FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble David G. T rag er, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w * York sitting by

desig nation . [ P U B L I S H ] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1696 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 97-03924 -CV -A MS JERR Y GREENBERG, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY, a D istri ct of Co lum bia c or por at ion , NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ENTERPRISES, INC ., a co rp or at io n, M INDSCAPE, INC., a Cal ifo rn ia co rp or at io n, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 13, 200 7) Before BA RKE TT , KRAV IT CH, Circuit Judges, and TR AG ER , District Judge.

*17 U. S.C. § 2 01 (c ) w a s a dd e d to the c op y ri g ht s tatut e a s p art

of the 19 76 ame ndme nts to 1 the 19 09 Ac t, a

nd pr ov ide s: (c ) C ont r ibut ion s t o C oll e c ti ve Wo r ks. -- Cop y ri g ht i n e a c h s e pa

rate contribution to a collec tive work is distinct from copy rig ht in the collective work a s a whole, a

nd vests initially

in the author of the contribution. In the absenc e of a

n express transfe r of the c opy rig ht or of any

rig hts under it, the owner of copy rig ht in the collective wor k is presumed to have acquir ed only the privileg e of r eproduc ing a nd distributing the contr ibution as part of that particula r collec tive work, a

ny revision of that c ollective wor k, and any

later c oll e c tiv e wo rk

in t he same se ri e s. 2 TR AG ER , D istrict Judg e: This case presents the questio n of whether § 201 (c) of the Copyright Act 1 accords a m agazine publish er a privilege to produ ce a digit al com pilation that co nta ins e xa ct

im ag es of

it s pa st m ag az ine iss ue s. T his c as e co m es be fo re thi s Co urt f or ase co nd t im e an d r equir es ade te rm inatio n w he the r anint er ve nin g Suprem e Court case , N ewYork T im es Co. v. T asini, 533 U. S. 483 (200 1), ab r o g a t e s an e a r l i e r

d e c i s i o n i n th i s c a s e , Gr e e nb e r g v . Na t ' l Ge o g r ap h i c S o c ' y, 244 F. 3d 1 267 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) ( "G re enbe rg I ") , suc h th at w e ar e boun d to ov erru le Green be rg I, whi ch he ldth atth e d ig it al co m pi la ti on was n ot pri vi le ge d. I. PROCEDURAL HI STO RY N at ion al G eo gr ap hic S oc ie ty ( "the S oc ie ty ") , N at ion al G eo gr ap hic En t e r p r i s e s , I n c . ( " N G E" ) an dM i n d s c ap e , I n c . ( " M i n d s c ap e " ) ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, "N at ion al G eo gr ap hic " o r "de fe ndants ") appe al f ro m af ina l or de r an d j udgm en t ofThe c omplaint alleg ed five counts, three of which r elated to the CNG . Def endants filed 2 an answ er to the non- CNG-re lated counts, whic h wer e subseque ntly dismiss ed with pre

judice on Dec . 28, 1999. 3 the D istri ct

Co urt f or the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida e nte ri ng j udgm en t a s a m atte r of lawa ga ins t the m

on the iss ue of

li ab ili ty and f oll ow ing aj ur

y tr ia l so le ly on the iss ue s of

dam ag es and w ill fu lne ss. Je rr y G re enbe rg ( "G re enbe rg ") and h is wife Idaz G reenberg f

iled a com

plaint and am ended com

plaint allegin g that de fe ndants inf

ri nge d G re enbe rg ' s c opy

ri ght s inpho tog ra

phs that or igi na lly

r anin se ve ra l i ssu es of

N at ion al G eo gr ap hic m ag az ine w he n de fe ndants r el ea se d " T he Com plete National Geographic" ("CN G") , a thirty -disc CD -RO M set that re pr oduc es e ac h m onthly iss ue of N at ion al G eo gr ap hic m ag az ine f ro m it s f ir st iss ue in 1888 thr oughthe la te tw en tie th c en tur y . D ef en dants f ile d am oti on t o dis m iss on the gr ound

that the S oc ie ty

ha d apr ivi le ge to publ ishar ev isi on o f the 2 or igi na lly li ce nse d w orks unde r 17 U . S. C. § 20 1( c) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m ot io n. Th atde ci si on was re ve rs edby thi s C ou rt i n Gre en be rg I. T w en ty day s a ft er

e ntr y of thi s C ourt' s m an da te in G re enbe rg I , de fe ndants fi le d answ er s, r ai sin g a ff

irm at ive de fe nse s f

or the f ir st t im e. P ur suant t o it s unde rs tandi ng o f thi s C ourt' s m an da te , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d j udgm en t f or plaintiffs and, on m otion by plaintiffs, struck defe ndants' answers. T he district co urt r ef er re d th e iss ue s of

