Easterbrook-Opinion-Neri-v-Monroe.pdf

7/27/2019 Easterbrook-Opinion-Neri-v-Monroe.pdf

1/8

In the

United States Court of AppealsFor the Seventh Circuit____________________

No.123204

QUINCYNERI,

PlaintiffAppellant,

v.

MELINDAMONROE,etal.,

DefendantsAppellees.

____________________

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt

fortheWesternDistrictofWisconsin.

No.11cv429slcStephenL.Crocker,MagistrateJudge.____________________

ARGUEDJANUARY25,2013DECIDEDAUGUST12,2013

____________________

BeforeEASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge,andBAUERandKANNE,

CircuitJudges.

EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge.QuincyNeridesignedaglass

sculpture thatArchitectural BuildingArts installed in the

ceilingoftheentrancehallwayatLindaHughesscondomin

ium

in

Madison,

Wisconsin.

As

part

of

its

renovation

of

Hughesswhole residence,Architectural BuildingArts re

moved the foyersdome (whichhadbeendecoratedwitha

Case: 12-3204 Document: 29 Filed: 08/12/2013 Pages: 8 (2 o

Provi e y:Overhauser Law Offices LLCwww.iniplaw.org

www.overhauser.com
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.iniplaw.org/http://www.iniplaw.org/http://www.overhauser.com/http://www.overhauser.com/http://www.overhauser.com/http://www.iniplaw.org/mailto:[email protected]


2/8

No.123204 2

mural)andinstalledavaultedceilingtowhichthesculpture

wasattached.

Leslie

Sager

designed

the

lighting

for

the

re

visedentryway.WithHughessconsent,EricFerguson took

before,during,andafterphotographsof theproject; twoof

these include thesculpture.ArchitecturalBuildingArtsput

copiesof thephotoson itswebsiteand includedthem ina

newsletter and an application for an architectural award.

Sager posted them on her own web site,while Ferguson

posted them tohisFlickrpage.ArchitecturalBuildingArts,

Sager,andFergusonall sought toexemplify the skills they

hadcontributed.

This lawsuit hasbeen their reward.Neri contends that

ArchitecturalBuildingArts(plusMelindaMonroeandSteve

Larson,itsowners),Sager,andFergusonviolatedhercopy

rightinthesculpture,whichshecallsMendotaReflection.

Amagistratejudge, presidingby consent under 28U.S.C.

636(c),dismissed the suiton theground thatNeri lacksa

registrationofhercopyright.Althoughacopyrightexistsau

tomaticallyassoonasaworkisfixedinatangiblemedium,

17U.S.C.

102(a),

litigation

to

enforce

acopyright

is

permis

sibleonlyafterithasbeenregistered.17U.S.C.411(a).Neri

submittedforregistrationacollectionofphotographsofher

unpublishedworks, includingMendotaReflection,and the

Register of Copyrights issued a certificate of registration

(No.VAu1066185).Butthecourtconcludedthattheappli

cationwasdefectiveandthecertificateinvalid.

Themagistratejudgediscussed severalways of charac

terizing the registrationas a standalone registration of

Mendota

Reflection,

as

a

compilation

or

group

work,

and

as

acollection,whichcanberegisteredasasingleworkthat

coversallof itsconstituents.Thejudgefoundeachof these



3/8


4/8

No.123204 4

thisby looking for ourselvesbut encountered an obstacle:

thematerial

Neri

submitted

for

registration

is

not

in

the

rec

ord.Apparently themagistratejudgedrewhisunderstand

ingfromquestionsandanswersduringdepositions.Atleast

once,Neridescribedhersubmissionasthemagistratejudge

did;butatoralargumentinthiscourtNeri(whoarguedher

ownappeal)insistedthataphotoofMendotaReflectionisin

thebooklet.Theproblemmaybe terminological;Nerimay

haveusedthetitleMendotaReflectionformorethanone

sculpture.But it is hard tounderstand how a court could

concludethat

agiven

submission

is

not

in

an

orderly

form

whenthesubmissioncannotbeexamined.

Neriistheplaintiff,andaplaintiffwhofailstoputessen

tialinformationintotherecordusuallyloses,butshehasthe

benefitof theRegisterscertificate,whichgivesherclaimat

leastprimafaciesupport.17U.S.C.410(c).Thismeansthat

thedefenseneededtoshowwhythecourtshoulddisregard

theregistration,andabsenceofevidenceredoundstothede

fensesdetriment.

Themagistrate

judge

thought

that

only

asingle

bound

bookorbookletisanorderlywaytopresentphotographs

ofsculptures.If,asNericontends,theHughessculptureisin

thebooklet, then thisunderstanding implies that the regis

trationisvalid.Whatismore,wedonotseewhyonlyasin

gledocumentcanbeorderly.TheRegisterdidnotsayso,ei

therinissuingtheregulationorinevaluatingNerissubmis

sion.TheRegisterfoundthesubmissionadequate;adistrict

courtshouldnotsetasideanagencysapplicationofitsown

regulations

without

a

strong

reason.

