17 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101 defines a sound recording as a fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, distinguishing it from a musical composition in written form.

Montalvo v. LT's Benjamin Records, Inc. · filed 2014-11-05

such recordings constitute the fixation of a series of musical, spoken or other sounds, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, as opposed to the rhythm, harmony, and melody, i.e., the artists’ music in written form, which constitutes the composition.

Section 101 defines sound recordings as fixed series of sounds and phonorecords as material objects in which sounds are fixed and from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated.

Conway v. Licata · filed 2015-05-08

The Copyright Act distinguishes between musical compositions, sound recordings, and phonorecords. Sound recordings are "works of authorship” "that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, ... regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes, or other phonorecords, in which they are embodied.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102. Phonorecords are the "material objects in which sounds ... are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines a sound recording as fixed sounds produced by a performance, distinct from the underlying musical composition.

Newton v. Diamond · filed 2002-05-21

In other words, the sound recording is the sound produced by the performer’s rendition of the musical work.

Section 101 excludes sounds accompanying audiovisual works from the definition of sound recordings, so music videos are classified as audiovisual works.

United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers · filed 2008-04-30

Music videos are not “sound recordings,” but are “audiovisual works” that are not subject to the statutory prohibition against using sound recordings as a benchmark.

Section 101 defines sound recordings and phonorecords in terms that make fixing a copyrighted work in a new material object a reproduction.

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. · filed 2013-03-30

Copyrighted works are defined to include, inter alia, “sound recordings,” which are “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds.” Id. § 101. Such works are distinguished from their material embodiments. These include phonorecords, which are the “material objects in which sounds ... are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Id. § 101 (emphasis added). Thus, the plain text of the Copyright Act makes clear that reproduction occurs when a copyrighted work is fixed in a new material object.

Section 101 defines sound recordings to exclude sounds accompanying motion pictures or other audiovisual works and includes those sounds in audiovisual works.

Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment · filed 2015-04-20

“Sound recordings” are defined under the Act as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sound, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work....” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Rather, such “accompanying sounds,” including motion picture or television soundtracks, are included instead in the definition of “audiovisual works.”

Section 101 defines sound recordings and audiovisual works, excluding sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work from the definition of sound recording.

Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment · filed 2016-07-29

The Act defines “sound recordings” as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as disks, tapes or other ... phonorecords, in which they are embodied.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “Audiovisual works,” by contrast, are “works that consist of a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines, or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds . . . .” Id.

Section 101 requires a derivative work to involve a sufficiently original recasting, transformation, adaptation, or other content-based modification of a preexisting work; changing only the medium does not qualify.

Peter Mayer Publishers Inc. v. Shilovskaya · filed 2014-03-31

... As such, conversion of the Translation to eBook form constitutes a change in medium only, and does not constitute a new “derivative work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Because conversion of the Translation to eBook form constitutes a change in medium only, the proposed eBook does not constitute a new “derivative work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 treats a work based on a preexisting work as derivative when its editorial revisions or other modifications, taken as a whole, constitute an original work of authorship.

William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey · filed 2006-05-04

A derivative work is “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. ... The question that remains, however, is whether Graham can sustain its burden of proving that the Works contain “distinguishable variation[s]” from any preexisting material which has entered the public domain. Such distinguishable variations must be “more than merely trivial” so as to qualify for a separate copyright as a derivative work.

Section 101 defines compilations and derivative works based on the selection, arrangement, recasting, transformation, or adaptation of preexisting materials.

Harris v. Simon & Schuster, Inc. · filed 2009-08-18

A “derivative work” is defined by the Copyright Act as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, 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 includes a building’s overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements within an architectural work, without including individual standard features.

Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures L.C. · filed 2006-07-24

The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.

Section 101 excludes individual standard building features and ideas from architectural-work protection, but can protect an architect’s original combination or arrangement of those features.

Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C. · filed 2008-05-14

The Copyright Act’s definition of “architectural work” excludes “individual standard features” from the protectible elements of the design. 17 U.S.C. § 101. According to legislative history, such features include “common windows, doors, and other staple building components.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-735 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6949; see also T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 110 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing legislative history). At the same time, however, the statute includes within the definition of “architectural work” “the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. This definition reflects Congress’s awareness that “creativity in architecture frequently takes the form of a selection, coordination, or arrangement of unprotectible elements into an original, protectible whole.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-735, as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6949. Thus, while individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas are not themselves copyrightable, an architect’s original combination or arrangement of such features may be.

Section 101 protects an architectural work's overall form and arrangement, but excludes standard features, standard spatial configurations, and functionally required design elements.

Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc. · filed 2014-09-02

In addition to these standard features, “standard configurations of spaces” ... and design elements that are functionally required are also not protectable under the AWCPA.

Section 101 permits originality in an architectural work to be expressed through the building's overall form and the arrangement and composition of its spaces.

John Anthony Drafting & Design LLC v. Burrell · filed 2019-10-30

With regard to architectural works, originality can be expressed in the “overall form” and “arrangement and composition of spaces.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines displaying a work as showing a copy directly or through specified media or another device or process; passively maintaining a work’s visibility, without the volitional act that caused the display, does not support direct-infringement liability.

Tom Hussey Photography, LLC v. BDG Media, Inc. · filed 2020-12-18

Under the Copyright Act, “[t]o ‘display’ a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Plaintiff does not allege that BDG committed the initial act of display in 2011. ... Even if these cases broadly construe the word “display,” it is undeniable that the defendants in those cases also committed the initial act of making the copyrighted works visible. ... Thus, these cases do not read the volitional conduct requirement out of the direct infringement inquiry and do not support Plaintiff’s theory that BDG committed copyright infringement solely by leaving the copyrighted images on the Flavorwire website.

For the public-display right, § 101 requires the infringer to display a fixed copy; an image is fixed when embodied in a sufficiently permanent or stable form, and embedding content stored on another server does not itself display a copy.

Hunley v. Instagram, LLC · filed 2023-07-17

In sum, infringing the exclusive right of public display requires the transmission of a display. For a display to be actionable, it must display a copy. A copy means either an original or a duplicate that is fixed, and fixation requires embodiment in a perceivable format. See generally 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Because BuzzFeed and Time embedded—but did not store—the underlying copyrighted photographs, they are not guilty of direct infringement. See Perfect 10, 508 F.3d at 1160–61.

Section 101 treats a work stored in a computer as a fixed copy and a computer’s filling a screen with that copy as a display, but HTML linking to an image stored elsewhere is not itself displaying a copy.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon · filed 2007-12-03

The Copyright Act explains that “display” means “to show a copy of it, 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 photographic image is a work that is “ ‘fixed’ in a tangible medium of expression,” for purposes of the Copyright Act, when embodied (i.e., stored) in a computer’s server (or hard disk, or other storage device). The image stored in the computer is the “copy” of the work for purposes of copyright law. ... In sum, based on the plain language of the statute, a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer’s memory. ... Google does not, however, display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user’s computer screen. Because Google’s computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any “material objects . . . in which a work is fixed . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated” and thus cannot communicate a copy. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101's definition of “copy” encompasses a copy of part of a work, not only a complete copy.

Real World Media LLC v. Daily Caller, Inc. · filed 2024-08-14

Nor does the Copyright Act’s definition of “copy” confine the sweep of that term to a copy in full as opposed to in part. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. What’s more, the statute defines “fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies,” with reference to, inter alia, “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”—suggesting that partial copies are still copies. Id. § 107.

Section 101's display definition does not treat embedding references to externally hosted images as displaying or distributing copies when the website does not host or transmit the images.

McGucken v. Valnet, Inc. · filed 2024-12-19

Because Valnet’s website contained only embedded references to McGucken’s Instagram posts, Valnet never displayed or distributed copies of the works to anyone on the internet.

Section 101 defines “display” as showing a copy and “publication” as distributing copies or phonorecords to the public, distinguishing those acts from merely allowing personal inspection.

