FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16964

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 9 7 - 0 3 9 2 4 - C V - A MS J E R R Y G R E E N B E R G , in d iv id u a lly , P la in tif f

– A p p e lle e , I D A Z G R E E N B E R G , in d iv id u a lly , P la in tif f , v ersu s N A T I O N A L G E O G R A P H I C S O C I E T Y , a D is tr ic t o f

C o lu m b ia c o rp o r a tio n , N A T I O N A L G E O G R A P H I C E N T E R P R I S E S , I N C ., a c o rp o r a tio n , M I N D S C A P E , I N C ., a C a lif o r n ia c o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n ts

– A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 30, 2008)Judg e F ra nk M. Hu ll re c us e d a

nd did no t pa rtic ipatein t

his c a se . Se nio r U .S. Circ uit 1 Judg e Phyllis A. Kravitch ele cted to par ticipate in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) . National Ge ographic Society is one of thre e Appe llants in thi s case . The other two 2 Appellants are National Geographic Enterprises, Inc. and Mindsca pe, Inc. Mindscapeis the cre ator of thecomputer program unde rlying the“TheComplete National Ge ographic ”—the prod uc t at is su e in t

his c a se . Co lle c tiv e ly , th e thre e Ap pe lla nts arere ferre d to throu gho ut t his opinion as “National Geographic .” Specifically , Gre enberg ’s photographs a ppeared in the January

1962, Februar

y 1968, 3 May 1971, and Jul y

1990 issues. In eac h instance, a fter the ir initial publi cation in the Mag azine, Gre e nb e rgre g a ine d o wn e rs hip of thec op y ri ghts in t heph oto gra

ph s h e orig inally

a ssi gne d to National Ge ographic . 2 B e f o r e E DMON DS ON , C h i e f J u d g e , T J OF L AT , AN DE R S ON , B I R C H, D U B I N A , B L A C K , C A R N E S , B A R K E T T , M A R C U S , W I L S O N , P R Y O R a nd K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 1 B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: A ppe l l a ntN a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c S oc i e ty i s a nonpr of i ts c i e nt i f

i c a nd e duc a t i ona l or ga ni z a t i on tha tha s publ i s he d a m onthl y m a ga z i ne s i nc e 1888. T he 2 S oci ety a l so prod uces t el evi se d p rogram s a nd com pu t ersoftw ar e a s w el l as ot her educat i on al prod uct s throu gh N at i on al G eographi c E nt erpri se s, a w ho l l y- ow ned and for-profi tsubsi di ary of the S oci ety. A pp el l ee Je rry G re enberg i s a fr ee l ance phot ogr a phe r , s om e of

w hos e phot ogr a phs w e r e publ i s he d i n f ouri s s ue s of

the N at i on al G eographi c M agaz i ne. 3 F o rd e c a d e s , th e S o c ie ty h a s r e p r o d u c e d b a c k is s u e s o f th e M a g a z in e in b o u n d v o lu m e s , m ic r o f

ic h e , a n d m ic r o f

ilm . I n 1 9 9 7 , N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h icCD-ROM is an abbre viation for “Compac t-Disc Rea d-Only Memory .” 4 3 p r o d u c e d “ T h e C o m p l e t e Na t i o n a l Ge o g r a p h i c ” ( “ C NG ” ) , a th i r ty - d i s c C D- R OM 4 s e tc ont a i ni ng e a c h m onthl y i s s ue of the M a ga z i ne , a s i tw a s or i gi na l l y publ i s he d, f o rth e 1 0 8 y e a r s f

r o m 1 8 8 8 th r o u g h 1 9 9 6

— r o u g h ly 1 2 0 0 is s u e s o f th e M a g a z in e . In addi t i on , the C N G i ncl ud es a s ho rtop eni ng m on t age a nd a c om pu t erprog ra m th a t a llo w s u s e r s to s e a r c h th e C N G , z o o m in to p a r tic u la rp a g e s , a n d p r in t. G r e e n b e r g s u e d N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic , a lle g in g th a t it h a d in f r in g e d h is c o p y r ig h ts b y r e p r o d u c in g in th e C N G th e p r in t m a g a z in e is s u e s th a t in c lu d e d h is phot ogr a phs . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s a gr e e d a nd gr a nt e d s um m a r y j udgm e nti n f a vor of N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c , hol di ng tha tbe c a us e the C N G c ons t i tut e d a “ r e vi s i on” of th e p r in t is s u e s o f