dam ag es and w ill fu lne ss t o am ag istrate j udge , w hoTh e maximumstatut or y dama g e awa

rd fo r w ill fu l in fr ing e me nt h a s si nc e inc re a se d to 3 $150,000 for e ach w ork that is infring ed. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) . 4 conducted a jury

trial. T he j ury

returned a ver dict of willfulness and awarded pla int if f the m ax im

um statut or y dam ag es f

or w ill fu l c opy

ri ght inf ri nge m en t: $400 ,000, or $100,000 for eac h occurrence . 3 Thre e m onth s after

Gr eenberg I w as decided, the S uprem e Court decided Tasi ni , whi ch elu ci da te d a tes t fo r th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e § 20 1( c) p riv il eg e. Subsequentl y , the S econd Circuit, dec iding a ca se brought by other photo graphers and authors whose works we re included in the CNG , held that the CN G w as pr ivi le ge d un de r § 20 1( c) and f ound that G re enbe rg I w as "c ontrary to" the Su pr em e Co urt' s su

bse que nt d ec isi on i n T as ini . F au lkn er v. N at ' l G eo gr ap hic E nte rs . I nc . , 409 F . 3d 2 6 ( 2d C ir . ), c er t. de nie d, ___

U . S. ___ , 126 S . Ct . 833 (2 00 5) . II . BACKGROUND Gr eenberg is a fr eelance phot ographer whose photog raphs wer e publish ed in the January

1962 , F ebruary

1968 , May

1971 and July1990 issues of National G eo gr ap hic m ag az ine . I n e ac h in stanc e, a ft er the ir ini tia l pu bli catio n inthe m ag az ine , G re enbe rg r eg ai ne d owne rs hip of the c opy ri ght s inthe pho tog ra

phs he had originallyassigned to National Geographic. For deca des, the Socie ty has5

re pr oduc ed

ba ck iss ue s of the m ag az ine in boun d vo lum es , m ic ro fi ch e an d m ic ro fil m . In 1 99 7, Nat io na l Geo gr ap hi c p ro du cedth e CNG, a th irt y -d is c CDRO M s et c ont ai nin g e ac h m onthly iss ue of the m ag az ine f

or the 108 y ears f

ro m 18 88 th ro ug h 1 99 6 –a co ll ect io n o f so m e 1 20 0 i ss ue s o f th e m ag azi ne . The CNG is an im age-based re productio n of the m agazine; every page of ever

y issue appears ex ac tly a s it did in the or igi na l pa

pe r ve rs ion . T he CN G doe s no t pr ovi de am eans for the user to separate the photo graphs from the text or to otherwise edit the pages i n an y wa y. The C NGalso contains a com puter program , c reate d by Mindscape, which com presses and decom

presses the im ages and allows the user to sear ch an el ec tr oni c ind ex . T he CN G f urthe r co nta ins an in tr oduc tor y se que nc e that be gin s when the user inserts the disc into a drive. T his sequ ence starts w ith a Kodak adve rt ise m en t, w hic h is f oll ow ed by am ovi ng d isp lay

of the S oc ie ty ' s lo go and the m e song and the n a25- se co nd s eg m en t i n w hic h te n im ag es of a ct ua l m ag az ine co ve rs f ro m pa st i ssu es ( inc lud ing G re enbe rg ' s January 196 2 c ove r phot ogr ap h) di gi ta ll y fad e in to on e an ot he r. T he S oc ie ty

r eg ist er ed

it s c opy ri ght of the CN G in 1998 . O n th e registration form , the S ociety claim ed that the work had not been registered be fo re , but

ind ic at ed that i t w as a"c om

pil at ionof

pr e- ex ist ing m at er ia l pr im ar ily6

pi ct or ia l," to whi ch a "b rie f in tro du ct ory au di ov is ua l m on ta ge " h adbe en ad de d. G re enbe rg I , 244 F . 3d at 12 70. Green be rg fil edsu it in Decem be r 19 97 , all eg in g, i nt er al ia , th atth e CNG inf ri nge d hi s c opy

ri ght s inhis ind ivi dua l ph oto gr ap hs. B ef or e an sw er ing , defendants m oved to d ism iss tho se claim s, or, in the alternative, for sum m ary j udgm en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, r el y ing on the r ea soni ng i n th e dis tr ic t c ourt op ini on in Tasini v. N ewYork T im es Co., 972 F. Supp. 804 (S. D. N. Y. 1997 ), granted summ ary j udgm ent in defendants' favor on the copyright claim s. T he district co urt no te d th at