Brewer v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County · filed 2026-02-04

To “display” a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially. ... “Publication” is 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. ... A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. ... The trial court and the Parents, however, conflate the concept of access for inspection with reproduction and display. ... Nor need Metro distribute the records to the public; rather, Metro need only allow Petitioners access for personal inspection. ... By the same token, Metro may allow access to the records for personal inspection without itself copying, displaying, or publishing the records.

Under § 101’s definitions of “copies” and “fixed,” embedding images or videos stored on another party’s server does not display copies of those works.

Hunley v. Instagram, LLC · filed 2021-09-17

Therefore, when they embed the images and videos, they do not display “copies” of the copyrighted work.

Section 101 defines copies, fixation, and display in terms that cover works stored on a server and posted on a website.

Society of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Archbishop Gregory of Denver · filed 2012-08-02

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines "copies" as "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated . . . ." 17 U.S.C. § 101. A work is "'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment . . . is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." Id. A "display" of a work is defined under the Act as "show[ing] a copy of [a work], either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Applying these definitions to the facts, we draw the following conclusions. Here, the Archbishop's verbatim or near-identical versions of the Works constituted a "copy" under the Copyright Act. The translation images were embodied in a medium (here, the computer server and internet) where they could be perceived by, electronically communicated to, and/or reproduced by those who accessed the server. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. The copies also were embodied or "'fixed' in a tangible medium of expression," as they were loaded on the Archbishop's computer server and posted to his Website. Id.; see Cartoon Network, 536 F.3d at 129 (to determine whether a work is "fixed" in a medium, court must examine whether the work is "embodied" in the medium); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 517-18 (9th Cir. 1993) and noting that "a computer makes a 'copy' of a software program when it transfers the program from a third party's computer (or other storage device) into its own memory, because the copy of the program recorded in the computer is "fixed" in a manner that is "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration" (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101)). The copies likewise satisfy the statute's "transitory duration" requirement, as they were continuously displayed on the Archbishop's Website. See 17 U.S.C. § 101; see also Cartoon Network, 536 F.3d at 129-30 (discussing meaning of Copyright Act's "transitory duration" requirement). Before the Monastery served the Archbishop with the Complaint in January 2008, the St. Isaac Work had been posted on the Website continuously since 2005, and the remaining six Works, since August 2007. Lastly, the Archbishop "display[ed]" the Works publicly -- that is, he "show[ed] a copy of" the Works "by means of a . . . device or process," 17 U.S.C. § 101 -- when he posted the Works on his website.

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 is an original work of authorship.

Windgate Software, L.L.C. v. Minnesota Computers, Inc. · filed 2007-03-27

The statutory definition of “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 constitutions an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

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

Somerson v. McMahon · filed 2012-08-24

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 whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The video recordings of plaintiff wrestling are part of a larger audiovisual work showing other wrestling matches and commentary throughout different time periods. Therefore, the video recordings of plaintiff are at a minimum audiovisual works falling within section 102 or part of a compilation as defined by section 103.

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 of authorship.

Blue Book Services, Inc. v. Farm Journal, Inc. · filed 2020-01-27

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.

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 of authorship.

VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc. · filed 2020-05-08

“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. ... The court finds the Bryant court’s method of determining whether something is a “compilation” persuasive. Bryant’s focus on how the copyright holder arranges its own materials hews closely to the statutory language that addresses how the materials at issue are “selected, coordinated, or arranged.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Therefore, the court concludes as a matter of law that VHT’s database does not constitute a “compilation” under 17 U.S.C. § 101.

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.

Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc. · filed 2024-06-05

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.

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

Compulife Software, Inc. v. Rutstein · 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 assembled from preexisting materials; a collection of previously unpublished original works by the same author is not a compilation on that basis.

Ocasio v. Alfanno · filed 2008-12-29

However, the Act defines a compilation as “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 (emphasis added). Here, the collection is comprised of previously unpublished, original works by the same author, registered under a single title for reasons of convenience and as allowed by the applicable regulations.

Section 101's co-authorship concept is not established merely by an interrogatory finding that two people agreed to contribute money, effects, labor, and skills to a business and share profits, losses, and assets.

Groden v. Allen · filed 2008-01-03

That interrogatory establishes neither co-authorship under 17 U.S.C. § 101 nor a transfer by operation of law under 17 U.S.C. § 201(d)(1).

Section 101 defines derivative works by requiring original authorship or nontrivial expressive variation, includes building designs embodied in buildings, plans, or drawings within architectural works, and includes diagrams, models, and technical drawings within pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.

Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. AMH Creekside Development, LLC · filed 2022-08-09

A derivative work is one “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. In determining whether the work is a derivative, “the key inquiry is whether there is sufficient nontrivial expressive variation . . . to make it distinguishable in some meaningful way.” ... A simple change in format—from an electronic file to a three-dimensional model or floorplan—is insufficient to create a derivative work. ... An “architectural work,” as referenced in § 120(a), is defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Consequently, the § 120(a) exemption protects pictorial representations regardless of whether the copyright holder has a copyright in the structure itself or in the technical drawings. ... Further, “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101, includes “two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans.” The renderings and floorplans could safely be categorized as diagrams or models. ... Given the preexisting definition of “pictorial work” in § 101, and the lack of distinction between “representation” and “work” in the statute, the Court presumes that Congress intended to incorporate § 101’s definition of “pictorial” into § 120(a).

Section 101 defines derivative works to require original, nontrivial expressive variation beyond a mere change in format, and defines architectural and pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works broadly enough to include architectural plans, drawings, diagrams, and models.

Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. AMH Creekside Development, LLC · filed 2022-09-16

A derivative work is one “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. In determining whether the work is a derivative, “the key inquiry is whether there is sufficient nontrivial expressive variation . . . to make it distinguishable in some meaningful way.” Axxiom Mfg., Inc. v. McCoy Invs., Inc., 846 F. Supp. 2d 732, 751–52 (S.D. Tex. 2012). ... A simple change in format—from an electronic file to a three-dimensional model or floorplan—is insufficient to create a derivative work. ... An “architectural work,” as referenced in § 120(a), is defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Consequently, the § 120(a) exemption protects pictorial representations regardless of whether the copyright holder has a copyright in the structure itself or in the technical drawings. ... Further, “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” as defined by 17 U.S.C. § 101, includes “two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans.” The renderings and floorplans could safely be categorized as diagrams or models. ... Given the preexisting definition of “pictorial work” in § 101, and the lack of distinction between “representation” and “work” in the statute, the Court presumes that Congress intended to incorporate § 101’s definition of “pictorial” into § 120(a).

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building design embodied in a tangible medium and treats making architectural plans available to the public by sale as publication.

Home Design Services, Inc. v. David Weekley Homes, LLC · filed 2008-02-19

An “architectural work” is “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The sale of the plans to Mr. Reiche constitute the publication of the plans (“distributed. or made available to the general public by sale or other transfer of ownership,”). Construction of the house before December 1,1990 by someone other than the copyright holder also satisfied the statute.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building design embodied in a tangible medium, protecting its overall form and arrangement or composition of spaces and elements, but not individual standard features; an original combination or arrangement of otherwise unprotectable elements may be protected. It also defines derivative works, whose protection extends only to the author's original contributions.

Harvester, Inc. v. Rule Joy Trammell + Rubio, LLC · filed 2010-06-03

As the Architectural Drawings before the Court deal with a specific type of copyright that of an “architectural work”— the Court’s analysis “begin[s] by examining the statutory definition of an ‘architectural work,’ to wit: ‘the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.’ ” ... Thus, “while individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas or concepts are not themselves copyrightable, an architect’s original combination or arrangement of such elements may be.” ... Commonwealth’s Architectural Drawings are properly analyzed as both an “architectural work” and a “derivative work.” Therefore, protection for Commonwealth’s Architectural Drawings may fall only on the original form and arrangement of individual elements in the Hotel that are distinguishable from the pre-existing Hotel design in a meaningful way.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building’s design embodied in a tangible medium, including architectural plans or drawings, considering the design’s overall form and arrangement and composition of spaces and elements.