th e M a g a z in e , th e r e p r o d u c tio n o f G r e e n b e r g ’s p h o to g r a p h s in the C N G w a s pr i vi l e ge d unde r17 U . S . C . § 201( c ) of the C opy r i ghtA c ta nd di d not c o n s titu te a n in f

r in g e m e n t o f

G r e e n b e r g ’s c o p y r ig h ts . H o w e v e r , a p a n e l o f th is C our ti n G r e e nbe r g v. N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c S oc i e ty ( G r e e nbe r g I ) , 244 F . 3d 1267, 1 2 7 5

– 7 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , r e v e r s e d a n d r e m a n d e d f o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to

“ as ce rt ai n t he am ou ntof dam ages and at t orneys fe es thatar e, i f a ny, du e a s w el l as a ny i nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

tha tm a y be a ppr opr i a t e . ” A f t e ra j ur y tr i a l on da m a ge s , the ju r y r e tu r n e d a v e r d ic t a g a in s t N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic in th e a m o u n t o f $ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 . N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c a ppe a l e d a ga i n, thi s t i m e a r gui ng tha tthe i nt e r ve ni ngSubsequent to the Tasini dec ision, the Second Circuit also decide d a ca se involving the 5 CNG with nearly

identical fa cts to this case. SeeFa ulkner v. Nat’l Geographic Enters. Inc., 409 F.3d 26, 36 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (“[The GreenbergI ] decision addresse d the application of Section 201(c) to a ca se virtually

identical on the f

acts a nd law to the instant matter.” ). In that case , the Second Circuit found that (1) Gre enbergIdid not have pre clusive ef fec t beca use “theTasini approa ch so substantially depar ts from the Gre enberganalysis that it represe nts an intervening chang e in law rendering a pplication of collate ral e stoppel inappropriate,” id. at 37, a nd (2) “bec ause theorig inal context of the [National Geographic ] Magazines is omnipresent in the CNG and be causeit is a new ver sion of the Mag azine, the CNG is a privileg ed re vision,” id. at 38. 4 d e c i s i o n o f

th e U . S. Su p r e me Co u r ti n N e w Y o r k Ti me s Co . v . Ta s i n i , 5 3 3 U . S. 48 3 (20 01 ), deci ded aft erG re enberg I, m andat ed a r ever sa l of the j ury ver di ct a ga i ns ti t . A s e c ond pa ne l of thi s C our ta gr e e d, f

i ndi ng tha tT a s i ni c om pe l l e d a r e v e r s a l o f

th e ju r y v e r d ic t b e c a u s e , u n d e rT a s in i’s r a tio n a le , N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic w a s p r iv ile g e d to r e p r o d u c e its p r in t m a g a z in e s in d ig ita l f o r m a t p u r s u a n t to § 2 0 1 (c ) o f th e C o p yr ig h t A ct. S ee G re en b er g v . N at’l G eo g ra p h ic S o c’y ( G r e e nbe r g I I ) , 488 F . 3d 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2007) . T hi s C our tthe n va c a t e d the 5 G r e e nbe r g I I pa ne l opi ni on a nd gr a nt e d r e he a r i ng e n ba nc t o a ddr e s s the que s t i on o f w h e th e rN a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic ’s u s e o f G r e e n b e r g ’s p h o to g r a p h s in th e C N G is p r iv ile g e d . I . DI S CUS S I ON T h e sect i o n o f th e C o p yri g h tA ctth ati s rel ev an tt o th e q u est i o n b efo re u s, 17 U . S . C . § 201( c ) , w a s a dde d t o the c opy r i ghts t a tut e a s pa r tof the 1976 am en d m en t s t o th e 1 9 0 9 A ct , an d p ro v i d es:5

