17 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101 requires authors to intend that their contributions be merged into a unitary whole for the work to qualify as a joint work.

Vanderbilt Univ. v. Scholastic, Inc. · filed 2019-05-28

The Copyright Act requires authors to intend to create a joint work. ... Accordingly, for Vanderbilt to have an ownership interest in the Derivative or Ancillary Products, it must establish that Defendants intended for those to have been joint works.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by at least two authors who intend their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Gray v. Perry · filed 2020-03-16

The Copyright Act defines a joint work as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... What matters is that, at some point, “the putative coauthors made objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors.” ... “A contract evidencing intent to be or not to be coauthors is dispositive.”

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by at least two authors intending their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Brownstein v. Lindsay · filed 2020-05-18

A joint work is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Section 101 defines a “joint work” as a work prepared by two or more authors intending their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Armes v. Post · filed 2020-10-19

The Copyright Act defines a “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. In the Ninth Circuit, a joint work “‘requires each author to make an independently copyrightable contribution’ to the disputed work.” Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1231 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 916 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1990)). Significantly, joint authorship “requires more than a minimal creative or original contribution to the work,” Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1233, and, furthermore, “[m]erely making a copyrightable contribution is not enough to establish joint authorship.” Morrill v. Smashing Pumpkins, 157 F. Supp. 2d 1120, 1123 (C.D. Cal. 2001).

Section 101 requires a joint work to involve a copyrightable work, at least two authors, and an intent to merge contributions into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole; co-authorship also turns on control, shared intent, and audience appeal.

Moi v. Chihuly Studio, Inc. · filed 2021-03-01

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Moi’s claim under the Copyright Act because no genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Moi is a co-author of a “joint work” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 101. For purposes of the Copyright Act, a “joint work” requires each of the following elements: “(1) a copyrightable work, (2) two or more ‘authors,’ and (3) the authors must intend their contributions to be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” ... The following factors are considered in determining whether two or more individuals qualify as co-authors: (1) control, (2) objective manifestations of shared intent, and (3) audience appeal. ... Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Moi, his lack of control coupled with Chihuly’s express intent to remain a sole author preclude a finding of co-authorship.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by at least two authors who intend their contributions to be merged into a single, inseparable or interdependent whole.

Webber v. Dash · filed 2021-08-30

A joint work is defined as one that is “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 treats a work as a joint work when two or more authors intend their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Miller v. The French Pastry School LLC · filed 2021-11-23

The Copyright Act defines a “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Again, there is a genuine dispute of material fact over whether Butter Book’s contributions went beyond general “[i]deas, refinements, and suggestions” sufficient to pass the test of copyrightability. Erickson, 13 F.3d at 1072. If the evidence is viewed in Butter Book’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that Butter Book was a joint author.

Section 101 treats a work as joint when two or more authors intend their contributions to merge into a unitary whole, and fixation may occur by or under an author's authority.

Armes v. Post · filed 2022-04-18

Under the Copyright Act, a joint work is “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” ... As discussed above, under the Copyright Act, a work is “fixed” when it is embodied “in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author.”

Section 101 distinguishes a joint work from a derivative work and treats each separately prepared version as a separate work, so co-authorship of an underlying work does not automatically make the contributors co-authors of the derivative version.

Quinn v. Powell · filed 2022-05-25

The Copyright Act defines “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Distinctly, “[a] work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’.” Id. ... The Copyright Act further clarifies that “where [a] work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The Court agrees. Finding that “joint authorship of prior existing works automatically makes . . . joint authors co-owners of the derivative work” would “stand[ ] copyright law on its head.”

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work made by two or more authors who intend their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

White v. Distrokid · filed 2024-06-24

The Copyright Act defines a “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; ... We disagree with DistroKid’s claim that the amended complaint lacks indicia that the parties did not intend to be co-authors. ... Accordingly, DistroKid’s argument that the Album is a “joint work” must be rejected at this stage.

Section 101 treats a work as joint only when two or more authors intend their contributions to merge into a unitary whole, and each contribution must be more than de minimis.

Power v. Connectweb Technologies, Inc. · filed 2024-07-15

The Copyright Act defines a “joint work” as one “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “For a work to be ‘joint,’ the authors must have intended, ‘at the time the writing is done,’ that their contributions be merged into ‘an integrated unit.’” Greene, 794 F.3d at 151 (quoting Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500, 505 (2d Cir. 1991)) (additional citation omitted). And while each author’s contributions need not “be quantitatively or qualitatively equal,” the First Circuit has clarified that each contribution must “be more than de minimis.” Id. (quoting Nimmer, § 6.07[A][1]). ... Though the facts in this case can, perhaps, be viewed to support the notion that both Power and Connectweb intended their contributions to merge and become part of some “mobile-friendly” derivative version of CVW, they do not support a finding that Power’s own contributions were anything more than de minimis.

Section 101 defines a joint work as contributions by multiple authors intended to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole, and a work is not created until first fixed in a copy.

Copon v. Ho · filed 2025-01-10

Further, a work is a “joint work” if it was “prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” Id. § 101. ... Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled Copon’s co-authorship in the Shooting Script as a joint work. ... Ultimately, the allegations support that these efforts transformed or adapted Oishi’s contributions, resulting in the Shooting Script as an inseparable whole, which appears to have been the clear intent of all involved. (See id.). ... This is because, under copyright law, a work is not “created” until “it is fixed in copy . . . for the first time.” M.G.B. Homes, 903 F.2d at 1493 n.16 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101). ... However, taking the allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, as the Court must do, certain of Copon’s alleged producing activities are conceivably susceptible to being fixed in a tangible medium of expression, such as costume design and set design. (See id.); Hunnings, 29 F.3d at 1484. ... As such, Count IV survives Defendants’ arguments, at least at the motion to dismiss stage.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors whose contributions are intended to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Fokiss, Inc. v. TLM Global, LLC · filed 2025-01-31

A “joint work” is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. 17 U.S.C. § 101. “The parties do not cite nor is the Court aware of applicable Eleventh Circuit precedent that interprets the Copyright Act’s ‘joint work’ definition and related provisions that have a bearing on co-authorship. Therefore, the Court looks to the law of other circuits that have analyzed co-authorship claims.”

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work made by at least two authors who intend their contributions to merge into an inseparable or interdependent unitary whole.

BRUZZESE v. PASSAGES INTERNATIONAL, INC. · filed 2025-06-27

A “joint work” is “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. To become co-authors, “each author must contribute some non-trivial amount of creative, original, or intellectual expression to the work and both must intend that their contributions be combined.” Brownstein, 742 F.3d at 64-65 (citing 1 Nimmer on Copyrights § 6.07).

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by at least two authors intending to merge their contributions into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Farris · filed 2025-12-11

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. A joint work requires (1) intent to create a joint work; and (2) contribution of independently copyrightable material.

Section 101's definition of a joint work permits co-authorship based on substantial original expression in a collaborative work, without requiring each contribution to be independently copyrightable.

Estate of George Worrell, Jr. v. Thang, Inc. · filed 2026-05-27

The Act provides that “[t]he authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work,” and defines a “joint work” as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 201(a). ... We begin with authorship. In applying the correct standard, we need only dispense with the strictest reading of Childress, which, as discussed above, makes little sense when applied in the context of works such as movies, comic book characters, or modern musical recordings. The Estate need not show that Worrell’s contributions to P-Funk’s discography were independently copyrightable. It may instead defeat summary judgment by relying on evidence that Worrell contributed substantial original expression to the works, which it has provided in spades.

