of how strong a case each side makes, and ultimately the opinion of the judge.

Different time, place and/or judge, and the decision may have been different.

S.G.

[lucia]

INAL, but I think the ownership issue might matter and differs in different cases:

Masterfile owns, for the purposes of copyright registration, the copyrights of each of the individual images at issue. (Pigeon Decl., ¶ 2.) Because Masterfile owns the constituent parts of the collection the registration of the collection extends copyright protection to the constituent parts. See King Records, Inc. v. Bennett, 438 F.Supp. 2d 812,841 (M.D. Tenn. 2006).”.

We are seeing some cases where the entity selling licenses does not have ownership of the individual images. For example, my impression is that quite often, Getty registers a compilation but the photographers retain ownership of the copyright for the individual images.  I think the photographers have granted Getty an exclusive license to display market and sell licenses to others, but it's a license-- not ownership. Since the photographers retain ownership, they could revoke that license.

In contrast, in the cited King record case, it seems to me the performers and song writers had transferred ownership of the copyright for the song and performance to the record company. (King records.)  They didn't merely grant King a license to copy and sell the recordings-- King owned that right for each and every song in the compilation.  The song writers and performers couldn't revoke the license because they no longer owned it.   The way King came to own the copyright for each recorded song is discussed in that ruling.

Evidently, based on the wording I quoted, in the Masterfile case, Masterfile owns the copyright for the individual images.   At least the way the text I quoted is worded, Masterfiles registration of the collection grants copyright to the individual images because Masterfile owns the copyright to the individual images.    But in some other cases where a company registers a collection, it seems the  the company registering the compilation does not necessarily own the copyright to the individual images. 

It's not clear to me if the current ruling tells us anything at all about what happens if Getty (or Corbis etc.) registers a compilation of images when the individual photographers retain the ownership of copyrights for the underlying images.

Maybe someone who knows more than me can explain whether this ownership issue has anything to do with the ruling. But the wording seems like it might matter to me.