( c ) C o n tr ib u tio n s to c o lle c tiv e w o r k s . C o p y r ig h t in e a c h s e p a r a te c ontr i but i on t o a c ol l e c t i ve w or k i s di s t i nc tf r om c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k a s a w hol e , a nd ve s t s i ni t i a l l y i n the a uthorof the c ontr i but i on. I n the a bs e nc e of a n e xpr e s s tr a ns f

e rof the c opy r i ghtor o f a n y r ig h ts u n d e rit, th e o w n e ro f c o p y r ig h t in th e c o lle c tiv e w o r k is pr e s um e d t o ha ve a c qui r e d onl y the pr i vi l e ge of r e pr oduc i ng a nd di s tr i but i ng the c ontr i but i on a s pa r tof tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k, a n y r e v is io n o f

th a t c o lle c tiv e w o r k , a n d a n y la te rc o lle c tiv e w o r k in th e sam e seri es. P ri or t o 1 97 6, w henever fr ee l ance autho rs cont ri bu t ed t o a col l ec t i ve w ork, they r i s ke d l os i ng the i rc opy r i ghti n the i ri ndi vi dua l w or ks a bs e nta pr i nt e d c opy r i ght no t i ce i n t he aut ho r’ s nam e. A fr ee l ance autho r c ou l d n otj ustas si gn the pu bl i sher the r i ghtof

publ i c a t i on i n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k w hi l e pr e s e r vi ng he rc opy r i ghti n the i nd i vi du al w ork. T he am ended 1 97 6 C op yr i gh tA ct

— i ncl ud i ng § 2 01 (c )— re j ec t ed thi s i de a of

c opy r i ght“ i ndi vi s i bi l i ty , ” i ns t e a d r e f r a m i ng c opy r i ghta s a bundl e of d i s c r e t e “ e x c l u s i v e r i g h t s . ” Se e Ta s i n i , 5 3 3 U . S. a t4 9 4

– 9 6 ; s e e a l s o 1 7 U . S. C. §§ 106, 201( d) ( 2) . T hus , a s pa r tof i t s r e c a s t i ng of

c opy r i ghta s a bundl e of excl usi ve ri gh t s, C on gres s a dd ed § 2 01 (c ) t o t he C op yr i gh tA cti n o rdert o p rot ec t both the c opy r i ght s of

f r e e l a nc e a uthor s i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c ontr i but i ons t o a col l ec t i ve w ork as w el l as the copyri gh tof the pu bl i sheri n t he col l ec t i ve w ork its e lf: W he n . . . a f

r e e l a nc e a uthorha s c ontr i but e d a n a r t i c l e t o a “ c ol l e c t i ve w o r k ” s u c h a s a n e w s p a p e ro rm a g a z in e , . . . th e [ C o p y r ig h t A c t] re cogn i ze s tw o d i st i nctcopyri gh t ed w orks: “ C op yr i gh ti n eac h s e p a r a te c o n tr ib u tio n to a c o lle c tiv e w o r k is d is tin c t f r o m c o p y r ig h t in6

th e c o lle c tiv e w o r k a s a w h o le . . . .” C o p y r ig h t in th e s e p a r a te cont ri bu t i on “ vest s i ni t i al l y i n t he aut ho r of the cont ri bu t i on ” ( here , the f r e e l a nc e r ) . C opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k ve s t s i n the c ol l e c t i ve a uthor( he r e , the ne w s pa pe rorm a ga z i ne publ i s he r ) a nd e x te n d s o n ly to th e c r e a tiv e m a te r ia l c o n tr ib u te d b y th a t a u th o r , n o t to “th e p r e e x is tin g m a te r ia l e m p lo y e d in th e w o r k .” T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t493–94 ( c i t a t i ons om i t t e d) . C ongr e s s i nt e nde d thi s l i m i t a t i on on w ha tthe a uthori s pr e s um e d t o gi ve a w a y pr i m a r i l y t o ke e p publ i s he r s f r om “r e v is [ in g ] th e c o n tr ib u tio n its e lf o rin c lu d [ in g ] it in a n e w a n th o lo g y o ra n e n tir e ly di ff er entm agaz i ne or ot her c ol l ec t i ve w ork” w i tho utthe aut ho r’ s c on se nt . Id. at 49 7 (em ph as i s a dd ed) ( qu ot i ng H . R . R ep. N o. 94 -147 6, at12 2– 23 (197 6), re pri nt ed i n 1 97 6 U . S . C . C . A . N . 56 59 , 57 38 ). T h u s , p u r s u a n t to § 2 0 1 ( c ) , a n d a s T a s in i n o te s , a m a g a z in e p u b lis h e ris p r iv ile g e d to r e p r o d u c e o rd is tr ib u te a n a r tic le