Section 101 requires a claimed joint author of a derivative work to contribute to that work and intend, when contributing, to create a joint work.

Heidi S. Weissmann, M.D., Cross-Appellee v. Leonard M. Freeman, M.D., Cross-Appellant · filed 1989-02-23

A review of the meaning of §§ 101 and 103(b) and of their legislative history reveals two basic criteria that must be satisfied before one is a joint author of a derivative work. First, each putative author must have “contributed” to the work. Second, each must intend to contribute to a joint work at the time his or her alleged contribution is made.

Section 101 defines a joint work as one prepared by authors who intend their contributions to merge into a unitary whole.

Zitz v. Pereira · filed 1999-09-30

A “joint work” is defined as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of the unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (West 1998). ... Moreover, the record is devoid of any evidence of intent on the part of Zitz or Erickson that the work was intended to be a work of joint authorship.

Section 101’s definition of a joint work requires intent to create joint authorship; collaboration alone is insufficient.

O'CONNOR v. Cindy Gerke & Associates, Inc. · filed 2002-10-11

Defendant has failed to establish that plaintiff intended joint authorship. Without such intent, defendant cannot be considered a joint author.

A joint work requires the authors to intend their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of one work.

Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc. · filed 1985-01-22

In 17 U.S.C. § 101 the definition of a “joint work” is a “work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary work.” There is not a scintilla of evidence that the parties ever intended that Rand Jaslow’s contributions, whatever they may have been, should merge into the final computer design and system.

Section 101 requires the authors of a joint work to intend that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Segal v. Paramount Pictures · filed 1993-12-30

“Joint work” is defined as “work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Although intent usually is a question of fact, here the record is devoid of any evidence remotely suggesting defendants’ intent to jointly merge the two screenplays at issue.

Section 101 requires joint authors to intend, when they create a work, that their contributions be merged into one work.

Photography v. United States · filed 1989-09-29

Joint authors must intend at the time of creation that their contributions be merged into an inseparable work.

Section 101 requires both an intent to create a jointly owned work and an independently copyrightable contribution from each joint author.

Design Options, Inc. v. BellePointe, Inc. · filed 1996-10-08

In the Second Circuit, a work is considered to be jointly authorized under Section 101 the Copyright Act if two requirements are met: First, both parties must have intended, at the time of creation, that the work be jointly owned. ... Second, even if such mutual intent existed at the time of creation, each party’s individual contribution must be independently copyrightable.

Section 101 defines a joint work to include a music video whose producer and performers contribute original work intending to merge their contributions into a unitary whole.

Morrill v. the Smashing Pumpkins · filed 2001-08-30

This music video was created by two authors, the video’s producer and the band itself, with the intention that their respective contributions be merged into inseparable parts of a unitary whole.

A song is a joint work when a lyricist intends another person to compose music for the lyrics and intends the words and music to be performed together.

C & C ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. Rios-Sanchez · filed 2002-03-28

The undisputed facts of this case bring it within these parameters: Rivera gave Castillo-Paredes the words to the song, intending that the latter write the music (“bachata”) and include it in his album. The evidence shows that when plaintiff chose Castillo-Paredes to compose the music for “Veneno” he intended that the words and the music be enjoyed and performed together. We, therefore, find that the song “Veneno” was the joint work of plaintiff and Castillo-Paredes and defendants did not infringe on Rivera’s copyright.

Section 101 defines a joint work by the authors’ intent to merge their contributions into a unitary whole.

Baker v. ROBERT I. LAPPIN CHARITABLE FOUNDATION · filed 2006-02-22

Second, a reasonable jury could only find that Lappin and Coltin intended to be joint authors. They clearly intended to merge their respective contributions into a unitary whole with the product that Baker was creating, and Baker even acknowledged at his deposition that GJA was the product of joint work by him, Lappin, and Coltin.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors intending their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Janky v. Lake County Convention & Visitors Bureau · filed 2009-08-03

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a joint work as “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into ... inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors intending their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. · filed 2011-01-05

Mattel’s motion is denied as to MGA’s defense of joint authorship. “[A] joint work is a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” ... “A collaborator’s contribution will not produce a joint work, and a contributor will not obtain a co-ownership interest, unless the contribution represents original expression that could stand on its own as the subject matter of copyright.” ... Contrary to Mattel’s argument, MGA does not merely argue that it enhanced Bryant’s works. MGA argues— and there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether — MGA contributed original expression (and perhaps the only original expression) to some of the works over which Mattel claims ownership.

Section 101 defines joint works through merged contributions and collective works through separate and independent contributions.

16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin · filed 2015-06-29

The Act’s definition of “joint work,” a work prepared by multiple authors “with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole,” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added), suggests that such inseparable contributions are not themselves “works of authorship.” Copyright may subsist in contributions to a collective work, see id. § 201(c) (“Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole.”), but only when such contributions constitute “separate and independent” works. Id. § 101 (“A ‘collective work’ is a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” (emphasis added)). The requirement that contributions be “separate and independent” in order to obtain their own copyright protection also indicates that inseparable contributions integrated into a single work cannot separately obtain such protection.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by two or more authors intending their contributions to merge into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.

Wake Up & Ball LLC v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc. · filed 2015-08-13

The Copyright Act defines a joint work as a “work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a joint work as contributions by two or more authors intended to merge into a unitary whole.

Ford v. Ray · filed 2015-09-11

A joint work for purposes of the Copyright Act is “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has set forth several factors that are among the criteria to be weighed when determining a claim of co-authorship under § 101. The first factor is. whether the claimed author “superintended” the work by exercising control. ... The second factor is whether the parties made “objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors.” Id. Lastly, the Court considers whether “the audience appeal of the work turns on both contributions and the share of each in its success cannot be appraised.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “Control in many cases will be the most important factor.” Id. Application of the Aalmuhammed factors to the facts alleged in the Complaint regarding the creation of “Baby Got Back” show that plaintiff is not a co-author of the work.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work prepared by multiple authors intending their contributions to form an inseparable or interdependent whole.

Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. · filed 2015-09-22

A joint work is defined as “a work prepared by two or more authors with’ the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1976 Act); Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir.2008) (stating that the 1976 Act’s definition of joint work “incorporated the. well-established case law interpreting the definition, of ‘joint work’ under the 1909 Act”).

Section 101’s definition of a joint work means inseparable contributions to a song are not separately protected as works of authorship.

Kahn v. Carlebach · filed 2023-06-02

Nor can the plaintiff claim sole authorship in just the song’s lyrics. As the Second Circuit clarified almost a decade ago, the Copyright Act’s “definition of ‘joint work,’ a work prepared by multiple authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into ... inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole, suggests that such inseparable contributions are not themselves ‘works of authorship’” subject to their own copyright protection.

Section 101’s definition of a joint work requires the authors to intend to merge their contributions into one work; a joint-authorship claim requires shared intent to be co-authors.

Britt v. Durham · filed 2025-03-07

In the absence of any prohibition from the Eleventh Circuit, this Court adopts the same test as a faithful application of the statutory language, particularly the definitional requirement that authors of “joint work” must have the “intention” to join or merge their individual contributions into a single work.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data so that the resulting whole is an original work, and includes collective works within that definition.