§ 20 1( c) gr an ts the pub lis he r of ac oll ec tiv e w ork ac opy ri ght on the c oll ec tiv e w ork a s aw hol e, w hil e the auth or of an in div idu al c ontri but ionto a co lle ct ive w ork r ec ei ve s ac opy ri ght in that i ndi vid

ua l c ontri but ion . B ec au se the CNGreproduced the entire c ollective work as a whole, the district court held that the CN G w as pr ivi le ge d un de r § 20 1( c) and tha t de fe ndants did not inf ri nge G re enbe rg ' s c opy

ri ght s inthe ind ivi dua l ph oto gr ap hs. On M arch 11 , 20 01 , th is Co ur t re ve rs ed . Green be rg I, 24 4 F .3d12 67 . G re enbe rg I se parate ly

ana ly ze d w ha t i t c onsi de re d th e thr ee c om pone nts of

the CN G : the intro duc tor

y se que nc e (" Se que nc e" ), the dig ita lly r ep ro duc ed

iss ue s of the m ag az ine the m se lve s ( "R ep lic a" ), and the c om put er pr ogr am ( "P ro gr am ") . I d. at 1269. This Court assum ed, w ithou t deciding, that the Replica w as privileged7

under § 201 (c), but refused to apply the privilege to the Program or the Sequence, whi ch itch arac te riz edas s ep arat el y co pyrig ht ab le ele m en ts . Id. at 12 72 -7 3. Taking all three c om

ponent s together, this Court held that the CNG is a new pr oduc t " in a

ne wm ed ium , f

or ane wm ar

ke t tha t f ar tr an sc en ds any

pr ivi le ge of re vis ionor

oth er m er e re pr oduc tio n e nvi sio ne d in§ 20 1( c) . " I d. a t 12 73. T he Co urt r ej ec te d N at ion al G eo gr ap hic ' s de fe nse that us e of the 196 2 ph oto gr ap h in the S eque nc e w as af

ai r use or de m ini m

us. I d. a t 12 74- 75. I n it s c onc lus ion , the Co urt r em an de d th e ca se , and s ta te d th at "[ u] pon re m an d, the c ourt be lowis dir ec te d to e nte r j udgm en t onthe se c opy ri ght c la im s inf

av or of G re enbe rg . " T he Co urt f urthe r dir ec te d th at , "[ u] pon re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d a sc er ta in the am ount of dam ages and attorney s fees that ar e due as w ell as any injunctive relief that m ay be appropriate. " D ef en dants m ove d f

or r eh eari ng, not ing that the re w as no b as is f or thi s Co urt t o di re ct

the e ntr y of j udgm en t i n G re enbe rg ' s f av or on l ia bil ity , a s no ne of N at ion al G eo gr ap hic ' s de fe nse s othe r than § 2 01( c) ha d be ena dj udi cate d. Whil e that pe tit ionw as pe ndi ng, thi s C ourt, sua spo nte , iss ue d ac or

re ct ed opi nio n de le tin g th e se nte nc e dir ec tin g th e dis tr ic t c ourt t o e nte r j udgm en t onthe c opy ri ght cl ai m s inG re enbe rg ' s f

av or and am en din g th e dir ec tio n to a sse ss d am ag es and attor ne y s' f ee s to r ea d: " Upon re m an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d a sc er ta in the8

am ount of dam ag es and atto rn ey s f ee s th at are , if any , due a s w el l a s any inj unc tiv e re lie f that m ay be appr opr ia te . " G re enbe rg I , 244 F . 3d at 12 75- 76. T his Co urt su bse que ntl y

de nie d r eh eari ng. D ef

en dants the n f

ile d ape tit ionf

or aw ri t of ce rt ior ar i by

the S upr em e Co urt, w hic h w as de nie d. N at ' l G eo gr ap hic S oc ' y v. Gr eenberg, 534 U.S . 951 (2001). III. D ISCU SSION O n J u n e 2 5 , 2 0 0 1 , a f

t e r th i s C o u rt ' s d e c i s i o n i n G r e e nb e r g I , th e S up r e me Court handed do wn its decision in Tasini. T asini inv olved th e use of individ ual free lance contribution s in electronic databases that rem oved the ind ividu al contributi ons from

the context of the original collectiv e w ork. T asini, 533 U. S. at 487. T he T as ini c ourt he ld tha t § 201( c) did not appl y the re be ca

use the w orks ha d be enr em ove d f

ro m the ir or igi na l c ont ex t. I d. a t 48 8. In particular, the Suprem e Court focused on how the articles w ere "pr es en te d to , and p er ce pti ble by , the use r of the [ d] at ab as es . " I d. a t 49 9. F ind ing that the da ta