Thomas v. Artino · filed 2010-07-06

An “architectural work” is defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings” taking into consideration “the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. It is well-settled that architectural drawings receive copyright protection under both 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5) and § 102(a)(8).

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building’s design as embodied in a tangible medium, including the building itself and architectural plans or drawings.

Builders Mutual Insurance v. Donald A. Gardner Architects, Inc. · filed 2012-03-15

According to 17 U.S.C. § 101, the copyright in an “an architectural work” as referenced in § 120(a) includes a copyright in the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans or drawings. Therefore, the court finds that the § 120 exemption protects photographs of copyrighted architectural works, such as the website photograph in this case, from being actionable regardless of whether the copyright holder has a copyright in the structure itself or in the technical drawings.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include the overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements, while excluding individual standard features; arrangements and coordination of those features may still be protected.

Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc. · filed 2012-12-20

An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Though “individual standard features” 19 are not protectable ... “the arrangement and coordination” of such features may be.

Section 101 protects an architectural work's overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements, but not individual standard features; a common arrangement may still be too unoriginal to receive protection.

Jeff Benton Homes v. Alabama Heritage Homes, Inc. · filed 2013-03-11

An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. ... Those elements, and even the general arrangement of them in the 2715 and 2820 house plans, are simply too common to warrant copyright protection.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building design’s overall form and the arrangement and composition of its spaces and elements, while excluding individual standard features.

Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc. · filed 2014-06-05

The statute defines an "architectural work” as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building design fixed in a tangible medium, including its overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, but excluding individual standard features.

Humphreys & Partners Architects v. Lessard Design, Incorporated · filed 2015-06-23

The AWCPA defines an architectural work as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” Id.

Section 101 protects an architectural work’s overall form and arrangement, but excludes individual standard features; the court applied that limit to the plaintiff’s architectural-plan modifications.

Sari v. America's Home Place, Inc. · filed 2015-09-02

The AWCPA allowed owners of architectural works to protect “the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Therefore, none of the elements that Sari claims are his contributions to the Highlighted Plans are individually protectable under the AWCPA.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building design embodied in a tangible medium, including its overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements, but excludes individual standard features.

Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins · filed 2016-01-04

An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. ... Thus, individual standard elements of architectural works are not protected, but original selections or arrangements of such elements may be protectable.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as the design of a building embodied in a tangible medium, while excluding individual standard features from the protectable elements.

Architects Collective v. Pucciano & English, Inc. · filed 2017-03-29

The Copyright Act defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. At the same time, however, “the Copyright' Act restricts which elements of architectural floor plans are protectable” by excluding “individual standard' features” from the protectable elements of the design.

Section 101 protects architectural works embodied in a tangible medium, including buildings, plans, and drawings, while excluding individual standard features and covering the work's overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements.

Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc. · filed 2017-06-06

The Copyright Act of 1976, as amended by the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, extends copyright protection to “architectural works,” defined as building designs “embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. A protected architectural work “includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.”

Section 101 defines literary works as works expressed in words, numbers, or other symbols.

Wengerd v. E. Wayne Fire Dist. · filed 2017-11-08

“Literary works” are simply works expressed in words, numbers, or other symbols. 17 U.S.C. §101.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as the design of a building fixed in a tangible medium, protecting its overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements but not individual standard features.

Design Basics, LLC v. Heller & Sons, Incorporated · filed 2019-06-24

Copyright protection for “architectural work” is now6 provided under the AWCPA, which defines such work as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The protected work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(8).

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building’s design embodied in a tangible medium, including plans and drawings, protecting its overall form and arrangement and composition of spaces and elements but excluding individual standard features.

Design Basics, LLC v. Big C Lumber Co Inc. · filed 2019-07-22

Copyright protection for “architectural work” is now6 provided under the AWCPA, which defines such work as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The protected work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(8).

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building’s design embodied in a tangible medium, including its overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements, but excluding individual standard features.

Design Basics, LLC v. Landmark Communities, Inc. · filed 2019-08-21

An architectural work is defined as follows: [T]he design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as the design of a building embodied in a tangible medium and protects its overall form and arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, but not individual standard features.

Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Thomson Sailors. Homes, LLC · filed 2019-10-10

An “architectural work,” subject to copyright protection is defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The protected work “includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” Id.; see also 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea . . . regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”). ... Accordingly, the arrangement of spaces and elements in the design is not substantially, let alone strikingly, similar. § 101; see also Howard v. Sterchi, 974 F.2d 1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 1992) (“In architectural plans . . . , modest dissimilarities are more significant than they may be in other types of art works.”).

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building's design embodied in a tangible medium, including buildings, architectural plans, or drawings.

Design Basics LLC v. Signature Construction Inc · filed 2021-04-23

An architectural work is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.

Section 101 defines an “architectural work” to include the design of a building embodied in a tangible medium, including architectural plans or drawings.

Shen Engineers v. Brighton · filed 2024-09-06

Turning to the substantive law, it is undisputed that the Copyright Act extends it protections to architectural plans and technical engineering plans. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (specifically defining “architectural work” as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings”); Schuchart & Assocs., Pro. Eng’rs, Inc. v. Solo Serve Corp., 540 F. Supp. 928, 943 (W.D. Tex. 1982) (“Architectural and engineering drawings fall within the subject matter of copyright.”) (citation omitted).

Section 101 defines a literary work broadly as a work expressed in words, regardless of the material object in which it is embodied.

Equine Legal Solutions, PC v. DigitalOcean, LLC · filed 2025-02-12

A literary work is a work "expressed in words . . . regardless of the nature of the material objects[.]" 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... However, a literary work requires only minimal originality. ... Accordingly, plaintiff's copyrighted works are "literary works" to which the exclusive display right applies.

An architectural work includes a building’s overall form and design, and infringement may be based on copying any protectable part of that design, including only an exterior or one elevation.

A Boheme Design, L.L.C. v. Bruce Kelly Properties Limited Liability Company · filed 2026-01-28

Plaintiff’s copyright in the Basse Residence as an architectural work does, by definition, include the home’s “overall form.” That is, its copyright protection encompasses the entire design. But its copyright can be infringed by copying any protectable part of the design, including, in the court’s opinion, only the exterior, or one elevation of the exterior.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building’s overall form and arrangement of spaces, but excludes individual standard features.

John Alden Homes, Inc. v. Kangas · filed 2001-04-27

An “architectural work” is defined as a work which is the design of a building which is embodied in any tangible medium of expression including the architectural plans or drawings for a building. 17 U.S.C. § 101 “The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” ... The Court finds that the Crown plans and the Kangases home are not substantially similar to the Key Largo model plan or any derivative of the Key Largo model.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as a building design embodied in a tangible medium, including architectural plans or the building itself.

Beckwith Builders v. Depietri, et al. · filed 2006-09-15

Put slightly differently, an architectural work may be embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including architectural plans or a building itself.

Section 101 treats transmission of a television news broadcast as a public performance that does not, by itself, publish the work.

Pacific and Southern Co., Inc. v. Duncan · filed 1983-10-13

A transmission, then, is not a publication.

Section 101’s definition of an architectural work excludes individual standard features, including those built into a structure.

National Medical Care, Inc. v. Espiritu · filed 2003-09-30

Congress chose a definition of “architectural work” that includes all building designs while explicitly excluding individual standard features. 17 U.S.C. § 101. This exclusion of individual standard features indicates that Congress did not intend to extend copyright protection to as-built individual standard features.

Section 101 includes building designs embodied in architectural plans or drawings within architectural works, but excludes standard features from copyright protection.

Lifetime Homes, Inc. v. Residential Development Corp. · filed 2007-02-23

An “architectural work” is defined as a work which is the design of a building which is embodied in any tangible medium of expression including the architectural plans or drawings for a building. ... Hence, copyright protection does not encompass general concepts or “standard features.”

Section 101’s definition of an architectural work covers the design of a permanent, stationary modular home that qualifies as a building.