Dow Jones & Company v. Harris · filed 2023-01-24

A collective work is, by definition, a compilation. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 Definitions (“A ‘compilation’ is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ‘compilation’ includes collective works.”).

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting or arranging preexisting data so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Schoolhouse, Inc. v. Anderson · filed 2002-01-04

Schoolhouse's table on public schools is a factual compilation. Under the law of copyright, a compilation is a work formed by selecting or arranging preexisting data "in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a collective work as an assemblage of separate and independent contributions into a collective whole, such as a periodical issue.

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. Frederick W. Hughes, as of the Estate of Andy Warhol v. Federal Insuran · filed 1999-08-17

Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, a collective work is defined as “a work, such as a periodical issue ... in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.”

Section 101 includes collective works within compilations and defines a collective work as separate, independent contributions assembled into a collective whole; its copyrightable authorship lies in the selection, coordination, and arrangement of those materials.

Tasini v. The Atlantic Monthly Company · filed 1999-09-24

Section 101 states that "[t]he term 'compilation' includes collective works." 17 U.S.C. § 101. It further defines "collective work" as "a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole." Id. ... The aspects of a collective work that make it "an original work of authorship" are the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the preexisting materials. Id. § 101; see also Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991) (discussing factual compilations).

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work assembled from preexisting materials or data whose selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the work as a whole an original work of authorship.

Warren Publishing v. Microdos Data · filed 1995-05-23

In this case, we are dealing with a compilation, which the Copyright Act of 1976 (the "Act") defines as "a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship."12 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added).

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data, so copyright protects that original arrangement rather than the underlying information itself.

Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc. · filed 1991-06-18

Instead, the proper standard is delineated in the statute itself. "A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 10 Therefore, in the case of compilations, the protected expression is the manner of selection, coordination, or arrangement of the information that constitutes the originality, not the information itself that is accumulated by the "sweat of the brow". 11 Hence, copyright protection only extends to the selection, coordination and arrangement which comprises an original format of the compilation work.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship, and includes collective works.

Lane v. First National Bank of Boston · filed 1988-05-19

Although Lane claims that Format 3 is not a compilation, her description of Format 3 complies with the definition of compilation under the statute, 17 U.S.C. § 101. 17 U.S.C. § 101 states that, "A ‘compilation’ is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ‘compilation’ includes collective works.” Therefore, this Court has treated Format 3 as a compilation.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work made by collecting preexisting materials or data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged so the resulting whole is an original work of authorship, with protection limited to that selection and arrangement rather than the underlying facts.

BellSouth Adv. & Pub. v. Donnelley Inf. Pub. · filed 1988-10-27

A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, it has been held that, a telephone directory compilation whose components are comprised exclusively of information in the public domain can be protected by the copyright laws only as to the selection and arrangement of the compilation, the work as a whole, and not as to the preexisting information. ... Although the Court prefers the "selection, coordination or arrangement" test, it is not clear which test the Eleventh Circuit adopted in Assoc. Tel. Directory. [17] It is clear, however, that BAPCO's directory meets both tests. [18] BAPCO collects and assembles preexisting material in the form of names, addresses, telephone numbers and classified headings.

Section 101 treats a compilation as an original work when preexisting materials or data are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the work as a whole is original, protecting the compilation's selection and arrangement rather than the underlying facts.

Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc. · filed 1988-10-27

A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... a telephone directory compilation whose components are comprised exclusively of information in the public domain can be protected by the copyright laws only as to the selection and arrangement of the compilation, the work as a whole, and not as to the preexisting information. ... Directories in particular are afforded special protection as to the selection and arrangement of factual material notwithstanding the difficulty in reconciling this position with the principle that facts are not copyrightable.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data.

Quinto v. Legal Times of Washington, Inc. · filed 1981-01-26

A “compilation” is a work formed by the collective assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the whole is an original work of authorship.

National Business Lists, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. · filed 1982-06-11

arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data through original selection, coordination, or arrangement, and that definition covers serial components of a larger compilation.

Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Investors Service, Inc. · filed 1983-05-23

so, too, should each serial ingredient— be it the quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily component — be considered a species of compilation.

Section 101 treats a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials so that the whole is an original work of authorship as a compilation.

Educational Testing Service v. Katzman · filed 1986-06-20

The copyright statute expressly extends copyright protection to compilations, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 103(a), defined as works 25 formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. 26 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101. This provision gives protection to novel arrangements of materials that could not otherwise be copyrighted.

Section 101 protects original compilations formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials, even when those materials could not otherwise be copyrighted.

Educational Testing Services v. Katzman · filed 1986-06-20

This provision gives protection to novel arrangements of materials that could not otherwise be copyrighted.

Section 101 treats an original selection, coordination, or arrangement of preexisting materials or data as a copyrightable compilation, including a broadcast day assembled from programming.

National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal · filed 1982-04-09

The Act defines a “compilation” as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Similarly, there is little doubt that the efforts used in juggling programs and compiling a broadcast day constitute a copyrightable interest under the Act. ... That the interests advanced by NAB are copyrightable does not get broadcasters to ... promised land, however.

Section 101 protects a compilation only when collected data are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the work as a whole is original; effort alone is insufficient.

Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Investors Service, Inc. · filed 1986-12-22

Facts may not be copyrighted. The Copyright Act of 1976 does, however, expressly provide for the protection of “compilations,” which are defined as works “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1982). ... The statute thus requires that copyrightability not be determined by the amount of effort the author expends, but rather by the nature of the final result. To grant copyright protection based merely on the “sweat of the author’s brow” would risk putting large areas of factual research material off limits and threaten the public’s unrestrained access to information.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

United Telephone Company of Missouri, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appeal · filed 1988-08-31

United Telephone’s white pages section is a “compilation,” ... a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.

Section 101 encompasses a telephone directory as a copyrightable compilation of facts, even though the underlying facts themselves are not protected.

Konor Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A American Publishers, a California Corporation v. Eagle Publications · filed 1989-06-20

Directories can receive copyright protection as a "compilation," as defined in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101 (1982). Although facts contained in a telephone directory are not protected by the copyright laws, the directory itself is protected as a unique compilation of those facts.

Section 101 treats a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data into an original whole as a compilation.

Association of American Medical Colleges v. Carey · filed 1990-01-12

Compilations and derivative works are defined as works “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” ... As previously noted, the MCAT is a creative compilation which fits well within the subject matter of federal copyright and is of the sort which has been protected from commercial infringement on many occasions. Simply because the MCAT employs facts in its questions does not operate against its status as a work which may be copyrighted.

Section 101 defines a compilation as the collection and assembly of preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged, with the resulting work as a whole constituting an original work of authorship.

Kregos v. Associated Press · filed 1990-02-12

Protection is, therefore, available for a compilation if it involves “a modicum of selection, coordination, or arrangement,” such that it becomes an “independent creation.”

Section 101 defines a compilation as preexisting materials selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Sem-Torq, Inc. v. K Mart Corporation and Hy-Ko Products Company · filed 1991-07-23

A compilation “is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the ground that Sem-Torq’s sign set did not constitute a copyrightable compilation.

Section 101 defines a copyrightable compilation as collected preexisting data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-09-23

Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2544, defines a copyrightable compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988). This language suggests three requirements for a compilation to qualify for copyright protection: (1) the collection and assembly of preexisting data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of that data; and (3) a resulting work that is original, by virtue of the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the data contained in the work.