ba se s pr es en te d th e ar

tic le s " cl ear of

the c ont ex t pr ovi de d e ith er by the o r i g i n a l p e r i o d i c a l e d i t i o n s o r b y a n y r e v i s i o n o f

th o s e e d i t i o n s , " th e S up r e me Court concluded th at it could no t "see how the [ d] atabase perc eptiblyreproduces an d di str ibu te s th e ar

tic le ' as part

of ' e ith er the or igi na l e dit ionor

a' re vis ion ' of that e dit ion . " I d. a t 49 9- 500.9

T he S upr em e Co urt di sti ngui she d th e el ec tr oni c da ta ba se s a t i ssu e in T as ini fr om m ic ro fi lm

and m ic ro fi ch e, w hic h pr es en t an in div idu al f re el an ce c ontri but ion in the c ont ex t of

the or igi na l c oll ec tiv e w ork, and i m pli ed , w ith out

dir ec tly statin g, t h a ts u c h c o l l e c t i o n s ar e p r i v i l e g e du n d e r § 2 0 1 ( c ) . I d . a t5 0 1 - 0 2 . T h e S up r e me Co urt no te d th at

in the c as e of

m ic ro fo rm s, "art ic le s a

ppe ar . . . , w ri t ve ry

sm al l, in pr eci se ly the po si ti on in whi ch th e art ic le s ap pe ared in th e n ews pape r." Id . at 5 01 . T he S upr em e Co urt f

urthe r obse rv ed

that i t i s " [t ] ru e [tha t] the m ic ro fi lm r oll co nta ins m

ult ipl e ed iti ons, and the m ic ro fi lm use r can a dj ust

the m ac hin e le ns t o fo cu s on ly

on the art ic le , to the e xc lus ionof sur ro undi ng m at er ia l. N one the le ss, the user first encounters the article in context." Id. at 501. T he Suprem e Court affir m ed that "transfer of a w ork betwee n m edia does not alter the charac ter of that w ork f or c opy ri ght pur pose s, " a c onc ep t kn ow n a s " m ed iane utr al ity . " I d. a t 50 2. Su bse que nt t o T as ini , on M ar ch4, 200 5, the S ec ond Ci rc uit a ff irm ed in relevant part a

summ ary j udgm ent entered by

the District C ourt for the Southern D istri ct of N ewY ork in

f av or of the S oc ie ty

in a co py ri ght a ct ionin w hic h th e pla int if fs , li ke G re en

be rg , w er e fr ee lanc e phot ogr ap he rs and a uth or s w hose phot ographs and/ or wr itten works originallyappeared in various issues of NationalUnlike Gre enber g , none of the Fa ulkner plaintiffs ha d works that we re use d in the 4 Sequence . 10 G eo gr ap hic Ma ga zi ne . F au lkn er , 409 F . 3d 2 6. T he F au lkn er pla int if fs sue d f or 4 co py ri ght inf ri nge m en t f

oll ow ing r ep ubl ic at ionof the ir w ork inthe CN G . O f the six c as es that w er e fi le d natio nw ide c onc er nin g th e CN G , onl y

G re enbe rg w as not fi le d in , or

tr an sf er re d to , the S outhe rnD istri ct of N ewY ork. F au lkn er , 409 F . 3d at 32-33. T he district court in Faulkner refused to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel to give preclusive effe ct to Gr eenberg I and found the CN G to be a pr ivi le ge d r ev isi on unde r § 20 1( c) . I d. a t 30 . T he Co urt of Appe al s f

or the Se co nd C ir cu it ag re ed

w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt, hol din g th at the T as ini de ci sio n "r ep re se nte d an in te rv en ing ( post -G re enbe rg I ) ch an ge in lawpr ec lud ing the ap pli catio n of

c oll at er al e sto ppe l, and [ that] the CN G is a re vis ionf or S ec tio n 201( c) pur

pose s. " I d. A lth oughT as ini w as de ci de d ondif fe re nt f ac ts f ro m F au lkn er and Gr eenberg, the Faulkner court found it telling that the Suprem e Court had given "tacit approval to m icrofilm and m icrofiche a s perm issib le Sec tion 2 01(c) re vis ion s, by

c ontra sti ng tha t m ethod of r ep ro duc tio n w iththe da ta ba se s, " at i ssu e in T as ini , w hic h a llo w ed

ause r to r etri ev e anart ic le in iso la tio n, r em ove d f ro m it s or igi na l c ont ex t. F au lkn er , 409 F . 3d at 35 . T he F au lkn er c ourt di sti ngui she d th e11

an al y sis in G re enbe rg I , w hic h ha d f oc use d onw he the r the thr ee c om pone nts i d e n t i f i e da s c o mp r i s i n g th e C N G - th e S e qu e n c e , th e R e p l i c aan dth e P r o g r a m - we re them selves copyrightable. Id. at 36. T he Faulkner court described G re enbe rg I a s ho ldi ng tha t " if asub se que nt w ork c ont ai ns i nde pe nde ntl y copyrightable elem ents not p resent in the original collective work, it cannot be a revision privi leged by