— o rp h o to g r a p h s , in th is in s ta n c e — c o n tr ib u te d b y a f r e e la n c e r , “a b s e n t a c o n tr a c t o th e r w is e p r o v id in g , o n ly

‘ a s pa r tof’ a ny ( ora l l ) of thr e e c a t e gor i e s of

c ol l e c t i ve w or ks : ( a ) ‘ tha tc ol l e c t i ve w or k’ t o w hi c h the a uthorc ontr i but e d he rw or k, ( b) ‘ a ny r e vi s i on of tha tc ol l e c t i ve w o r k ,’ o r( c ) ‘a n y la te rc o lle c tiv e w o r k in th e s a m e s e r ie s .’” I d . a t 4 9 6 . N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c a r gue s tha ti ts houl d be a bl e t o r e pr oduc e a nd di s tr i but e the C N G un der e i ther the fi rs tor se cond pron gs of § 2 01 (c ). G re enberg, on the ot her ha nd, a r gue s tha tthe C N G s houl d be c ons i de r e d a “ ne w c ol l e c t i ve w or k” w hi c h, he a s s e r ts , is n o t e n title d to a n y p r iv ile g e u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) .The third prongof the § 201(c ) privileg e—“theowner of copy right in the collective 6 work is pre sumed to have a cquire d only the privileg e of reproduc ing a nd distributing the c ontributio n a s p art

of . . . a ny late r c oll e c tiv e wo rk

in t hesamese ri e s”—is no t at is su e in t his case , and National Geographic has not argued that the CNG f alls within thi s third prong . Judg e B irch de votes nea

rly half of his dissent to two substantive issues that have ne ver 7 be e n ra ise d in

thi s c a se . In Pa

rt s B and C of his dis se nt, hefi nd s th at N atio nal G e ogra ph ic impermissibly

transferre d its § 201(c) privileg es to third-par ties and the § 201(c ) privileg e does not ext end to the “public display” of Greenberg ’s photographs, a copy right owner’ s exclusive right under § 106(5) . Whil e neither of these a

rguments has merit, it is inappropriate to c onsider these issues for

the first time en ba

nc. Theparties have been briefingthis case f or over a dec ade now and not oncehas either party argued that either

of these issues is dispositive in deciding whether National Ge ographic is entitled to the § 201(c) privilege . Fur thermore , the district court ne ve r r ule d o n th e seiss ue s and

wedid no t a sk thepa rtie s to brie f t

he seiss ue s. F inally , in

Part s B a nd C of his dissent, Judg e B irch re lies on Tasini in finding that the § 201( c) privilegeis nontransferableand “public display” is not covered under § 201(c) , even though the Supreme Court expli citly stated that it “neither

decide [d] nor express[ed] any view” on e ither issue, one of which wa s only

raised by an amicus. 533 U .S. at 496 n.5, 498 n.8.

7 A cc ordi ng l y, w e m ustdeci de w hether the re prod uct i on of the N at i on al G eographi c M agaz i nes f rom pri ntt o C D -R O M fa l l s w i thi n ei ther ( a) “ that pa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k” pr i vi l e ge , a nd/ or( b) the “ r e vi s i on of tha tc ol l e c t i ve w ork” pri vi l ege. B ec ause w e c on cl ud e thatthe C N G i s a “ re vi si on ” of the ori gi nal 6

