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/qxThe 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=scholarrSearch 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.
Show Posts