Sec tion 2 01(c). " Id. at 37. I n contrast, "the Suprem e Court he ld i n T as ini that the c ri tic al ana ly sis f oc use d onw he the r the und er ly ing w orks were p res en te d b y

th e p art ic ul ar d at ab as e in th e co nt ex t o f th e o rig in al work s.... [I ] t a lso str ongl y

im pli ed , by c ontra sti ng the da ta

ba se to m ic ro fi lm , that m ic ro fi lm w oul d c onst itu te apr ivi le ge d r ev isi on. " I d. T he F au lkn er c ourt c onc lud ed : Inour vie w , the T as ini appr oa chso s ubst an tia lly de part s f ro m the G re enbe rg [ I] ana ly sis that i t r ep re se nts an in te rv en ing c hange in la w ren de rin g app li cat io n o f co ll at eral est op pe l i napp ro pr ia te . Id . O n th e m er its , the F au lkn er c ourt he ld tha t, "b ec au se the or igi na l c ont ex t of the [ m ] ag az ine s is om

nip re se nt i n th e CN G and b ec au se it is a ne wve rs ionof

the [m ] agazine, the CN G is a privileged revisio n." I d. at 38. T he Faulkner court additio nally

held that the Sequence w as a re visio n that didnot "sub stantially alter the original cont ext," and, theref ore, did no t affe ct the CN G' s status as a privileged rev is io n. Id .12

U nde r the pr ior

pane l pr ec ed en t r

ule , apane l of

thi s C ourt i s bo und to follow an earlier panel dec ision addressing th e sam e issue of lawunless it h as been overruled by

this Court sitt ing en banc or by the Suprem e Court. See Glaz ner v. Glaz ner, 347 F.3d 1212 , 1214 (11th Cir. 2003) (citing Saxton v. AC F In dus. , I nc . , 254 F . 3d 9 59, 960 n. 1 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( enbanc )) ; L uf kinv. McCallum , 956 F. 2d 11 04, 1107 (11t h Cir. 1992 ) ("Apanel of this Court m ay de cl ine to fo llo wade ci sio n of apr ior pane l i f suc h a ct ionis ne ce ssary in or de r to give full effec t to an intervening decision of the Suprem e Court of the U nited St at es . ") . T he e xc ep tio n to the pr ior pane l pr ec ed en t r

ule is cl ear- cu t w he n a subs eque nt S upr em e Co urt c as e expr es sly ove rr ule s apr ior

pane l de ci sio n, and i t is n o le ss a

ppl ic ab le "whe n th e ratio na le the S upr em e Co urt us es in anint er ve nin g ca se dir ec tly

c ontra dic ts the ana ly sis thi s C ourt ha s us ed in a re la te d are a, and es ta bli she s th at

thi s C ourt' s c ur

re nt r ule is w ro ng. " J ohns on v . K m ar t C or p. , 273 F.3 d 1 03 5, 1 06 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (Bar ke tt , J., co nc urrin g) (em ph as is in ori gi na l). Ta sini creates a new, post-Gree nberg I fr am ew ork for analy zing the § 20 1(c) pr ivi le ge . U nde r the T as ini f ram ew ork, the r el ev an t qu es tio n is w he the r the or ig in al co nt ex t o f th e co ll ect iv e wor k h as be en pre se rv edin th e rev is io n. Cl earl y , the Re pli ca

portio n of

the CN G pr es er

ve s th e or igi na l c ont ex t of the m ag az ine s, be cau se itco m

pr is es th e ex actim ag es of e ach pa ge of t he ori gi na l m ag azi ne s.13

Sim ilarly , the P rogram

is transparent to the viewer and does no t alter the original co nte xt o f the m ag az ine c ont en ts. S ee T as ini , 533 U . S. a t 49 9 ( "I n de te rm ini ng w he the r the A rt ic le s have be enr ep ro duc ed and d istri but ed