“ c ol l e c t i ve w or ks ” unde rthe s e c ond pr ong of § 201( c ) ba s e d on T a s i ni ’ s de f i ni t i on o f “ rev i si o n ” i n co n

j u n ct i o n w i th i t s d i scu ssi o n o f m i cro fo rm , w e n eed n o tad d ress w hether i ti s a l so pri vi l eged un der the fi rs tpron g o f § 20 1(c) . 7 T h e C o p yri g h tA ctd efi n es “ co l l ect i v e w o rk ” as a “w o rk , su ch as a p eri o d i cal i ssu e, an th o l o g y, o r en cycl o p ed i a, i n w h i ch a n u m b er o f co n tri b u t i o n s, c ons t i tut i ng s e pa r a t e a nd i nde pe nde ntw or ks i n the m s e l ve s , a r e a s s e m bl e d i nt o a col l ec t i ve w ho l e. ” 17 U . S . C . § 1 01 . U nd erthe defi ni t i on of “ com pi l at i on , ” w hi ch8

i nc l ude s “ c ol l e c t i ve w or ks , ” a “ c ol l e c t i ve w or k” i s a n “ or i gi na l w or k of a uthor s hi p” i ns of

a ra s i ti nvol ve s the s e l e c t i on, c oor di na t i on, ora r r a nge m e ntof pr e e xi s t i ng m a t e r i a l s orda t a . I d. ; s e e a l s o i d. § 102( a ) ( “ C opy r i ghtpr ot e c t i on s ubs i s t s . . . i n or i gi na l w or ks of a uthor s hi p f

i xe d i n a ny t a ngi bl e m e di um of e x p r e s s io n . . . .” ) . W ith r e s p e c t to a “c o lle c tiv e w o r k ,” c o p y r ig h t e x te n d s o n ly to m a te r ia ls c o n tr ib u te d b y th e c o m p ilin g a u th o r , a s o p p o s e d to p r e e x is tin g m a te r ia ls . I d . § 1 0 3 ( b ) . A c o p y r ig h t in a “c o lle c tiv e w o r k ” d o e s n o t im p ly a n e x c lu s iv e r ig h t in the pr e e xi s t i ng m a t e r i a l . I d. H e r e , e a c h i ndi vi dua l N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c M a ga z i ne i s s ue — i nc l udi ng the J a nua r y 1962, F e brua r y 1968, M a y 1971, a nd J ul y 1990 pr i nt i s s ue s i n w hi c h G r e e nbe r g’ s phot ogr a phs f i r s ta ppe a r e d— i s a “ pa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k, ” a nd e a c h of

G r e e nbe r g’ s phot ogr a phs i s “ pa r tof ” one of thos e c ol l e c t i ve w orks. N at i on al G eographi c has the pri vi l ege of r eprodu ci ng these i nd i vi du al m a g a z in e is s u e s in p r in t a s o f te n a s it w is h e s , a n d G r e e n b e r g r e ta in s h is c o p y r ig h ts i n h i s i n d i v i d u al p h o t o g rap h s. A tth e sam e t i m e, N at i o n al G eo g rap h i c h as a c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k a s a w hol e — t o w i t , the i ndi vi dua l m a ga z i ne i ssu es. T he C opy r i ghtA c tdoe s notde f i ne “ r e vi s i on, ” butT a s i ni doe s . T a s i ni d e f in e s “r e v is io n ” a s a “n e w ‘v e r s io n ,’ a n d a v e r s io n is , in [ th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) ] s e ttin g , aTh e New Y or k T ime s p ro vid e d it s a

rtic le s to bo th c omp uter d ata ba se 8 companies—LEXI S/NEXI S and University Microfilms International (UMI). Ne wsday and Time, Inc.—the publisher of Sports I llustrated—only

provided their a

rticles to LEXI S/NEXI S. Se e Ta sin i, 5 33 U. S. at 48 8– 90 . LEX I S/N EX I S r eprod uc e d th e artic le s in

its NEXI S e le c tron ic databa se and UMIreproduced thearticle s on two CD-ROM products—the New York Times OnDisc (NYTO) a