Section 101 defines a copyrightable compilation as a collection of preexisting materials or data whose selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the work as a whole an original work of authorship.

Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc. · filed 1991-10-01

Section 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976, Pub.L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2544, defines a copyrightable compilation as "a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988). This language suggests three requirements for a compilation to qualify for copyright protection: (1) the collection and assembly of preexisting data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of that data; and (3) a resulting work that is original, by virtue of the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the data contained in the work.

Section 101 requires a copyrightable compilation to contain collected preexisting material, original selection, coordination, or arrangement, and an original resulting work.

Corsearch v. Thomson & Thomson · filed 1992-05-13

To qualify as a copyrightable compilation, a work must meet each of three distinct elements: “(1) the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; ... and (3) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement, of an ‘original’ work of authorship.

Section 101 protects a compilation when preexisting materials or data are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc. · filed 1993-09-02

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines a copyrightable compilation as "a work formed by the collection and assembly of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988). Therefore, section 101 identifies three requirements for a compilation to qualify for copyright protection: "(1) the collection and assembly of preexisting material, facts, or data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and (3) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement, of an 'original' work of authorship."

Section 101 protects a compilation when its selection, coordination, or arrangement is sufficiently creative and original.

Warren Publishing, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp. · filed 1995-05-23

The district court did not err in holding that Warren’s system of selecting communities is sufficiently creative and original to be copyrightable.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data.

M & D International Corp. v. Chan · filed 1995-07-03

Section 101 defines “compilation” as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 defines a compilation as preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Lipton v. Nature Co. · filed 1995-11-28

A "compilation” is defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101 as "a work formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 defines a compilation by the human selection, coordination, or arrangement of material into an original work as a whole.

Urantia Foundation, a Non-Profit Foundation v. Maaherra · filed 1997-06-10

For copyright purposes, however, a work is copyrightable if copyrightability is claimed by the first human beings who compiled, selected, coordinated, and arranged the Urantia teachings, “in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining a “compilation”).

Section 101 treats a work as a compilation when preexisting materials are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Ann Howard Designs, L.P. v. Southern Frills, Inc. · filed 1998-02-17

Compilations are defined as works "formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials ... that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so the work as a whole is original.

Adelman v. Christy · filed 2000-03-29

Compilations are protected under 17 U.S.C. § 103(a), defined as a work “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as selected, coordinated, or arranged preexisting materials or data forming an original work as a whole.

Compaq Computer Corporation v. Ergonome, Inc. · filed 2001-03-27

Title 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work that collects pre-existing materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

R&B, Inc. v. Needa Parts Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2002-08-20

The Copyright Act defines “compilations” as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. . .” Id. at n.11 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101).

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling pre-existing materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Michael Foundation, Inc. v. Urantia Foundation · filed 2003-03-11

Compilations are works “formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data whose selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the work as a whole an original work of authorship.

Ross, Brovins & Oehmke, P.C. v. Lexis/Nexis · filed 2004-12-09

a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 treats a compilation as copyrightable only when its selection, coordination, or arrangement of preexisting materials or data makes the work as a whole original.

FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc. · filed 2005-05-16

FMC has shown that its drafting process comprised more than mere effort or “sweat of the brow.”

Section 101 treats a work as a compilation when its materials are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the work as a whole is original.

Maddog Software v. Sklader · filed 2005-08-09

The court held that such a collection of facts, generally known as a “compilation,” could be copyrightable, but only if the facts were “selected, coordinated, or arranged ‘in such a way’ as to render the work as a whole original.” Id. at 358 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining “compilation” for copyright purposes)). ... Unlike the plaintiff’s selection of the information about each subscriber to publish in the directory in Feist, and the alphabetical arrangement of that data, Sklader’s choices in assembling FastFreight transcended the obvious and imbued the program with at least the minimal degree of creativity necessary for copyright protection of the work as a whole. ... Given the “extremely low” quantum of creativity necessary for a work as a whole to receive copyright protection, the court agrees with Maddog that it has demonstrated a likelihood of success in proving the first Feist element.

Section 101 defines a copyrightable compilation as a work assembled from preexisting materials or data whose selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the whole an original work of authorship.

Le Book Publishing, Inc. v. Black Book Photography, Inc. · filed 2005-08-16

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines a copyrightable compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work made by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data so that the whole is original.

Madison River Management Co. v. Business Management Software Corp. · filed 2005-08-31

The TCS database is a compilation for purposes of copyright.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials so that the resulting whole is an original work of authorship.

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society · filed 2005-08-03

“A ‘compilation’ is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials ... that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 treats a work formed by selecting and arranging preexisting materials into an original whole as a compilation, including a collective work, rather than a derivative work when the materials are merely selected and ordered.

Caffey v. Cook · filed 2006-01-18

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Show qualifies for copyright protection as an original compilation—specifically, a collective work—incorporating the selection and ordering of preexisting musical compositions, notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failure to .obtain prior authorization for the inclusion of those compositions in the Show. ... The Show is not a derivative work that recasts, transforms of adapts these compositions; indeed, the songs were merely chosen, listed and performed in a particular order.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a collection of preexisting materials selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting whole is an original work of authorship.

Ross, Brovins & Oehmke, P.C. v. Lexis Nexis Group · filed 2006-09-15

A compilation is a “work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials . . . that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The selection and categorization of the forms are protectable elements of the work.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work made by collecting and arranging preexisting materials or data so that the resulting whole is an original work of authorship.

Corwin v. Walt Disney Company · filed 2006-11-02

Because, § 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 defines a compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship,” we conclude that the Painting is not appropriately analyzed as a compilation.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Corwin v. Walt Disney Company · filed 2007-01-22

We have also recognized that a selection, arrangement, or organization of facts is copyrightable as a compilation if sufficiently original. See MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co., 89 F.3d 1548, 1558 (11th Cir. 1996). Because, § 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976 defines a compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship,” we conclude that the Painting is not appropriately analyzed as a compilation. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a collective work as contributions that are separate and independent works in themselves assembled into a collective whole.

King Records, Inc. v. Bennett · filed 2006-06-20

which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.

Section 101 defines a compilation by the selection, coordination, or arrangement of preexisting materials or data into an original work, so formatting and layout alone do not make a copyrightable compilation.

Darden v. Peters · filed 2007-05-24

The Copyright Act defines a compilation as a "work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Compilation authorship is limited to the original selection, coordination and arrangement of the elements or data contained within a work. See Satava, 323 F.3d at 812. ... We conclude that the Copyright Office acted well within its discretion in concluding that Darden failed to present a copyrightable compilation.

Section 101 treats a collection of preexisting materials as a compilation only when its selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the resulting work as a whole original.

Silverstein v. Penguin Putnam, Inc. · filed 2007-11-07

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, a compilation is “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 treats a compilation of pre-existing data as a protected work when the data are selected, coordinated, or arranged so the resulting whole is original and reflects at least minimal creativity.

Health Grades, Inc. v. Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, Inc. · filed 2009-06-19

Under the Copyright Act, a protected factual compilation is “a work formed by the collection and assembling of pre-existing materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The compilation is deemed original and hence protected by copyright if the author has independently and with at least a minimal degree of creativity made choices as to “which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers.” ... Taking Health Grades’ allegations as true, therefore, its healthcare provider ratings are independent creations by Health Grades and display at least the minimal degree of creativity necessary to be deemed original expressions. As a result, Health Grades has sufficiently alleged that the ratings and awards copied by RWJ are original compilations of fact subject to copyright protection, rather than “discovered” facts outside the protection of copyright.