Patriot Homes, Inc. v. Forest River Housing, Inc. · filed 2008-02-22

The copyrighted design is for a home intended to be permanent and stationary — like a building, not a mobile home. Thus, Patriot’s Elite Modular is not excluded from the protection afforded architectural works, because it is not a mobile home.

Section 101 defines an architectural work as the design of a building embodied in a tangible medium, including architectural plans or drawings, while excluding individual standard features.

Forest River, Inc. v. Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC · filed 2010-11-10

Architectural works are defined as: [T]he design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building’s overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements while excluding individual standard features such as windows and doors.

Sieger Suarez Architectural Partnership, Inc. v. Arquitectonica International Corp. · filed 2014-02-14

An architectural work does include “the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; H.R.Rep. No. 101-735 (1990), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6949. However, “individual standard features” such as windows and doors, are excluded from the definition of “architectural work.” Id.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building’s overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, while excluding individual standard features.

Design Basics LLC v. J & V Roberts Investments, Inc. · filed 2015-09-11

Although no bright line rule delineates the scope of what may be copyrighted, 17 U.S.C. § 101 provides some guidance regarding the scope of copyrights pertaining to architectural works. These works are defined by statute to include: the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural, plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features. 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include a building’s design as expressed in plans or drawings, including an original arrangement of spaces and elements.

Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp. · filed 2011-09-30

An “architectural work,” defined as “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings,” 17 U.S.C. § 101, is subject to copyright protection under the AWCPA if “original” — that is, if the author has independently created the work and the work reflects a minimal degree of creativity, Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 345, 351, 111 S.Ct. 1282. ... In line with these principles, the Court finds there is a genuine issue as to the originality in the arrangement of design elements in each of Plaintiffs three design plans.

Section 101’s definition of an architectural work covers a building’s overall design, including the arrangement of its spaces and elements, but not cabinetry designs on their own.

Olivieri · filed 2026-05-28

Applying the governing statute to the ‘524 Copyright, cabinetry designs are plainly not the design of a “building.”

Section 101’s definition of “phonorecords” excludes material objects in which sounds accompany a motion picture or other audiovisual work, including simultaneous live-concert audiovisual recordings.

ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Sagan · filed 2022-10-06

[M]aterial objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed . . ., and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “phonorecords” includes the material object in which the sounds are first fixed. ... In the first sentence of the phonorecords definition, the exclusionary phrase (bolded above) most naturally applies to any recording that includes both sounds and images. ... Guided by the plain language of the exclusionary phrase, we conclude that audiovisual recordings are not covered by Section 115 compulsory licenses.

Section 101 treats an electronic file, or the corresponding segment of a hard disk in which a sound recording is fixed, as a phonorecord and a material object.

London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1 · filed 2008-03-31

Thus, any object in which a sound recording can be fixed is a “material object.” That includes the electronic files at issue here. When a user on a peer-to-peer network downloads a song from another user, he receives into his computer a digital sequence representing the sound recording. That sequence is magnetically encoded on a segment of his hard disk (or likewise written on other media.) With the right hardware and software, the downloader can use the magnetic sequence to reproduce the sound recording. The electronic file (or, perhaps more accurately, the appropriate segment of the hard disk) is therefore a “phonorecord” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 101 treats storage of a digital music file in a server or purchaser's device as fixing a phonorecord, so each new fixation is a reproduction.

Capitol Records, LLC v. Redigi Inc. · filed 2018-12-12

The fixing of the digital file in ReDigi's server, as well as in the new purchaser's device, creates a new phonorecord, which is a reproduction.

Section 101’s definition of publication includes offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group for further distribution, public performance, or public display, and that offer can violate the distribution right under § 106(3).

Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Barker · filed 2008-03-31

As a result, the Court holds that “[t]he offer[ ] to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display,” 17 U.S.C. § 101, can violate the distribution right of Section 106(3).

Under § 101, first sales abroad alone do not establish first publication abroad because an offer can constitute publication before a sale occurs.

Casa Dimitri Corp. v. Invicta Watch Co. of America · filed 2017-09-15

However, even if the first sales took place in those three countries, that is not dispositive of the relevant question because an actual sale is not necessary for publication — rather a mere offer is sufficient.

Section 101 treats webpage copies automatically stored in a computer’s cache or RAM as copies under the Copyright Act.

Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Technologies, Inc. · filed 2007-10-15

The copies of webpages stored automatically in a computer’s cache or random access memory (“RAM”) upon a viewing of the webpage fall within the Copyright Act’s definition of “copy.”

Section 101 defines copies as material objects in which a work is fixed and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated; toys may qualify as copies under that definition.

Quan v. TY, Inc. · filed 2019-03-20

The Act defines "copies" as "material objects . . . in which a work is fixed by any method . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated." 17 U.S.C. § 101. Notably, Ty has not presented, with its current motion, evidence refuting Kim's allegation that he holds copyrights in the fifteen toys. If a jury concludes that Kim owns the copyrights, it could also conclude that Ty owned copies of the toys, which are "material objects" from which Kim's alleged copyright "can be perceived."

Section 101 treats a computer-memory fixation as a “copy” because a copy is a material object fixed by any known or later-developed method.

HB Productions, Inc. v. Faizan · filed 2022-05-13

For both allegations of ripping—ripping of the Blu-Ray disc and the Amazon.com stream—the infringing reproductions occurred when and where an unauthorized copy was fixed into computer memory, i.e., on the computer conducting the ripping process. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (protecting the right to “reproduce the copyrighted work in copies”); id. § 101 (defining “copies” as “material objects . . . fixed by any method now known or later developed”).

Section 101 defines “copies” as material objects in which a work is fixed and from which it can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated; it does not require the copy to be identical.

New Parent World LLC v. True To Life Productions Incorporated · filed 2024-09-24

The language of the DMCA does not require identical copies. The statute defines “copies” as “material objects . . . 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.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “Thus, to qualify as a copy under the DMCA, the allegedly infringing work must be fixed in some tangible form, from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated[.]” Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Galindo, No. 20-CV-3129, 2022 WL 17094713, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022) (cleaned up). This definition lacks any requirement of an identical copy. ADR, 667 F. Supp. 3d at 427.

Section 101’s definition of copies includes ROMs that hold an audiovisual work perceivable with the aid of a machine.

Midway Mfg. Co. v. Artic International, Inc. · filed 1982-03-10

As noted above, the word “copy” is there defined, among other things, as a material object in which the work is fixed “and from which the work can be perceived . . . with the aid of a machine.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. By its very terms, that includes items like videotapes and tape recordings that cannot be read with the naked eye, and definitely covers the ROMs used by Midway in its Pac-Man game.

Section 101’s definition of “copies” covers digital files that fix a work so it can be perceived or reproduced.

Disney Enters., Inc. v. Vidangel, Inc. · filed 2019-03-06

Each of these steps involves "fixing" the work in "material objects" "from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." ... VidAngel therefore copied the Works.

Section 101 treats a work as a potentially infringing copy when it is embodied in a medium for more than a transitory duration.

SimplexGrinnell LP v. Integrated Systems & Power, Inc. · filed 2009-03-31

The Court agrees. To create a potentially infringing “copy” within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, “the work must be embodied in a medium, i.e., placed in a medium such that it can be perceived, reproduced, etc., from that medium (the ‘embodiment requirement’), and it must remain thus embodied for a period of more than transitory duration (the ‘duration requirement’).” Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotations omitted).

Section 101 defines financial gain broadly to include receiving or expecting anything of value, including other copyrighted works.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum · filed 2009-12-07

On the other hand, the plaintiffs correctly point out that the Copyright Act broadly defines “financial gain” as the “receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. File sharing is not far off. Peer-to-peer networks are based on an informal kind of exchange, whereby each user “shares” his or her files and, at the same time, gains access to the files made available by others on the network.

Section 101 defines “financial gain” to include receipt or expected receipt of anything of value, including other copyrighted works, even without direct monetary profit.

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum · filed 2011-09-16

Congress has made it clear, however, that this designation applies even absent direct monetary profit. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. It has defined "financial gain" to include "receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." Id.