nd Gene ral Periodicals OnDisc (GPO). I d. at 489–90. 9 ‘ di s t i nc tf

or m of s om e thi ng r e ga r de d by i t s c r e a t or s orothe r s a s one w or k. ’ ” 533 U . S . at50 0 (em ph as es added) (quo t i ng W ebst er ’ s T hi rd N ew Int ernat i on al D i ct i on ary 194 4, 25 45 (197 6)). I n T a s in i, th e a r tic le s a t is s u e — w r itte n b y f r e e la n c e a u th o r s — o r ig in a lly a p p e a r e d in th e N e w Y o r k T im e s , N e w s d a y , a n d S p o r ts I llu s tr a te d . P u r s u a n t to l i c e ns i ng a gr e e m e nt s w i th tw o c om put e rda t a ba s e c om pa ni e s , the publ i s he r s of the thr e e pe r i odi c a l s pr ovi de d t o the da t a ba s e c om pa ni e s a l l the s e pa r a t e a r t i c l e s f r om e a c h pe r i odi c a l w hi c h w e r e the n pl a c e d i n e l e c tr oni c da t a ba s e s , i s ol a t e d f r om the cont extof the ori gi nal pri ntpu bl i ca t i on s i n w hi ch they f i rs tappeare d. Id. at 48 7– 89 . T he re prod uct i on of al l ar t i cl es t oo k p l ac e w i tho utany of the fr ee l ance

8 a uthor s ’ c ons e nt . I d. a t489. T o res ol ve the ca se , the C ou rtfocuse d o n w hether the ar t i cl es w er e r em ov ed fr om thei r ori gi nal cont extand n ow i sol at ed i n an ent i re l y di ff er entcont ext . Id. at 503. I tnot e d tha tthe thr e e da t a ba s e s i n que s t i on— N E X I S , the N Y T O , a nd the G P O

— have cer t ai n d i ff er ence s butar e a l l si m i l ari n t hata use r of a ny of the three da t a ba s e s c a n onl y vi e w a r t i c l e s i n i s ol a t i on of the c ont e xtof

the i ror i gi na l pr i ntIn his dissent, Judg e Ande rson points to the Supreme Court’s discussion in Tasini 9 reg ardingthe databa ses (spec ifically , the NYTO ) to find that the CNG is not a “revision” under § 201(c) . Judg e Ande rson notes that, similar to the CNG, the NYT O contains all the articles from one e dition of the New Y ork Times alongwith all the article s from other e ditions of that periodical on CD-ROM. Howeve r, Judge Anderson fails to t ake into ac count the main proble m wi th t heNY TO in m akin ghis analogy —th at is , li ketheCN G, theNY TO may havepla c e d all the ar ticles from oneedition of the Ne w York Times tog ether on CD-ROM alongwith all the article s from other e ditions of the New Yor k Times, but unlike the CNG, the individual articles were never pre serve d in their orig inal context. Thus, the analogy is wanting . 10 pu bl i ca t i on s. F or exam pl e, i n N E X IS , ea ch ar t i cl e app ea rs as a “ se para t e, i sol at ed

‘ s t or y ’

— w i thouta ny vi s i bl e l i nk t o the othe rs t or i e s or i gi na l l y publ i s he d i n the s a m e ne w s pa pe rorm a ga z i ne e di t i on. N E X I S doe s notc ont a i n pi c tur e s or ad v er ti se m en ts, an d itd o es n o t rep ro d u ce th e o rig in al p rin t p u b li ca ti o n ’s f or m a t t i ng f

e a tur e s s uc h a s he a dl i ne s i z e . . . . ” I d. a t490. L i ke N E X I S , the N Y T O s how s a r t i c l e s w i th “ i de nt i f y i ng i nf or m a t i on ( a uthor , t i t l e , e t c . ) , butw i thout or i gi na l f or m a t t i ng ora c c om pa ny i ng i m a ge s . ” I d. F i na l l y , the G P O di d s how 9 each art i cl e ex act l y as i tap p eared i n p ri n t , w i th p h o t o g rap h s an d ad v ert i sem en t s,

