## Facts

- Prince used an unpronounceable symbol as his identifier beginning in 1992; the symbol functioned as a trademark and as a copyrighted visual artwork used on licensed merchandise.
- Although Prince did not register the symbol’s copyright until 1997, he owned copyright protection in the symbol beginning in 1992; registration was required to sue for infringement but not to obtain protection.
- In 1993, Ferdinand Pickett fabricated a guitar in the shape of Prince’s symbol and conceded the guitar was a derivative work of the symbol.
- Pickett claimed he showed the guitar to Prince and later saw Prince publicly appear with a similar guitar.
- In 1994, Pickett sued Prince in federal court for copyright infringement based on the guitar.
- Prince counterclaimed for infringement, later amending the counterclaim in 1997 after acquiring and registering the symbol’s copyright.
- The district court granted summary judgment against Pickett, holding he had no right to create an unauthorized derivative work, and dismissed Prince’s amended counterclaim as time-barred under a three-year limitations period.

## Issues

1. Whether an unauthorized creator of a derivative work may obtain enforceable copyright protection in the derivative work sufficient to maintain an infringement action against the owner of the underlying copyrighted work.
2. Whether Prince’s amended infringement counterclaim was timely under the three-year statute of limitations and whether it was error to deny reconsideration after a clear limitations miscalculation.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Pickett on his infringement claim.
- The court held Pickett’s conceded derivative guitar was unauthorized and could not be used as a basis to sue the underlying copyright owner.
- The court reversed the dismissal of Prince’s amended counterclaim as untimely.
- The court held the limitations ruling reflected a simple deadline-calculation error because the due date fell on a weekend, making the next business day timely.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on Prince’s infringement counterclaim.

## Legal Principles

- The copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works; a non-owner has no independent right to create derivative works without authorization.
- Copyright protection in a derivative work extends only to the author’s original contributions and does not validate unlawfully made derivative works.
- Section 103(a) limits the scope of protection in derivative works but does not authorize creation of derivative works that infringe the underlying copyright.
- For federal filing deadlines, when the last day falls on a weekend, filing on the next business day is timely.
- A court should correct an obvious technical limitations error when properly raised on reconsideration, particularly where leaving it uncorrected forces unnecessary appellate review.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that an unauthorized derivative-work creator cannot sue the underlying copyright owner based on that derivative work, and it reinstated the copyright owner’s counterclaim because it was timely under the weekend deadline rule, remanding for merits proceedings.


Pickett v. Prince, 207 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2000)