Section 101 defines financial gain to include receiving or expecting anything of value, including other copyrighted works; allegations of grants, donations, and expected intellectual property can satisfy that element at the pleading stage.

Internet Archive v. Shell · filed 2007-02-13

The Copyright Act defines financial gain as ... including “receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Shell states in her complaint that Internet Archive received pecuniary benefit from the material it copied from her website by “acquiring continuing grant awards, donations, unjust enrichment and the expectation of acquiring additional intellectual property.” This allegation, while disputed by Internet Archive, is sufficient to satisfy this element of criminal copyright infringement.

Section 101 defines literary works as works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, regardless of the material objects in which they are embodied.

R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC · filed 2009-08-14

And Beck’s reports are “literary works.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (defining the term literary works as “works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, . . . regardless of the nature of the material objects . . . in which they are embodied”); 1 Nimmer on Copyright, supra § 2.04[A], at 2-43 (“The use of the term ‘literary’ in this context does not connote any criterion of literary merit or qualitative value.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Section 101 defines literary works as works expressed in words, including periodicals, which are works of authorship protected by copyright.

Giordano v. Claudio · filed 2010-05-14

We find that the Article falls within the type of works protected by the Copyright Act. “Literary works,” which are “works ... expressed in words” and include periodicals, constitute works of authorship and are thus protected by the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(1). The Article (a copy of which is attached to the Motion to Dismiss) handily fits the definition of a literary work; indeed, it bears a copyright insignia on its first page.

Section 101 treats lyrics as literary works when they are expressions in words.

Batiste v. Najm · filed 2014-06-25

Lyrics are protected by copyright as a “literary work” — an expression “in words.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101’s definition of literary works includes yearbooks.

Knapke v. PeopleConnect Inc · filed 2021-08-10

Applying that definition, the Court agrees with Classmates that advertising yearbooks for purchase is an advertisement of a literary work and exempt from the Law.

Section 101 classifies a display of song lyrics without a series of related visual images as a literary work rather than an audiovisual work.

EMI Entertainment World, Inc. v. Priddis Music, Inc. · filed 2007-05-21

Absent a series of related visual images, e.g., a motion picture, film or video recording, the display of the lyrics represents the display of a “literary” rather than “audiovisual” work.

Section 101 requires a literary work to express authorship in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols; publishing material in book form alone is insufficient.

Craft Smith, LLC v. Ec Design, LLC · filed 2019-05-17

Merely printing or publishing a work into a book form does not create a literary work-the statute requires that a book, greeting card, etc. must also "express" authorship "in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia ..." to qualify as a literary work.

Section 101 treats an exclusive license as transferring copyright ownership, so the licensee may be liable for infringement only by exceeding the license's scope.

Estate of Brown v. Arc Music Group · filed 2013-03-29

Frederick Music obtained the copyright to Lawn’s catalogue when it entered into the exclusive license in 1964; as a result it could be liable for copyright infringement only by exceeding the scope of that license.

Section 101 includes a security interest in the definition of a transfer of copyright ownership.

Aerocon Engineering Inc. v. Silicon Valley Bank (In Re World Auxiliary Power Co.) · filed 1999-12-30

The Copyright Act defines “the transfer of ownership of a copyright” to include the transfer of a security interest.

Section 101 treats an exclusive licensee as the owner of the licensed right, but not as the owner of the underlying copyright.

Morris v. Business Concepts, Inc., James J. Maher and Petra H. Maher · filed 2001-07-26

Based on our understanding of the above provisions, we conclude that Section 101 cannot be read to mean that an owner of an exclusive right is also, thereby, an owner of the underlying copyright.

Section 101 excludes sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work from the definition of a sound recording, so a music video is treated as a single audiovisual work rather than divided into separate sound and visual components.

United States v. American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers · filed 2008-04-30

The difference, however, is immaterial. The copyright law does not divide an audiovisual work into separate sound and visual components. The work is treated as a single, unitary “audiovisual work.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“ ‘Sound recordings’ are works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work....”).

Section 101 says that “including” is illustrative rather than limiting, so a statutory list introduced by that term is not exhaustive.

Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn · filed 2008-07-11

Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, the term “including” is “illustrative” not “limitative” and thus we must interpret the term “agreements to the contrary” under § 304(c)(5) as inclusive of agreements other than the two examples Congress explicitly mentioned.

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

Eyal R.D. Corp. v. Jewelex New York, Ltd. · filed 2008-09-17

On this question, I agree with Eyal and hold as a matter of law that the application requires identification of preexisting or published individual works only for derivative works. 17 U.S.C. § 101 defines a 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.” Section 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. The term ‘compilation’ includes collective works.”

Section 101 treats a movie composed of independent comedic skits as a collective work, with a distinct copyright interest in each skit vesting in its author.

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. · filed 2010-11-03

The movie is a collection of independent comedic skits. Thus, the movie is a collective work, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, ... in each skit which vests in its author.

Section 101 treats a collective work as a type of work distinct from the separate contributions it contains.

Alaska Stock, LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. · filed 2014-03-18

The definitions section defines a “collective work” in the singular, distinguishing it from “contributions” therein. Thus, the statute requires a title for “the work,” in the singular, which would be the collective work in this case. ... This subsection says that the name of the author or authors of “the work” must be provided, the statute defines a “collective work” as being a type of “work,” and here, the author of the collective work was Alaska Stock. ... The “author or authors” that must be listed in this context are the author or authors of the collective work itself, and the applications in this case do name the author of “the work,” Alaska Stock.

Section 101 defines a collective work as a work made up of separate and independent contributions assembled into a collective whole.

Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. CHS Mcpherson Refinery, Inc. · filed 2018-03-14

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."

Section 101 defines a collective work as one assembled from separate and independent contributions, so multiple registered portions do not establish collective-work status without evidence that they are separate and independent from the whole.

C.D.S., Inc. v. Bradley Zetler, CDS LLC · filed 2018-03-31

The fact that defendants registered five different copyrights in Agencypad's code has little or no bearing on whether Agencypad is a collective work, absent evidence that one or more of these five portions is separate and independent from the whole.

Section 101 treats a collective work as a compilation, so separate contributions assembled into a collective whole fall within the compilation definition.

Sullivan v. Flora, Inc. · filed 2019-08-21

The misstep becomes apparent upon recognizing that Congress, in defining “compilation” in § 101 of the Copyright Act, made clear that the term “includes collective works.” So the consequence of the district court characterizing the 33 illustrations as “collective works” was that the illustrations then also constituted a “compilation” and thus, by operation of § 504(c)(1), “all the parts of a compilation”—each of Sullivan’s 33 illustrations—“constitute one work.”

Section 101 includes collective works within the definition of a compilation, and whether protected works form a compilation depends on whether their value lies only in the composite whole or whether each has standalone value.

Sullivan v. Flora, Inc. · filed 2019-08-21

In the end, we conclude, in closer keeping with the approach of the First, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, that § 504(c)(1) requires courts confronted with circumstances with multiple works and multiple infringements to determine, or to charge a jury with fact finding tailored to answering, whether the protected works have value only in and through their composite whole (and thus meet the definition of a “compilation” in § 101) or instead have standalone value at the level of “one work.”

Section 101 defines a collective work as an assemblage of separate and independent contributions and a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials, including collective works.

Ambrosetti v. Oregon Catholic Press · filed 2020-05-07

The relevant Copyright Office regulations, guidance, and caselaw establish that the collective work “I Will Sing” registration does not provide the individual work “Emmanuel” the registration required by Section 411(a). The Copyright Act defines a “collective work” as “a work, such as a periodical issues, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. It also 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. The term ‘compilation’ includes collective works.” Id. The Copyright Act establishes a default presumption that the copyright owner in a collective work has acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the collective work, not the individual, separate contributions.

Section 101 defines a compilation as an original work formed by selecting, coordinating, or arranging preexisting materials, and includes collective works assembled from separate contributions.

UMG Recordings v. Grande Comm · filed 2024-10-09

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.” Id. § 101. The term “compilation” includes “collective works,” which are defined as works “in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” Id.