Section 101 defines a compilation by its original selection, coordination, or arrangement of preexisting materials, allowing the work as a whole to receive copyright protection even when individual elements are unprotectable.

Real View, LLC. v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc. · filed 2010-02-11

Although a work may contain numerous unprotectable elements, the work may still be entitled to copyright protection as a compilation.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data so that the resulting work is original; copyright protection requires judgment in deciding what facts to include.

Mid America Title Company v. Kirk · filed 1993-05-28

Such protection may also be extended in some instances to a compilation, which the Act defines as “a work, formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The term ‘compilation’ includes collective works.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The protection of the copyright law is available only when the compilation reflects the exercise of judgment in determining what facts are to be included from the available data.

Section 101 requires a compilation's preexisting materials to be selected, coordinated, or arranged so the resulting whole is an original work of authorship.

Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc. · filed 2012-08-14

To begin, there is absolutely no evidence that the multiple images were in any way “selected, coordinated, or arranged” to create “an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 recognizes that a sufficiently creative compilation of otherwise uncopyrightable facts may itself be copyrightable.

Roe v. Bernabei & Wachtel Pllc · filed 2015-03-26

So long as it is sufficiently creative, a compilation of non-copyrightable factual matter may itself be copyrightable if it “is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; see, e.g., Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 979 F.2d 242, 244-45 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (assuming video game consisted of geometric schemes which were per se not original, compilation of schemes in particular order satisfied creativity requirement).

A collection of photos is a “compilation” under § 101 when the photos are selected, coordinated, or arranged so the collection as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Yellow Pages Photos, Inc. v. Yellow Pages Group, LLC · filed 2015-07-30

In every sense, then, each of Moore’s 178 headings is compilation as defined in the Act because each is a collection of photos that Moore and YPPI “selected, coordinated, or arranged” in a way that results in “an original work of authorship.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a protectable compilation as a result formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials that are selected, coordinated, or arranged.

Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin · filed 2020-03-09

Likewise, a protectable “compilation” is the precise “result[]” that is “formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials . . . that are selected, coordinated, or arranged.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data.

Off Lease Only, Inc. v. Lakeland Motors, LLC · filed 2020-09-17

Regarding the first element, a valid copyright can be available for “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Known as compilations, such works have only a “thin” copyright protection, extending only to selection, coordination, or arrangement of elements.

Section 101 defines a copyrightable compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting whole is an original work of authorship.

We The Protesters, Inc. v. Sinyangwe · filed 2024-03-20

More generally, and as noted above, the counterclaim is premised on the “selection, coordination, and arrangement of the [MPV] database, text, and graphics—including the signature map element,” id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added), which tracks the Copyright Act’s definition of a copyrightable compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship,” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Here, as suggested by the use of the word “including” in Paragraph 47 of the Amended Counterclaims, the map is only one feature of the infringed work.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by collecting preexisting materials or data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged so that the resulting work as a whole is original.

FEMA Test Answers, LLC v. Smith · filed 2024-06-26

“The Copyright Act defines ‘compilation’ as ‘a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.’”

Section 101 treats separately copyrighted sculptures assembled into a doll as separate works rather than one compilation.

DP Creations v. Suzhou Huimeiyang Information Technology · filed 2024-08-14

Thus, while customers may choose a set of matching Darren sculptures, the compilation of Darren sculptures into one doll is not one work.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work made by collecting and arranging preexisting materials or data so that the whole is an original work of authorship.

Compulife Software, Inc. v. Newman · filed 2025-01-10

The Copyright Act defines the term compilation as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Compulife has not shown that the arrangement of its HTML source code as a whole is an original work of creativity or authorship. So, it has failed to meet its burden of showing legal copying.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials, and a set of photographs can qualify as one compilation and one work.

Goswami v. Sweet Reason US Co. · filed 2025-03-25

“A ‘compilation’ is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” ... “In the instant matter, Plaintiff shot, produced, and compiled twenty-one (21) photographs such that the final set of photographs constituted a “compilation.” Plaintiff then issued that compilation to Defendants as a single unit for Defendants’ authorized use in accordance with the licensing agreement. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has a copyright over a single work.”

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work made by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting material so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Adherence v. CVS Health Corporation · filed 2025-06-25

Under the Copyright Act, a compilation is defined as a work formed by the collection and assembly of preexisting material “selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Here, however, plaintiff does not allege that its forms were registered as compilations, so this route of possible protection is foreclosed. Even if the forms had been registered as such, the argument would likely still fail.

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data whose selection, coordination, or arrangement makes the resulting work as a whole an original work of authorship.

Stampin' Up!, Inc v. Dollar Tree, Inc. · filed 2025-07-16

“A compilation is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.”

Section 101 defines a compilation as a work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials or data so that the resulting work as a whole is an original work of authorship.

Farmer · filed 2026-03-12

Under the Copyright Act, a “compilation” is “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. There are three elements for a work to qualify as a copyrightable compilation: “(1) the collection and assembly of pre-existing material, facts, or data; (2) the selection, coordination, or arrangement of those materials; and (3) the creation, by virtue of the particular selection, coordination, or arrangement, of an ‘original’ work of authorship.” Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 357.

Section 101 protects a compilation’s original selection, coordination, or arrangement even when its individual elements are uncopyrightable.

Harper House, Inc. v. Thomas Nelson, Inc. · filed 1989-10-31

While many of the elements making up the organizers may not be copyrightable in and of themselves, the unique "selection, coordination, or arrangement" of such elements, in combination with copyrightable elements such as the text of the instructions, is copyrightable as a compilation.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original selection or arrangement of preexisting material; its individual components need not be copyrightable.

Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. R.D. Beard · filed 1984-04-23

Plaintiffs' show could be found to be a "compilation," "a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials ... selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship." 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101. ... The mere fact that component parts of a collective work are neither original to the plaintiff nor copyrightable by the plaintiff does not preclude a determination that the combination of such component parts as a separate entity is both original and copyrightable.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original selection or arrangement of preexisting material; its components need not be individually original.

Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard · filed 1984-04-23

Despite the fact that the songs and dances performed in “The Country Kids Show” were not original compositions, copyright protection was still possible with respect to the show itself. Plaintiffs’ show could be found to be a “compilation,” “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials ... selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101’s definition of a compilation covers a computer status screen whose command terms are arranged into an original work of authorship.

Digital Communications Associates, Inc. v. Softklone Distributing Corp. · filed 1987-03-31

In this court’s opinion, the status screen is a “compilation” of parameter/command terms. As indicated by the statutory definition, a compilation is the “assembling” of “data” or information “arranged” in such a way as to constitute “an original work of authorship.” The status screen fits this definition.

Section 101’s definition of a compilation does not cover works of historical and artistic interpretation that are not compilations of data.

Hearn v. Meyer · filed 1987-07-20

In the instant case, plaintiff’s works are not compilations of data.

Section 101’s definition of a compilation does not make a single uncopyrightable blank form copyrightable as a compilation.

Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Colwell Systems, Inc. · filed 1990-02-20

Our holding that the superbill falls within the blank forms rule precludes it from being copyrightable as a compilation. A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or data that are selected, coordinated or arranged in such a way that the work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship, and may consist entirely of uncopyrightable elements.