' as part of ' a' re vis ion ' of the c oll ec tiv e w orks i n is sue , w e fo cu s onthe A rt ic le s a s pr es en te d to , and pe rcep ti bl e b y , th e u se r of th e Dat ab as es ."). T hus, the tw o r em ai nin g is sue s c en te r on the S eque nc e. F ir st, doe s th e additio n of the Sequence so alter the Replica that the CN G a s a w hole is no longer a privileged revision o f the original m agazines? And second, is the Sequence its el f pr ivi le ge d un de r § 20 1( c) ? A s to the f ir st que sti on, w e ag re e w iththe Se co nd C ir cu it an d ho ld tha t the a ddi tio n of the S eque nc e doe s no t e xti ngui sh the privilege that attaches to the Replica. The additio n of the Sequence to the Replica portion of the CN G am ount s to 25 s econds of "new" m aterial that has been ap pe nde d to som e 1200 int ac t i ssu es of the m ag az ine . F or

gui danc e in de te rm ini ng whe the r thi s a dde d m at er ia l de str oy s th e pr ivi le ge , w e tur n to the le gis la tiv e his tor

y of § 20 1( c) . T he H ouse Re port gi ve s th e fo llo w ing cl ar if ic at ion : [T ] he la st c lause of

the sub se ct ion , und er

w hic h th e pr ivi le ge of republish ing th e contribution under certa in lim ited circum stances w oul d be pr es um ed , is ane sse nti al c ount er part of the ba sic pr es um pti on. U nde r the langua ge of thi s c lause apub lis hin g co m pany c oul d r ep ri nt a

c ontri but ionf

ro m one iss ue in a la te r iss ue14

of it s m ag az ine , and c oul d r ep ri nt an art ic le f ro m a198 0 e dit ionof an en cy cl op ed ia in a 19 90 rev is io n o f it ; t he pu bl is he r co ul d n ot . . . re vis e the c ontri but ionit se lf or inc lud e it in a

ne wanth olo gy

. . . or ane nti re ly

dif fe re nt m ag az ine or

oth er c oll ec tiv e w ork. H . R. Re p. N o. 94- 1476 , a t 12 2- 123 (1 976) , r ep ri nte d in197 6 U . S. C. C. A . N . 565 9, 5738 . It is clear

from the ency clopedia analogythat the additio n of new m aterial to a c oll ec tiv e w ork w ill not , by it se lf , take the r ev ise d c oll ec tiv e w ork ou tsi de the pr ivi le ge , a s ar ev isi on o f ane nc y cl ope dia w oul d a lm ost

by de fi nit ioninc lud e en tr ie s onne wtop ic s. T he que sti on i s w he the r the ne wm at er ia l so a lte rs the co ll ect iv e wor k a s t o d es tro y it s o rig in al co nt ex t. The a dditi on of the Sequence to the Replica pre sents the inv erse of an ex am ple m en tio ne d inT as ini , w he n it not ed : T he D at ab as e no m or e co nst itu te s a"r ev isi on" of e ac h c onst itu en t ed iti on than a400 -p ag e nove l qu oti ng a son ne t i n pa ssi ng w oul d r e p r e s e n ta" r e v i s i o n " o f

th a tp o e m. Ta sini, 533 U.S . at 500. Just as the additi on of 400 pages of prose to a sonnet do es not c onst itu te a"r ev isi on" of the son ne t, the a ddi tio n of apr ef ac e to a 400 -p ag e an tho log y w oul d no t transf

orm the boo k in to a

dif fe re nt c oll ec tiv e w ork. S o it is he re . T he S eque nc e is n oth ing m or e than abr ie f vis ua l i ntr oduc tio n to the Re pli ca , w hic h a ct s a s avir tua l c ove r fo r the c oll ec tio n of m ag az ine s. Jus t a s a ne wc ove r on an e nc y cl ope dia se t w oul d no t c hange the c ont ex t of the e ntr ie s inThe F aulkner district court did not rea ch this question, as the Sequenc e did not use any 5 of the F aulkner

plaintiffs' contributions. Faulkne r v. Nat'l Ge og raphic Soc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 523, 543 n.94 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). An argume nt c ou ld b e ma de , h ow e ve r, that th e Se qu e nc e did , in fa c t, u se the c ov e rs in 6 context. J ust as the orig inal cover provided a

n introduction to the issue of the mag azine to which it w a s atta c he d, the Se qu e nc e re c y c le d p re vio us Natio na l G e ogra ph ic Ma g a zine c ov e rs a s a virtual cove r for

(or introduc tion to) the digital c ompendium of all of the mag azine issues in the CNG. 15 the ency clopedia, the Se quence in no way alters the context in which the original phot ogr ap hs ( as w el l a s th e ar tic le s and a dve rt ise m en ts) w er e pr es en te d. A s to the se co nd que sti on, N at ion al G eo gr ap hic doe s no t c ont en d th at the Sequence itself c om es within the am bit of the § 201 (c) privilege. It concedes that 5 Gr eenberg's 1962 cover photo graph was used out of context in th e introductory m ont ag e and n ote s th at