Section 101's definition of compilation can encompass photographs assembled into a collective whole, treated as one work when calculating statutory damages.

Dell Cullum v. Diamond A Hunting, Inc. · filed 2012-08-08

With respect to damages, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in treating the photographs as a compilation instead of individual works for purposes of calculating damages.

Section 101 requires a compilation to reflect original selection or arrangement; merely joining two independent works for use together does not create a collective work.

Cormack v. Sunshine Food Stores, Inc. · filed 1987-07-29

While it is true that “a compilation consists merely of the selection and arrangement of preexisting material without any material changes,” Nimmer on Copyrights at § 3.02, the resulting work as a whole must also constitute an original work of authorship. 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Its execution, so far as the court can determine, requires no more than the affixing of a staple or a paper clip.

Section 101 treats a book that assembles separate photographs into a collective whole as a collective work and therefore a compilation.

Stokes Seeds Ltd. v. Geo. W. Park Seed Co., Inc. · filed 1991-12-31

Park’s Success with Seeds is therefore a “collective work” under the 1976 Act, and thus also necessarily a compilation.

Section 101’s definition of a collective work does not make separately copyrighted television episodes one work merely because they belong to the same series.

McA Television Ltd. A Delaware Corporation v. C. Elvin Feltner, Jr., J. Clifford Curley · filed 1996-07-26

Along the same lines, we reject Feltner’s argument that each episode was part of a “collective work.” ... 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.” ... Feltner points to a clause in the licensing agreements referring to anthologies and argues that each series at issue here is an anthology. We are not persuaded.

Section 101 permits a directory that arranges data and includes separate independent works to be analyzed as both a compilation and a collective work.

Idearc Media Corp. v. NORTHWEST DIRECTORIES, INC. · filed 2008-05-23

The court finds that the directory has some attributes of both a collective work and a compilation. While the 2006 directory is largely an arrangement of data and preexisting material, it also includes some separate and independent works. Though the dominant character of the 2006 directory is as a compilation, the court deems it appropriate to also analyze it as a collective work.

Section 101 defines a collective work as separate contributions assembled into a whole; a digital replica that preserves the original selection and arrangement retains that collective work's context.

Greenberg v. National Geographic Soc. · filed 2008-06-30

Similar to microfilm or microfiche, the CNG uses the identical selection, coordination, and arrangement of the underlying individual contributions as used in the original collective works.

Photographs registered together as a set constitute a collective work and compilation under § 101 when the copyright holder assembles them as one work.

Minden Pictures, Inc. v. Buzzfeed, Inc. · filed 2019-02-21

The Court finds that under these facts - where a copyright holder chose to "assemble[ ] into a collective whole" certain photographs during the registration of its copyright, i.e. registering them in sets rather than as individual photographic works - the copyright holder has created a "collective work" and "compilation" as those terms are defined in § 101.

Section 101 protects an architectural work’s overall form and original arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, but not individual standard features, ideas, or pragmatic, constructional, and technical requirements.

Platform Architecture & Design, PLLC v. Escobar · filed 2020-08-18

The Copyright Act (“the Act”) grants copyright protection to architectural works. 17 U.S.C. § 101. An “architectural work” is “the design of a building . . . including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. “The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features,” id., such as “common windows, doors, and other staple building components,” H.R.Rep. No. 101–735, at 6949 (1990). “The phrase ‘arrangement and composition of spaces and elements’ recognizes that: (1) creativity in architecture frequently takes the form of a selection, coordination, or arrangement of unprotectible elements into an original, protectible whole; (2) an architect may incorporate new, protectible design elements into otherwise standard, unprotectible building features; and (3) interior architecture may be protected.” Id.; see also id. (The Act does not intend to protect “pragmatic, constructional, and technical requirements.”). “Accordingly, while individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas or concepts are not themselves copyrightable, an architect's original combination or arrangement of such elements may be.”

Section 101 defines an architectural work to include the overall form and the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements, while excluding individual standard features; an original combination or arrangement of those features may be copyrightable.

Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc. · filed 2008-12-22

Since we are dealing with a specific type of copyrightable work, here an architectural work, we begin by examining the statutory definition of an “architectural work,” to wit: “the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2008). A review of the legislative history discloses that such “individual standard features” include “common windows, doors, and other staple building components.” H.R. Rep. No. 101-735 (1990) as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6935, 6949. Including the phrase “the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design” demonstrates Congress’ appreciation that “creativity in architecture frequently takes the form of a selection, coordination, or arrangement of unprotectible elements into an original, protectible whole.” Id. Accordingly, while individual standard features and architectural elements classifiable as ideas or concepts are not themselves copyrightable, an architect’s original combination or arrangement of such elements may be.

Section 101’s architectural-work definition protects a design’s overall arrangement and composition of spaces and elements but excludes individual standard features.

Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC · filed 2010-10-05

Because architectural works are only accorded “thin” protection for their overall arrangement of common elements, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that the differences here are dramatic and overwhelming, and that the similarities between BCAH’s layout and Miller’s floor plan exist only at a broad conceptual level.

Section 101 excludes individual standard features such as windows and doors from the protected scope of an architectural work, while the work may include original protected elements.

Charles W. Ross Builder, Inc. v. Olsen Fine Home Building, LLC · filed 2012-11-08

Moreover, architectural works such as the Bainbridge model, like the furniture designs at issue in Universal Furniture, include a combination of original, protected elements, as well as unoriginal, non-protected elements. Architectural works include the unoriginal, and thus non-protectable, elements like windows, doors, and other individual standard features, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, while furniture pieces include unoriginal, non-protectable elements like “shape and color.” 618 F.3d at 435-37.

Section 101 excludes individual standard architectural features from protection but permits protection for an original arrangement of those features.

Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States · filed 2005-06-30

According to 17 U.S.C. § 101, an architectural work “includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” ... As the Plaintiff has worked in the Pueblo Revival style, the Court cannot look for originality in the mere presence of the elements of the style, but must determine whether the use of the elements of the style was original.

Section 101 protects an architectural work's overall form and arrangement of spaces and elements, but excludes individual standard features.

Design Basics, LLC v. Forrester Wehrle Homes, Inc. · filed 2018-03-27

Copyright protection in such works extends to "the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features." Id.

Section 101 excludes individual standard features from protection as an architectural work, though their arrangement may be protected.

Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, Inc. · filed 2012-12-20

In this case, the alleged common features—a rectangular bar, booth seating, “high-top” tables—are standard for a sports bar or restaurant and, as such, as not protectable.

Under § 101, turning a client's rough sketches into finished art through creative design is more than mechanical transcription and may make the designer a joint author.

Fleming v. Miles · filed 2001-06-14

The process by which those rough sketches were transformed into the finished art was not a mere “rote or mechanical transcription that does not require intellectual modification or highly technical enhancement ...” Andrien, 927 F.2d at 135. It required and utilized the talents of a graphics designer, which is why Fleming retained the services of Frazier and Miles. From the record before the court, Miles appears to be at least a joint author of the Kyrie Eleison insert and the Ticket Postcard, the only two items in which she has claimed a copyright.

Section 101 requires contributors to intend that their contributions merge into one work to qualify as joint authors.

Berg v. Symons · filed 2005-09-30

Under the Copyright Act, two or more authors of a protected work must intend that their contributions “be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole” in order to be “joint” or “co — ” authors. 17 U.S.C.A. § 101. ... Weaver’s testimony also indicates that he did not intend to be a co-author of any of Berg’s designs. The record does not provide a sufficient basis to invalidate the copyrights because of Berg’s failure to list Weaver as a coauthor.

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

Maxwood Music Ltd. v. Malakian · filed 2010-05-17

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.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

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

Woods v. Resnick · filed 2010-08-18

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 a joint work the coauthors hold undivided interests in a work, despite any differences in each author’s contribution.

Section 101 defines a joint work as a work created by two or more authors intending their contributions to form inseparable or interdependent parts of one whole, so co-authorship requires mutual intent.