Section 101 protects a factual compilation’s original selection, coordination, or arrangement, but not the facts themselves.

BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc. · filed 1993-09-02

Given that the copyright protection of a factual compilation is “thin,” a competitor’s taking the bulk of the factual material from a preexisting compilation without infringement of the author’s copyright is not surprising.

Section 101’s definition of compilation covers a collection of doll sculpts whose parts lack separate economic lives.

Lee Middleton Original Dolls, Inc. v. Seymour Mann, Inc. · filed 2004-01-20

Under § 504(c)(1) of the Act, a compilation is treated as one work, and under § 101, a compilation includes collections. ... LMOD registered these sculpts as a collection. That affirmative choice is consistent with the application of the viable economic life test and the language of the Act. The court concludes that, in this case, if the plaintiff is able to prove infringement, it is entitled to one award of statutory damages.

A compilation qualifies for copyright protection only if its selection, coordination, or arrangement of material is original.

Darden v. Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights · filed 2007-05-24

Compilation authorship is limited to the original selection, coordination and arrangement of the elements or data contained within a work.

A copyrightable compilation protects its original selection and arrangement, but does not protect the underlying facts.

Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' & Exhibitors' Ass'n v. National Walking Horse Ass'n · filed 2007-12-12

As the Court held in its Memorandum granting summary judgment on the copyright claim, the Registry and the Registry Certificates, including the registration numbers assigned to horses in the Registry, are protected by Plaintiffs copyright. On the other hand, the injunction does not extend to the “facts” of a particular horse’s pedigree or ancestral lineage, or the horse’s name, markings or colors.

Section 101 defines a compilation as preexisting materials or data selected, coordinated, or arranged into an original work.

BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp. · filed 2013-10-17

In the Copyright Act, a “compilation” is defined as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. In light of this definition, a single number that is the outcome of a process that takes preexisting materials as inputs is not itself a compilation; once a calculation is done, that single output is no longer merely the result of “the collection and assembling of preexisting materials.” That is, despite some confusion on this score, it is now clear on this record and from additional legal development that the only possible expression protectable as a compilation is Plaintiffs list of averages, organized by date. But because that shows no more creativity in selection and arrangement than the white pages at issue in Feist, Plaintiff is not entitled to this form of copyright protection.

Section 101 defines a compilation by the original selection, coordination, or arrangement of preexisting material; storing individual photographs in a database does not by itself make them parts of one infringed compilation.

Vht, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc. · filed 2023-06-07

Zillow infringed the individual photos, not the database. Importantly, the individual infringed photos were not “in any way selected, coordinated, or arranged to create an original work of authorship,” Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1180 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted), and Zillow did not copy any selection, coordination, or arrangement of the photos from the database.

Section 101 defines “display” broadly to include showing a copy by any device or process, and a subscriber-only service can be a public display when a substantial number of people outside a normal family and social circle can view it.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena · filed 1993-12-09

“Display” covers any showing of a “copy” of the work, “either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image or any other device or process.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. However, in order for there to be copyright infringement, the display must be public. A “public display” is a display “at a place open to the public or ... where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of family and its social acquaintenanees is gathered.” 2 Melville B. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 8.14[C], at 8-169 (1993). ... Defendant’s display of PEI’s copyrighted photographs to subscribers was a public display.

Section 101 defines “display” as showing a copy of a work, and treats a display before a substantial number of people outside a normal family and social circle as public.

Thomas v. Pansy Ellen Products, Inc. · filed 1987-10-14

The Act defines “display” as a showing of a copy of a work. 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1982). A “public display” is a display “at a place open to the public or ... where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” ... Applying a literal construction to Congress’ definition of “public display” leads to the conclusion that the display at the Dallas trade show was public. Though limited to JMPA members, the audience consisted of “a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101's publication rule treats performance alone as insufficient to publish a work.

King, Martin, Estate of v. CBS · filed 1999-11-05

the law was clear prior to 1978, and remains clear that performance is not publication.

Section 101 defines “display” broadly to include showing a copy by any device or process, and displaying a work on an Internet commercial site is a public display.

Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. Leach · filed 2006-11-30

“Display” covers any showing of a copy of the work, “either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image or any other device or process.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. To display publicly means “to transmit or otherwise communicate a ... display of the work ... to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Displaying a copy of a work on the Internet, especially on a commercial site, falls squarely within the definition of “public display.” Defendant’s posting of Plaintiffs publications on his websites infringe Plaintiffs right of display.

Section 101 defines publication as distributing copies of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership; a distribution to one person can be public unless made for a limited purpose without rights to diffuse, reproduce, distribute, or sell the work.

Jalbert v. GRAUTSKI · filed 2008-03-31

The statutory definition of “publication” is “the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... In other words, a distribution to one person can constitute a distribution to the “public” in violation of § 106(3), but not if it was made only for a limited purpose, and without the right to diffuse, reproduce, distribute, or sell the work.

Section 101 does not require possession of an image for a defendant to display it; displaying it through a device or process can suffice.

Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, LLC · filed 2018-02-15

In sum, this Court sees nothing in either the text or purpose of the Copyright Act suggesting that physical possession of an image is a necessary element to its display for purposes of the Act.

Section 101 treats a work as displayed publicly when it is shown or transmitted through a publicly accessible place or process, without requiring proof that anyone actually viewed it.

Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC · filed 2021-09-09

By displaying the Indianapolis photo on a server that was publicly accessible to anyone with an Internet connection, however, Wilmott publicly displayed the photo, see 17 U.S.C. § 106(5), regardless of whether or not any particular person actually found and viewed it. ... The Copyright Act does not require proof that the protected work was actually viewed by anyone. Rather, the Act defines “publicly” to merely require that the display be at “a place open to the public,” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added), thereby readily encompassing any publicly accessible server like Wilmott’s.

Section 101 defines public display to include displaying a work at a place open to the public or transmitting or communicating it to the public; physical placement in a public store is the former and does not create a new infringement each time someone sees it.

Old Market Group Holdings Corp. · filed 2022-09-21

Village’s continuing display of the physical Store Furnishings containing the Subject Photography cannot fit within APL’s reliance on the “transmit or otherwise communicate” prong of public display under 17 USC § 101. Here, display must instead fall within the first definition of “display” under 17 USC § 101, whereby the Store Furnishings are displayed by physical placement within the Stores—i.e., a “place open to the public.” See 17 USC § 101. Unlike in APL, here, there is no constant “communicat[ion]” between a server and a computer and, thus, no new, independent infringing act.

Section 101 provides two alternative definitions of publicly performing or displaying a work, and the first definition governs a display in this setting.

Old Market Group Holdings Corp. · filed 2022-10-19

Katzman’s fourth argument (Motion at 10) is that the Order misapplied the Copyright Act’s definition of what it means to “publicly” perform or display a work, see 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... In fact, the Order held just the opposite on both points. It correctly ruled that the first, not the second, of these two statutory definitions applies to this case, and that Village’s display of Katzman’s photographs is a public display. (See Order at 36–37.)

Section 101 treats a display as public when it occurs at a place open to the public, including a publicly accessible server, and proof that anyone actually viewed the work is unnecessary.

