## Facts

- Lois B. Morris wrote a series of articles for *Allure* magazine.
- Condé Nast, the publisher of *Allure*, registered copyrights for the magazine issues as collective works.
- The collective-work registrations did not name Morris or separately identify/register her individual articles.
- Morris did not obtain separate copyright registrations for her individual articles.
- Business Concepts, Inc. published newsletters that reproduced Morris’s *Allure* articles verbatim (approximately 1994–1998).
- Morris sued for copyright infringement, seeking statutory damages and relying on Condé Nast’s collective-work registrations to satisfy the registration prerequisite for suit.

## Issues

1. Whether registration of magazine issues as collective works satisfied 17 U.S.C. § 411(a)’s registration requirement for an infringement suit based on unregistered individual articles contained in those issues.
2. Whether the definition of “copyright owner” (17 U.S.C. § 101) supports the view that owners of particular exclusive rights can qualify as “copyright owners” for § 411(a) purposes.
3. On rehearing, whether the panel should withdraw or revise its earlier reasoning suggesting there is only a single copyright in a work and that an owner of a particular right is not a “copyright owner.”

## Decision

- The Second Circuit denied rehearing and left intact the prior judgment affirming dismissal of Morris’s infringement action for failure to satisfy § 411(a).
- The court modified its earlier opinion by withdrawing Part I and retracting its categorical statement that an owner of a particular exclusive right is not a “copyright owner.”
- The court acknowledged that § 101 and Supreme Court discussion of copyright as separable exclusive rights cast doubt on the “single copyright in a work” formulation.
- The court nonetheless concluded Morris’s challenges to the remaining analysis were unpersuasive and did not change the outcome: the collective-work registrations did not suffice to allow Morris’s suit over her individual articles.

## Legal Principles

- Under pre-2010 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), a plaintiff generally may not institute an infringement action until a copyright claim has been registered.
- Registration of a collective work does not necessarily satisfy § 411(a) for claims based on individual contributions that were not separately registered.
- The statutory definition of “copyright owner” in 17 U.S.C. § 101 is framed by reference to ownership of particular exclusive rights, which can be separately owned.
- Even if multiple persons may qualify as “copyright owners” with respect to different exclusive rights, it remains a distinct question whether one owner’s registration can satisfy § 411(a) for another owner’s rights in the same material.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit kept the dismissal of Morris’s infringement claims because the registration prerequisite was not met for her individual articles, while narrowing its reasoning on rehearing by withdrawing broad language implying that only a unitary copyright holder can be a “copyright owner” for § 411(a) purposes.


Morris v. Bus. Concepts, Inc., 283 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2002)