G re enbe rg I ' s r ej ec tio n of it s de m ini m

us and f ai r use 6 de fe nse s r em ai ns b ind ing . A cc or din gly , w e fo llo wG re en be rg I on this poi nt and hol d th at the S eque nc e is n ot p ri vil eg ed und er § 20 1( c) . A s di sc uss ed

be low , it doe s no t ne ce ssari ly

f oll ow , how ev er , that de fe ndants are li ab le f or inf ri nge m en t of the 196 2 c ove r phot ogr ap h. N at ion al G eo gr ap hic a lso arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by pr ec lud ing it fr om e ve r ra isi ng, in an y

c ourt, any

oth er de fe nse s to c opy

ri ght li ab ili ty . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d pl ai nti ff ' s m oti on t o stri ke de fe ndants ' answ er s: ( 1) be ca use it unde rs too d th is C ourt' s m an da te in G re enbe rg I to not "p er m it re ope nin g of

theJ une 11, 2002 Or der G ranting , in Part, Defs.' Mot. for Additional Orde r of Ref ere nce; 7 Deny ing D efs.' Cross-Mot. For Enla rg ement of Time; a

nd Gra nting Pls.' Mot. to S trike De fs.' Answer s, at 5. I d. at 6. 8 May 29, 2002 Orde r De nying D efs.' Mot. for Interlocutory Appea l, at 6. 9 Th os e de fe ns e s w e re (1 ) c ontr a c tua l a uth or izatio n, (2 ) t

hat th e 19 09 Ac t g ov e rn s so me 10 of the ph oto g ra

ph s, (3 ) f a ilure to s tate a

c la im a nd (4 ) l a c he s a

nd e sto pp e l. 16 lia bil ity iss ue s inthi s c as e; " and ( 2) be ca use the answ er s w er e "un tim el y " and 7 8 de fe ndants "w ai ve d th e ri ght to fi le an answ er " by

f ir st m ovi ng t o di sm iss or , in 9 the a lte rn at ive , f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t un de r § 20 1( c) . R eg ar din g th e fi rs t gr ound , to j ust if y it s pe rc ei ve d " m an da te " t o stri ke N at ion al G eo gr ap hic ' s answ er , the district court quo ted from the portions of G reenberg I that we re late r am ended . I n shor t, N at ion al G eo gr ap hic arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt ov er -r ea d th e G re enbe rg I opi nio n by

hol din g th at

it pr ec lud ed

de fe ndants f

ro m c ont es tin g li ab ili ty

on any gr ound . G re enbe rg r es pond s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt c or

re ct ly int er pr et ed the m an da te a s pr ec lud ing it

f ro m e nte rt ai nin g any

de fe nse to inf

ri nge m en t ( inc lud ing tho se not r ai se d inthe m oti on t o di sm iss ). G re enbe rg the n pr oc ee ds t o r ef ute the four defenses that N ational Geographic ra ised in its later- stricken answer , 10 atte m pti ng t o de m onstrate the f uti lity of tho se de fe nse s inthe abse nc e of ar ec or d. W e re vie wde nov o w he the r a dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly appl ie d am an da te hande d do w n by

thi s C ourt. S ee A lph am ed , I nc . v. B. Br aun M ed . , I nc . , 367 F . 3dIn any event, the ma

ndate of Gre enber gIis moot i n light of toda y ' s ruling. 11 17 1280 , 128 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( re vie w ing de nov o a ppl ic at ionof

lawof the c as e doc tr ine ); P iam

bin o v. Ba ile y , 757 F . 2d 1 112, 112 0 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( expla ini ng that a m an da te sim

ply r equir es aspe ci fi c ap pli catio n of the lawof

the c as e doc tr ine ). W e ag re e w ithde fe ndants that the dis tr ic t c ourt ov er -r ea d th e m andate. 11 Re gard ing the se co nd g ro und giv enby the dis tr ic t c ourt – unt im el ine ss – National Geographic point s out th at it followed the procedure se t forth in Fed. R. Ci v. P. 8 (c) a nd 12 (b ) whi ch pe rm it s fi li ng a m ot io n t o d is m is s b efo re an an swe r. Af ter entry of the m andate in Gr eenberg I, National Geographic filed its answer w ith in 2 0 day s. B ec au se Ru le 12( a) (1 ) pr ovi de s 20 day s a ft er se rv ic e of