Evox Productions, LLC v. Chrome Data Solutions, Lp · filed 2023-02-10

Public display copyright infringement “does not require proof that the protected work was actually viewed by anyone. Rather, the [Copyright] Act defines ‘publicly’ to merely require that the display be at ‘a place open to the public,’ . . . readily encompassing any publicly accessible server.” Bell v. Wilmott Storage Servs., LLC, 12 F.4th 1065, 1074 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101). Therefore, Evox need only show that the protected works were stored on a “publicly accessible server” to show evidence of infringement. Id.

Section 101 defines public display of a work to include transmitting or otherwise communicating a performance or display to the public by any device or process.

Stokes v. Olympian Leisure Services · filed 2024-05-01

Furthermore, public display of a work is “to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; Bell v. Wilmott Storage Servs., LLC, 12 F.4th 1065, 1072 (9th Cir. 2021).

Section 101 treats publication as distributing or offering copies to the public, but a public display alone does not constitute publication; displaying means showing a copy directly or through a device or process.

Emmerich Newspapers, Incorporated v. Particle Media, Inc. · filed 2025-07-29

While the Copyright Act does not define “published”, it defines “publication” as “the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “Publication” includes “offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display.” Id. That said, “[a] public ... display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Id. Rather, to display a work “means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of … any other device or process.” Id.

Section 101’s definition of display covers showing individual motion picture images nonsequentially; making those images available to the public over the Internet constitutes a public display.

Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2002-03-28

To “display” a work means “in the case of a motion picture ..., to show individual images nonsequentially.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Thus, Video Pipeline’s use of the copyrighted motion pictures allowed the display of its images to occur over the Internet in public and satisfies the definition of “public display.”

Section 101 defines copies, fixation, display, and public display for copyright law.

Aurora World, Inc. v. Ty Inc. · filed 2009-12-15

“Display” means “to show a copy of [the copyrighted work], either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process.17 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101 defines “copies” as “material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” ... “A work is ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” ... To “display a work ‘publicly’ means”: “(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101’s definition of “display” includes showing a work through a computer; each unauthorized showing infringes the owner’s public display right.

Apl Microscopic, LLC v. United States · filed 2019-08-27

The definition’s usage of the phrase “any other device or process” clearly brings showing a copy of a work through a computer within the statutory definition of “display.” Thus, each unauthorized showing of a Work through a computer infringes on the owner’s right of public display.

Section 101's definition of an audiovisual work includes teletext transmitted with a television program when it is intended for the same viewers during the same broadcast interval and as an integral part of that program.

Wgn Continental Broadcasting Company and Albuquerque Cable Television, Inc. v. United Video, Inc. · filed 1982-10-22

The question is whether it must do so if it wants to use WGN’s copyrighted nine o’clock news. We think so, provided the teletext is intended to be seen by the same viewers as are watching the nine o’clock news, during the same interval of time in which that news is broadcast, and as an integral part of the news program.

Section 101's derivative-work definition requires original variation, so replicas that add no originality are not derivative works.

Peker v. Masters Collection · filed 2000-05-16

there is no basis for claiming that Masters’ replicas constitute derivative works.

Section 101 requires a derivative work to be based on a preexisting work that is itself copyrightable; a photograph of a wholly utilitarian, noncopyrightable bottle is not a derivative work.

No. 98-17072 · filed 2000-08-18

Under the Copyright Act, a work is not a "derivative work" unless it is "based upon one or more preexisting works" and, in order to qualify as a "preexisting work," the underlying work must be copyrightable. ... Because EtsHokin's product shots are shots of the bottle as a whole--a useful article not subject to copyright protection--and not shots merely, or even mainly, of its label, we hold that the bottle does not qualify as a "preexisting work " within the meaning of the Copyright Act. As such, the photos Ets-Hokin took of the bottle cannot be derivative works.

Section 101 treats a derivative work as copyrightable when it makes sufficient original contributions, even though its substantial borrowing from an underlying work may make unauthorized creation infringing.

Eden Toys, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. Florelee Undergarment Co., Inc., Cross-Appellant · filed 1982-12-02

By its very nature a “derivative” work, which is copyrightable as such, borrows substantially from existing works, and is so defined. 17 U.S.C. § 101 (Supp. IV 1980). Yet it is entitled to registration as a copyrighted work even though it would infringe the original copyrighted work if it were created without the permission of the owner of copyright in the underlying work.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on one or more preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or adapts the preexisting work.

Gracen v. Bradford Exchange · filed 1983-01-12

The question of the copyrightability of a derivative work ("a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a[n] ... art reproduction ... or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted," 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101) usually arises in connection with something either made by the owner (or a licensee) of the copyright on the underlying work, as in Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 909 (2d Cir.1980), or derived from an underlying work that is in the public domain, as in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486, 491-92 (2d Cir.1976) (en banc). At issue in such a case is not the right to copy the underlying work but whether there is enough difference between the derivative and the underlying work to satisfy the statutory requirement of originality, see 17 U.S.C. Sec. 102(a), and thus make the derivative work copyrightable. ... The painting was based on the movie, both as independently recollected by Miss Gracen and as frozen in the still photographs that Bradford supplied her. As with any painting there was an admixture of the painter's creativity--how much we shall consider later--but that it is a painting of Judy Garland as she appears in photographs from the movie (such as the photograph reproduced at the end of this opinion as Figure 2), and is therefore a derivative work, is beyond question. The same is true of the drawings.

Section 101’s derivative-work framework permits copyright protection for a work based on prior material when the derivative work contains nontrivial original features.

Knickerbocker Toy Co., Inc. v. Winterbrook Corp. · filed 1982-09-30

are also subject to copyright protection so long as the derivative work itself is original. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 103(b).

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based upon one or more preexisting works.

Conan Properties, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc. · filed 1984-12-11

The statutory definition of “derivative work” is unambiguous. “A ‘derivative work’ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works____” 17 U.S.C. § 101. As CPI’s copyrights are works which are based upon the preexisting work of Robert Howard, they are unquestionably derivative.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based upon one or more existing works, including a translation.

Radji v. Khakbaz · filed 1985-04-30

A translation, by definition, uses different language than that in the original. That, however, does not exempt translations from the provisions of the Copyright Act. To the contrary, the Act gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to prepare derivative works, which includes the right to make translations. 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). ... A "derivative work” is defined as "a work based upon one or more existing works, such as a translation_” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as one based on a preexisting work whose modifications, taken as a whole, are original; color is not automatically excluded from the originality analysis.

Sargent v. American Greetings Corp. · filed 1984-05-30

Defendant’s argument that color is ... per se ... excluded from consideration in evaluating originality is rejected.

Section 101 defines a derivative work to include a work based on one or more preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or adapts the preexisting work, including modifications that as a whole represent an original work of authorship.

Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. Planning & Control, Inc. · filed 1986-10-03

The Copyright Act defines “derivative work” as: ... A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. ... 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Plaintiffs concede, for the purposes of this motion, that the Alpha Micro programs are derivative works based on pre-existing works it sold to Censor. Defendants do not seriously argue that the programs are not sufficiently original to qualify as derivative works, and I find plaintiff’s contribution to them at least “substantial.”

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on a preexisting work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or contains qualifying original modifications.

Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. · filed 1987-02-12

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as: ... A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. ... There is no substantial similarity between CopyWrite and PROLOK. ... RAMKEY is not a “substantially similar copy” of PROLOK. ... RAMKEY is not a derivative work of PRO-LOK.