AlthoughthedistrictcourtthoughtNerisformdisorder

ly,itdidnotrelyonanylegalauthoritythatestablisheshow



5/8

5 No.123204

muchorder isrequired.Wehave foundseveraldiscussions

ofregistration

under

202.3(b)(4)(i)(B),

but

none

of

these

tacklestheorderlyformquestion.SeeFonarCorp.v.Dome

nick,105F.3d99(2dCir.1997)(holdingthatasetofcomput

erprogramswasinanorderlyformbutwithoutprovidinga

definitionofthatterm);Szabov.Errisson,68F.3d940(5thCir.

1995);L.A.PrintexIndustries,Inc.v.Aeropostale,Inc.,676F.3d

841 (9thCir. 2012); United Fabrics International, Inc. v. C&J

Wear,Inc.,630F.3d1255(9thCir.2011).Weareonourown.

Registration is required for litigationbutnot for theex

istenceof

copyright.

This

implies

that

registration

serves

a

recordkeeping function. It pins down details aboutwhat

intellectualpropertyrightshavebeenclaimed.Cf.ReedElse

vier, Inc. v.Muchnick, 559U.S. 154 (2010) (registration is a

proceduralbutnot ajurisdictional requirement).Themost

important detail is authorshipnot simplywho owns the

copyright,butalsothedatesoftheauthorsbirthanddeath

(since a copyright lasts for the authors lifeplus 70years).

Thestatutespecifiesninepiecesofinformationthataregis

trationmust

include.

17

U.S.C.

409.

Defendants

do

not

deny

thatNerissubmission includedallof thosenine thatapply

toherclaim.Theregulationexercisesapowerconferredby

409(10): an applicantmust supply anyother information

regardedbytheRegisterofCopyrightsasbearinguponthe

preparation or identification of thework or the existence,

ownership,ordurationofthecopyright.

Sincetheorderlyformrequirementimplementsastat

uteallowingtheRegistertorequireotherinformation,the

key

question

must

be

whether

the

submission

is

organized

wellenoughtopermitusersandcourtstopindownthein

formation onwhich copyright enforcement depends. The



6/8

No.123204 6

CopyrightOfficesaidexactlythisinalettertoNeri,conclud

ingthat

her

registration

is

valid

because

the

works

have

beenpresentedtousinaformatfromwhichtheycanreadily

be identified. This implies that loose photographs could

suffice if numbered or labeled (for example, if eachwere

named,astheOfficeslettersaidthatNerissubmissionshad

been).

Anyorganizationthatenablesacourttoassociateawork

underlying the suitwith awork coveredby a registration

ought todo the trick. If abooklet (orPDF file)withpage

numbersis

orderly

enoughas

the

magistrate

judge

thoughtasequenceofloosebutnumberedornamedpho

tographs shouldbe enough too.Many a folder of photo

graphs isbetter organized than a slapdash assortment run

offbyacornerprintshop.IftheHughessculptureisidenti

fiable in the registration, that shoulddo.But if,asdefend

ants suggest, it isnotdepicted at allif thematerials that

Nerisubmitted totheCopyrightOfficecontainonlyphotos

ofsculpturessimilartotheoneshemadeforHughesthen

registrationVAu

1066

185

does

not

support

this

suit.

Anticipatingthatwemightnotacceptthedistrictcourts

conclusion,defendantsaskus toaffirmthejudgmentonan

alternativeground:thatFritzSchomburgratherthanNeriis

the author ofMendota Reflection. Schomburg is a glass

blower(agaffer)whomadethe60orsoglasselementsofthe

sculpture.Neriassistedbymakingmoltenglassavailableas

Schomburgneededit.DefendantssaythatSchomburgssta

tusas thegaffermakeshim thetrueauthorof thesculp

ture.

This

assumes

that

only

a

change

of

formhere,

from

drawings to glasscreates intellectualproperty rights.De

fendantsmightaswellsaythatthetypesetterownsabooks



7/8


8/8

No.123204 8

sale. It is hard to imagine that any viewer would have

deemedaphotograph

of

the

Hughes

vestibule

to

be

asubsti

tuteforanoriginalNeriartwork.(Neridoesnotcontendthat

shesellsphotosofherworksor that thedefendantsactivi

tieshavereducedherabilitytostartofferingphotosorother

derivativeworks.Tothecontrary,Nerihasplacedpicturesof

Mendota Reflection on her own web site,

http://www.quincyneri.com/#!glass, which anyone can ac

cess for free.) It is also hard to imagine that these photo

graphsreduced thedemandforNerisart.Theyseemmore

likefree

advertising.

But

again

the

parties

have

not

come

to

gripsonthefairuseissue,sowecannotresolveitonappeal.

Onefinalcomment.Nericontendsthatshehasregistered

theHughessculpturebyitself,avoidingallissuesaboutthe

collectionregulation.Shedidnotalertthedistrictcourtto

thisuntilafterthesummaryjudgmentbriefshadbeenfiled,

and themagistratejudge did not abuse his discretionby

concludingthatNerihadwaitedtoolong.Nowthatthecase

must be reconsidered in the district court, however, the

judgemay

think

it

prudent

to

revisit

this

subject,

which

couldavoidanyneedtogobackoverwhethertheArtwork

ofQsubmissionallowslitigationaboutdefendantsphoto

graphsthatincludetheHughessculpture.

VACATEDANDREMANDED


Easterbrook-Opinion-Neri-v-Monroe.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Easterbrook-Opinion-Neri-v-Monroe.pdf