Brooks v. Dash · filed 2021-07-07

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.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. A co-authorship claimant must show, inter alia, “that ‘each of the putative co-authors . . . fully intended to be co-authors.’” 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d 247, 255 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1998)). To determine whether this mutual intent requirement is satisfied, a court conducts a “nuanced inquiry into factual indicia of ownership and authorship, such as how a collaborator regarded herself in relation to the work in terms of billing and credit, decisionmaking, and the right to enter into contracts.” Thomson, 147 F.3d at 201 (citing Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500, 508–09 (2d Cir. 1991)). ... However, in light of the District Court’s findings noted above, these alleged contributions to the film do not evince mutual intent of co-authorship; rather, they reflect the provision of services for which Brooks offered to split the film’s profits 50/50.

Section 101 defines a joint work by the authors’ intent to merge their contributions into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole, and treats a work as fixed when its embodiment is sufficiently permanent or stable to be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a transitory duration.

Ross v. Dejarnetti · filed 2021-08-02

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.” ... “The touchstone of the statutory definition ‘is the intention at the time the writing is done that the parts be absorbed or combined into an integrated unit.’” ... “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.” ... When viewed in the light most favorable to Dejarnetti, there is some evidence suggesting that the Choreographic Works were recorded. Therefore, the Court concludes that summary judgment must be denied on this issue.

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

Stillwater Ltd v. Basilotta · filed 2022-05-11

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.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Stillwater has not proved joint authorship by a preponderance of the evidence. ... Because we conclude that Stillwater has failed to prove that Mathieson is a co-author under the three factors discussed above, we do not reach Basilotta’s other arguments pertaining to joint authorship or her statute-of-limitations argument.

Section 101 defines a joint work based on the authors’ intent to merge their contributions into an interdependent or inseparable unitary whole, without requiring an intent to attain joint-author status.

Beard v. Helman · filed 2024-03-06

The Copyright Act’s statutory language “appears to make relevant only the state of mind regarding the unitary nature of the finished work.” Under this reading, joint authors need only intend to collaborate on the joint work. ... As explained below, I hold that joint authors need only share the intent to collaborate on an interdependent or indivisible unitary work; not that there is a further requirement that they contemplate a joint authorship status.

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

Complex Systems, Inc. v. ABN Ambro Bank N.V. · filed 2013-10-25

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

Section 101's definitions make an unfinished work protectable when the portion completed is fixed, so VARA covers an unfinished work that would qualify as a protected work of visual art if completed.

Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Foundation, Inc. v. Büchel · filed 2010-01-27

It cannot be disputed that, at least by the time Büchel left North Adams in December 2006, "Training Ground" was "fixed" within the meaning of the Copyright Act – i.e., materials had been placed in Building 5 "by or under the authority of the author" in a "sufficiently permanent or stable" manner to allow the work to be "communicated for a period of more than transitory duration." 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... Büchel thus had rights in the work that were protected under VARA, notwithstanding its unfinished state.

Section 101 excludes advertising and promotional materials from the definition of a protected work of visual art under VARA.

Kleinman v. City of San Marcos · filed 2010-02-10

these findings, which are not clearly erroneous, indicate that the car-planters are “promotional” material and thus outside of the VARA’s protection.

Section 101 does not categorically exclude architectural works from the definition of a work of visual art; architectural plans or drawings may qualify based on the pleaded facts.

Michael Pellis Architecture PLC v. M.L. Bell Construction LLC · filed 2023-09-22

The facts alleged in the Amended Complaint plausibly establish that Mr. Pellis’ architectural drawings and plans (“Architectural Work’) constitute a work of visual art within the scope of the statute. ... Congress added the definition of a “work of visual art” at the same time that it enacted the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (“AWCPA”). Pub. L. No. 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089 (1990). The AWCPA added to § 101 the definition of “architectural work,” which includes “architectural plans[] or drawings.” See 17 U.S.C. § 101. The Court may infer from the statutory context that if Congress meant to exclude all architectural work from VARA, it would have done so more explicitly.

Section 101 requires a photographic print claimed as a VARA work of visual art to have been produced solely for exhibition, even if its negative may qualify separately.

Lilley v. Stout · filed 2005-07-19(2)

The photographic prints at issue — those that were “reviewed” with defendant and comprise “Red Room at Five” — therefore were not “produced for exhibition purposes only.”

Section 101’s definition of a work of visual art excludes trophy design drafts that do not exist as a single copy or a limited set of signed and numbered copies.

National Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Scharle · filed 2006-06-21

The court determined that Scharle’s works were drafts which did “not exist in a single copy or a limited quantity of signed and numbered copies, but instead as multiple attempts to arrive at the optimal design for the trophy.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 21, Appx. R-662. ... We agree with the district court’s conclusion.

Section 101 excludes a nonexclusive license from the definition of a transfer of copyright ownership, so the writing requirement in § 204(a) does not apply to a nonexclusive license.

Ehmann, Eric v. Metropulos, Nicholas · filed 2021-03-04

Still, the court will RESERVE pending further input from the parties because the alleged licensing agreement was non-exclusive and is not required to be in writing.

Section 101 exempts non-exclusive copyright licenses from the writing requirement that applies to exclusive transfers.

Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. · filed 2010-04-02

The Copyright Act requires a writing for all exclusive transfers of copyright. See 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). However, non-exclusive licenses are exempt from this writing requirement, see 17 U.S.C. § 101, and “may be granted orally, or may even be implied from conduct,” Jarrod Maxwell, Inc. v. Veeck, 110 F.3d 749, 752 (11th Cir. 1997).

Section 101 permits a nonexclusive copyright license to be granted orally or implied from conduct, unlike an exclusive-rights grant, which must be in writing under § 204(a).

Associated Press v. Meltwater U.S. Holdings, Inc. · filed 2013-03-21

Thus, a nonexclusive license can be granted orally or it can be implied from conduct.

Section 101 treats an exclusive license as a transfer of copyright ownership, while a nonexclusive license is not a transfer of ownership and therefore is not subject to § 204’s writing requirement.

Murphy v. Lazarev · filed 2014-10-17

Under 17 U.S.C. § 101, an exclusive license is a “transfer of copyright ownership” and therefore “is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent.” 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). In contrast, “[a] non-exclusive license may be granted orally, or may be implied from conduct.” Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 500 (6th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original) (quoting M. Nimmer and D. Nimmer, 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 10.03[A], at 10–38 (1994)). This is true because a nonexclusive license is not a transfer of ownership under 17 U.S.C. § 101 “and is not, therefore, subject to the writing requirement of § 204.”

Section 101 distinguishes an exclusive license, which transfers copyright ownership and requires a writing under § 204(a), from a nonexclusive license, which may be oral or implied from the copyright owner’s conduct.

Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLC · filed 2015-05-07

A copyright owner can transfer copyright ownership through the grant of an exclusive license, but the grant must be in writing. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 204(a); MacLean Assocs., 952 F.2d at 778. Alternatively, a copyright owner may allow another to use the copyrighted material without transferring ownership in the material through the grant of a nonexclusive license. ... The grant of a nonexclusive license does not require a writing under the Copyright Act, and it may occur orally or may be implied from the copyright owner’s conduct. Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 601 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir. 2010); see 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 204(a).

Section 101 treats a nonexclusive license as something other than a transfer of copyright ownership, so granting a particular use does not transfer the copyright owner's ownership rights.

Oliver v. Meow Wolf, Inc · filed 2023-06-16

license is not a transfer of copyright ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 101. Rather, a nonexclusive license permits the use of a copyrighted work in a particular way and precludes a finding of infringement based on the licensed use.

Section 101 treats an exclusive license as a conveyance of copyright ownership, while a non-exclusive license merely authorizes use in a particular manner without transferring ownership.

Flowers, Inc. d/b/a burton + BURTON v. Springhill Floral & Gift Supply Co. d/b/a DIRECTFLORAL · filed 2025-10-27

An exclusive license is a type of conveyance of copyright ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 101. As a conveyance of copyright ownership, an exclusive license must be in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). However, a non-exclusive license is not a transfer of copyright ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 101. “Rather[,] a non-exclusive license merely permits the use of the copyright in a particular manner.” OverDrive, Inc., 2017 WL 11367906, at *5 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Section 101 treats an exclusive license as a transfer of copyright ownership, while a nonexclusive license is not such a transfer.

Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC · filed 2026-05-05

Under the Copyright Act, an “exclusive license” is a “transfer of copyright ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... On the other hand, a nonexclusive license is not a “transfer of copyright ownership.” 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101 excludes nonexclusive licenses from § 204(a)’s writing requirement, allowing them to arise from the parties’ conduct.

Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions, Inc., et · filed 2012-08-31

Although we find the majority of Baisden’s arguments on implied nonexclusive license waived, we address them to clarify and reaffirm our holding in Lulirama. ... We observed that § 101 of the Copyright Act expressly excludes nonexclusive licenses from § 204(a)’s writing requirement, and affirmed the district court’s holding that the parties’ conduct granted defendant a nonexclusive license in the jingles by implication.

Section 101 treats a license as exclusive when the licensed rights are exclusive within their geographic and time limits.

In Re Golden Books Family Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2001-11-08

Under copyright law, even if one licenses a right that is limited in geographic or temporal scope, if that right is nonetheless exclusive within those parameters, it is an exclusive grant of a copyright.

Section 101 defines displaying a work as showing a copy of it, including through a device or process, rather than merely making it available for display.

Vht, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc. · filed 2019-03-15

VHT’s contention that the jury could have reasonably inferred that Zillow made “available for public display” all 22,109 “N[OT] DISPLAYED” images similarly fails. This theory presumes that the Copyright Act’s display right encompasses an exclusive right to “make available for display,” a position neither supported by the statute nor embraced by this court. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1160 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[B]ased on the plain language of the statute, a person displays a photographic image by using a computer to fill a computer screen with a copy of the photographic image fixed in the computer’s memory.”); 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“To ‘display’ a work means to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially.”).

Section 101 defines displaying a work as showing a copy directly or through a device or process, or showing individual images nonsequentially for a motion picture or other audiovisual work.

Miller v. Haredim Consulting Inc. · filed 2020-08-26

As to whether Defendant Haredim engaged in unauthorized copying of the photograph, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Haredim took the photograph from an online article in the New York Times and used it on its own website without authorization. ... Here, Defendant Haredim at the very least displayed the copyrighted photograph publicly by placing the photograph on its website for the public to see. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (stating that to display a work means “to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a slide, television image, or any other device or process, or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show individual images nonsequentially”).

Section 101’s definition of “display” covers showing a copy of a copyrighted work, which here included a retweet of the photograph.

Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Chicken Joes, LLC · filed 2024-02-01

Thus, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, Defendant’s retweet of Plaintiff’s copyrighted photograph “shows a copy” which constitutes “display” of a work as defined by the Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101’s definition of “display” includes showing a copy of a work on a device, including through a website.

Kinon Surface Design, Inc. v. Hyatt International Corporation · filed 2020-12-04

But the relevant act of infringement alleged in this action against the Hyatt Defendants is the distribution of images of the Work, without Kinon’s authorization, on the Hotel’s website to people viewing those images in the United States. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 90, 96, 105, 114, 123); c.f. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 107 (granting copyright holders the exclusive right to “display” the copyrighted work, “display” meaning, inter alia, to show a copy on a device).

Section 101 defines displaying a work to include showing a copy through a device or process, including images viewed on computer monitors.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc. · filed 1997-12-11

To display a work means “to show a copy of it, either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other ... device or process.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. Webb-world allowed its paying subscribers to view PEI’s copyrighted works on their computer monitors while online.

Section 101 excludes purely functional, utilitarian, or mechanical aspects from derivative-work originality analysis, but an aesthetically distinctive feature that is conceptually separable from the function may potentially qualify for copyright protection.

Direct Technologies, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc. · filed 2016-09-06

First, courts address the question whether any aspects of the work seeking copyright protection “are purely functional, utilitarian or mechanical.” Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1221 (9th Cir. 1997) (hereinafter ERG) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 101 (describing the limitations on copyrighting mechanical or utilitarian aspects of a work)). If so, “any differences in appearance between a derivative work and the preexisting work which are not conceptually separable from any utilitarian, functional or mechanical purposes” are set aside and excluded from the determination “whether sufficient artistic differences exist to constitute ‘originality.’” ... Of course, the mere feature of having a USB flash drive that can be removed from the PlumbBob object is not copyrightable; that is a functional attribute “necessitated by the fact” that the 3-D PlumbBob was designed for use as a USB flash drive. ERG, 122 F.3d at 1223. But the “cut away” manner in which the flash drive is to be removed is potentially non-functional. ... There is a genuine issue of material fact whether the unique and creative manner in which DT designed the USB drive to fit into the PlumbBob was non-functional and could potentially qualify for copyright protection.

Section 101 excludes mechanical or utilitarian aspects from copyright protection and protects artistic craftsmanship only insofar as its form, not those aspects, is concerned.

Grondin v. Fanatics Inc · filed 2024-12-27

The definitional section of the Copyright Act excludes “mechanical or utilitarian” aspects of copyrighted “sculptural works” from protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 101. It defines “[p]ictorial graphic, and sculptural works” to “include works of artistic craftmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.” Id. An aspect of a work is “utilitarian” within the meaning of copyright law so long as it is “intrinsically useful” for the realization of an idea.

Section 101 protects the artistic form of a sculptural work, but not its mechanical or utilitarian aspects.

Lego A/S v. Zuru Inc. · filed 2025-03-26

For sculptural works like Lego’s Minifigure, copyright law does not protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of the work. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“[Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural] works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned.”). Indeed, “[t]he functional aspects of a work are governed by patent law, not copyright law.” Zalewski, 754 F.3d at 106 n.19 (citing Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 104 (1879)).

Section 101 treats fixed recordings of live performances as works within the subject matter of copyright.

Dryer v. National Football League · filed 2016-02-26

Although courts have recognized that the initial performance of a game is an “athletic event” outside the subject matter of copyright, Nat’l Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 846 (2d Cir. 1997), the Copyright Act specifically includes within its purview fixed recordings of such live performances, 17 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 101(A)(i) excludes applied art from the definition of a work of visual art, and applied art is an object that initially served a utilitarian function and continues to do so after artistic embellishment or alteration.

Cheffins v. Stewart · filed 2016-06-08(A)(i)

We therefore hold that an object constitutes a piece of “applied art” — as opposed to a “work of visual art” — where the object initially served a utilitarian function and the object continues to serve such a function after the artist made embellishments or alterations to it.

Section 101 excludes applied art and merchandising items from a work of visual art, with applied-art status turning on whether the object continues to serve a real utilitarian function.

Lew v. The City of Los Angeles · filed 2021-08-31

The Act also provides that a “work of visual art does not include” “any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, . . . or similar publication; [or] . . . any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container . . . .” 17 U.S.C. § 101. ... The focus, as articulated in Cheffins, is whether the objects—the tote bags—“in fact continue[d] to serve real utilitarian functions.”

Section 101 makes clear that “including” and “such as” are illustrative, not exhaustive.

Tresona Multimedia, LLC v. Burbank High Vocal Music · filed 2020-03-24

But that does not end our inquiry because the preamble’s “text employs the terms ‘including’ and ‘such as’ . . . to indicate the ‘illustrative and not limitative’ function of the examples given.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101).

Section 101 makes the Copyright Act’s examples introduced by “including” and “such as” illustrative rather than limiting, so a work need not fit a listed § 102(a) category to fall within copyright’s subject matter.

Orthoflex, Incorporated v. Thermotek, Incor · filed 2017-11-14

ThermoTek also faults the district court for not requiring Wilford and Thermo Compression to identify which § 102(a) categories applied to each piece of intellectual property. This argument also founders because § 102(a)’s list is “illustrative and not limitive.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The task was to show that ThermoTek’s allegedly misappropriated intellectual property fell within copyright’s subject matter, not to find the right § 102(a) label.