Section 101 treats a work incorporating preexisting material together with original additions as a derivative work.

Gund, Inc. v. Swank, Inc. · filed 1987-11-18

a derivative work. ... a new body shape and configuration, and it consists of material that is original with Gund and that is copyrightable under the copyright laws.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on one or more preexisting works, including a motion picture version or another form in which the work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.

New Line Cinema Corp. v. Bertlesman Music Group, Inc. · filed 1988-08-29

Thus, pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, New Line has the exclusive right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” A derivative work is defined as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101's derivative-work definition does not make every sheet-music arrangement a qualifying derivative work; the arrangement must have sufficient originality to be copyrightable.

Bourne Co. v. MPL Communications, Inc. · filed 1987-12-22

the Court does not find Bourne's argument persuasive. ... in the absence of such originality, the arrangements would not have been entitled to copyright protection in the first place.

Section 101 treats works based on preexisting works, including recast, transformed, or adapted works, as derivative works; the court applied that definition to the videotape, film, and record album.

Ippolito v. Ono-Lennon · filed 1988-02-03

The particular works in this case are a videotape, a film and a long-playing record album ... clearly fall within the definition of “derivative works” of the film and sound track recorded on August 30, 1972.

Section 101 defines a derivative work broadly to include a work based on preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or adapts them, including modifications that constitute an original work of authorship.

Mirage Editions, Inc., Jennifer Dumas, and Alfred Van Der Marck Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. · filed 1988-09-07

appellant has prepared a derivative work and infringed the subject copyrights.

Section 101 defines a derivative work broadly as a work based on preexisting material that has been recast, transformed, adapted, or modified into an original work of authorship.

JBJ Fabrics, Inc. v. Brylane, Inc. · filed 1989-06-06

Section 101 of the Act defines a derivative work as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as ... art reproduction, ... or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of ... modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship is a ‘derivative work’.” The reach of this definition was intended to be very broad, including "every copyrightable work that employs preexisting material."

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on a preexisting work that recasts, transforms, or adapts it, including certain original editorial revisions or modifications; merely adding a commercial to a videocassette does not satisfy that standard.

Paramount Pictures v. Video Broadcasting Systems · filed 1989-10-11

The Copyright Act defines a derivative work as: [A] work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The plaintiff has not presented any authority to support the conclusion that the mere addition of a commercial to the front of a videocassette recasts, transforms, or adapts the motion picture into what could represent an "original work of authorship." ... While defendants' advertisement is an original work, the court does not recognize the addition of it to a videocassette in any way recasting, transforming or adapting the motion picture. The result is not a new version of the motion picture.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as one based on one or more preexisting works, including a work recast, transformed, or adapted, and the court required more than minimal or trivial alterations for separate protection.

Moore Publishing, Inc. v. Big Sky Marketing, Inc. · filed 1991-01-11

Under certain circumstances, such alterations may be copyrightable as a “derivative work,” a term defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101: ... A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as an ... art reproduction ... or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. ... To qualify for a separate copyright as a derivative work, the additional matter injected into the prior work must constitute more than a minimal or trivial contribution. ... Assuming that Wesley Gates made sufficient changes to the original logo to warrant copyright protection on a derivative work, Moore only has a copyright on the changes made by Wesley Gates, not on the original Three-M logo.

Section 101 treats a work based on preexisting works as a derivative work when, as a whole, it presents original authorship.

GB Marketing USA Inc. v. Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. · filed 1991-12-09

While the precise arrangement of the words and images may have been Gauntlett’s, then, the use of the same typeface, colors, and images puts it beyond question that the label was derived from Gerolsteiner’s earlier labels. If Gauntlett’s label were copyrightable at all, therefore, it was only so as a “derivative work,” which is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as a work “based upon one or more preexisting works,” but which “as a whole, represents] an original work of authorship ...” Such a work may be copyrighted, but “copyright protection extends only to the new material contributed to the prior work.”

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on one or more preexisting works that includes original editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications; the revisions of ADEX therefore qualified as derivative works of Rev. 0.0.

Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems Support Corp. · filed 1992-06-03

“A ‘derivative work’ is a work based upon one or more preexisting works ... A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work.’ ” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Data General alleges in its complaint that “[a]ll subsequent releases of ADEX are closely similar to and are derived from the original release.” I hold that the various revisions of ADEX are derivative of Rev. 0.0.

Section 101 treats a work based on a pre-existing work as a derivative work when it is recast, transformed, adapted, or modified, including copied architectural material used without the copyright owner's consent.

Value Group, Inc. v. Mendham Lake Estates, L.P. · filed 1992-09-04

The Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as ... an abridgement, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial provisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications, which as a whole, represent an original work of authorship____” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The photocopy attached to Mendham Lake’s sales contract is a derivative work because the pre-existing work from which it was derived was taken without the consent of the copyright proprietor of such pre-existing work.

Section 101 defines a derivative work to include a preexisting work that is recast, transformed, or adapted; permanently affixing copyrighted notecard artwork to a ceramic tile qualifies as a derivative work.

Muñoz v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. · filed 1993-05-26

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. ... The court cannot agree that permanently affixing a notecard to a ceramic tile is not recasting, transforming or adapting the original art work. Placing a print or painting in a frame and covering it with glass does not recast or transform the work of art. It is commonly understood that this amounts to only a method of display. Moreover, it is a relatively simple matter to remove the print or painting and display it differently if the owner chooses to do so. Neither of these things is true of the art work affixed to a ceramic tile. Moreover, tiles lend themselves to other uses such as trivets (individually) or wall coverings (collectively). Finally, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that ART’s process of transferring art images to tiles does constitute the creation of a derivative work of art in violation of the copyright laws.

Section 101 includes an abridgment within the definition of a derivative work.

Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd. · filed 1993-07-06

The Act defines a "derivative work" to include an abridgment, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1988), and gives the copyright holder the exclusive right "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work," id. § 106(2) (1988 & Supp. III 1991).

Section 101 defines a derivative work as one based on preexisting works that recasts, transforms, or adapts them, and original additions to public-domain material may receive copyright protection.

Modern Publishing, A Division of Unisystems, Inc. v. Landoll, Inc. · filed 1994-01-10

Each certificate identifies Friedman’s work as derived from the public domain troll dolls. The statute defines a “derivative work” as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works,” existing in a form “in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Modern claimed at the time of registration that Friedman added to the preexisting public domain troll dolls “original illustrations” which included “original modification of’ those dolls. The certificates, when issued, constitute prima facie (and unrebutted) evidence that Friedman’s illustrations of the dolls are original and hence protectible. And it is the illustrations themselves — that is to say, Friedman’s artistic rendering of the three-dimensional dolls in two-dimensional pictorial form — that are protectible, not the particular postures or poses in which those illustrations are arranged in Modern’s publications.

Section 101 defines a derivative work as a work based on one or more preexisting works, including a work recast, transformed, or adapted from preexisting material.

Franklin v. Ciroli · filed 1994-04-01

Upon review of both the registered work and the copyright statute, the court initially observes that the Franklins’ work appears to constitute a “derivative work.” ... A derivative work is defined as: ... a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, tictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgement, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. ... 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The script attached to the Franklins’ registration application clearly incorporates several preexisting works, namely, traditional wedding music and popular songs. Of course, the Frank-lins were entitled to copyright protection only for the material that they contributed, which must have includéd 'some substantial, not trivial originality.’ ”