the com plaint to file an answer, National Geographic argues that its answer wa s t i mel y. Gr eenberg asserts that the answ er is untim ely , bec ause when he f irst filed his c om pla int , de fe ndants w ai te d un til 15 d ay s a ft er se rv ic e of

the c om pla int to request addition al tim e to file their m otion to dism iss. H e ar gues that, theref ore, onl y 5 day s of the 20- day

pe ri od t o answ er

w er e tol le d by

the r eque st f

or additio nal tim e, and any

post-m andate answer

would have to have been filed w ith in 5 day s to be ti m el y . G re enbe rg c ite s no c as e that su ppor ts this pr opos iti on,The Rules do set for th a time to respond to a c omplaint in an analog ous situation: 12 wher e a district c ourt denies a motion made under Rule 12, a defe ndant must answer

within 10 day s after notice of the court' s action. F ed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)( A). Ne ither par ty discusses the applicability

of Rule 12(a )(4) (A) he re, a nd we have discove red no c ase that addre sses the issue. Be cau s e t h e ap p l i cab i l i ty

o f Ru l e 1 2 (a )( 4 )( A) t o an ap p el l at e c o urt 's re v er s al o f ad i s tri ctco urt 's g rant of a Rule 12 motion i s unclea r, def endants should not be held to its 10-day time limi t for filing a n answe r. 18 an d w e fi nd h is p osi tio n onti m el ine ss m er itl es s. U nde r the F ed er al Ru le s, ade fe ndant m ay f ile am oti on unde r Ru le 12 be fo re f ili ng an answ er

to a co m pla int . N at ion al G eo gr ap hic f oll ow ed the pr oc ed ur e se t f orth i n th e Fe de ra l R

ule s inm ak ing it s m oti on t o di sm iss pr ior to fi lin g an answ er

and s houl d no t have suf

fe re d th e ult im at e pe na lty of be ing pr ecl ud edfro m

pre se nt in g i ts ot he r de fen se s t o c op y rig ht li ab il it y

for do in g s o. Se e T ah oe -S ie rr a Pr es . Co unc il, I nc . v. T ah oe Re g' l P lanni ng A ge nc y , 216 F . 3d 764, 788 & n. 45 ( 9thCi r. 200 0) , a ff ' d, 535 U . S. 302 ( 2002 ) (n oti ng tha t a defendant need onlypresent on a m otion to dism iss tho se defenses that are sus ce pti ble to j udgm en t onthe ple ad ing s, and m ay ple ad any oth er de fe nse s ina later-f iled answer) . Regarding tim eliness, N ational Geographic is corre ct that de fe ndants have 20 d ay s un de r the F ed er al Ru le s to f ile an answ er

a ft er se rv ic e of a com plaint, althoug h no tim e period is specified in the Federa l Rules for filing an answer wher e a district court grants a pre -answe r disposi tive m otion but an appellate court subsequ ently rever ses. Bec ause National Geographic followed

1219

the pr oc ed

ur es se t f orth i n R ule s 8 and 1 2, and b ec au se the Ru le s se t no ti m e lim it for answ ering a com

plaint follo wing a re versal of sum m ary j udgm ent, w e hold that Nati on al Geog rap hi c's an swe r fi le d wi th in 20 da y s af te r ou r m an da te was t im el y . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt' s gr an t of the m oti on t o stri ke the answ er is va cate d.

Inli ght of tod ay ' s ho ldi ng tha t the Re pli ca and P ro gr am

portio ns o f the CNGare privileged un der § 201(c) and the fac t that defendants have filed an a n s w e r w i t h d e f e n s e s th a th a v e n o tye tb e e n a d j u d i c a t e dt o th e c o p yr i g h tc l a i ms co nc ern in g t he Seq ue nc e, th e wil lfu ln es s v erd ic t i s al so va cat ed . IV. C ONC LUS ION W e conclude that the Suprem e Court's dec ision in Tasini established a new fram ew ork for apply ing th e § 201(c) privilege that eff ectively overrules the ear lier pane l de ci sio n inthi s c as e. U nde r the T as ini f ram ew ork, w e co nc lud e that the Re p l i ca an dPr o g ra m

p o rt i o n s o f t h e C NG a re p ri v i l eg ed u n d er§ 2 0 1 (c ). We furthe r co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in str iki ng d ef

en dants ' answ er

and va cate that or de r. W e al so v ac at e the ve rd ic t of w ill fu l i nf

ri nge m en t and the da m ag e aw ar d. T he c as e is r em an de d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or a dj udi catio n of

the re m ai nin g c la im s and d ef en se s. REVERSED an d REM AN DED .