“ butw i thouta ny m a t e r i a l publ i s he d on othe rpa ge s of the or i gi na l pe r i odi c a l . ” I d. a t 5 0 0 . A f t e rf i ndi ng tha tthe i ndi vi dua l a r t i c l e s w e r e pr e s e nt e d “ c l e a rof the c ont e xt p ro v i d ed ei th er b y th e o ri g i n al p eri o d i cal ed i t i o n s o r b y an y rev i si o n o f th o se e di t i ons , ” the S upr e m e C our tc onc l ude d tha tthe thr e e e l e c tr oni c da t a ba s e s di d not re prod uce or di stri bu t e the fr ee l ance autho rs ’ w orks “ as partof” e i ther the ori gi nal edi t i on s or a s a “ re vi si on ” of tho se edi t i on s. Id. at49 9– 50 0. B ec ause the fr ee l anceJudg e B irch e xplains in his dis sent how a use r of the CNGcould extract a photograph 10 from a sc anned pag e of a

n issue of the Mag azine, thereby removingit from its original c ontext . However, this is no differe nt from material in microform where a user c an print only

a portion of what is containe d on a microf orm roll or a microfichesheet. Moreimportantly , this is notthe proper inquiry under Ta sini. The question is whether thereproduction of a c ollective wor k “p e r c ep t i b l y

p r e s e nt s ” a

f r e e l an c e r ’ s c o ntri b ut i o na s p arto f a r e v i s i o no f

th atc o l l e c t i v e w o r

k . If the user’ s manipulation of a collec tive work, a fter it has be en initially prese nted to the user, w ere the dec iding f

actor in a contextual inquiry

under § 201( c), the n National Ge ographic—or any other publisher—w ould never be ableto revise a

n edition of its Mag azine and reproduceand/or distribute it, even in print, beca use a use r could e asily

cut and isolate a

photograph out of the Ma g azineiss ue . H e or

sh e c ou ld t

he n c op y and sc an th e ph oto gra

phand tr ans mit it f re e of its 11 autho rs ’ ar t i cl es w er e “ pres ent ed t o, and retri evabl e by, the useri n i sol at i on , cl ea r of the c ont e xtof

the or i gi na l pr i ntpubl i c a t i on, ” i d. a t487 ( e m pha s e s a dde d) , the publ i s he r s c oul d notc l a i m a pr i vi l e ge unde r§ 201( c ) . T hus , the “ c ruc i a l f a c t ” f or the S up re m e C ou rtw as the dat abas es ’ abi l i ty t o “ st ore a nd re tri eve a rt i cl es s e p a r a te ly w ith in a v a s t d o m a in o f d iv e r s e te x ts .” I d . a t 5 0 3 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T he ar t i cl es w er e pre se nt ed t o t he user“ st andi ng al on e a nd no ti n con t ext . ” I d. at 488. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d th a t b y p r e s e n tin g th e a r tic le s o u ts id e o f th e ir or i gi na l c ont e xt , the da t a ba s e s w e r e notm e r e r e vi s i ons of the or i gi na l c ol l e c t i ve w or ks be c a us e the publ i s he r s ha d done m or e tha n c r e a t e a “ di s t i nc tf or m of som ethi ng re garded by i t s c re at ors or others as on e w ork. ” I d. at50 0. “ U nd er § 201( c ) , the que s t i on i s notw he the ra us e rc a n ge ne r a t e a r e vi s i on of a c ol l e c t i ve w or k f r om a da t a ba s e , butw he the rthe da t a ba s e i t s e l f pe r c e pt i bl y pr e s e nt s the a uthor ’ s c ontr i but i on a s pa r tof a r e vi s i on of

tha tc ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” I d. a t504. 10orig inal context. Moreover, w ith ex isting tec hnology, thereis nothing to prevent an individual

from sca nning a n exis ting doc ument and isolatinga portion of that doc ument. Ta sin i do e s n ot d e c ide , n or ne e d w e , at what po int

e le me nts of

no ve lty or “ ne wn e ss” 11 make a republished c ollective wor k more than a

“re vision.” In this case, wesimply find that the degreeof novelty

heredoes not rea ch that leve l. 12 T he r e f or e , “ [ i ] n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe [ a ] r t i c l e s ha ve be e n r e pr oduc e d a nd di s tr i but e d ‘ a s pa r tof’ a ‘ r e vi s i on’ of the c ol l e c t i ve w or ks i n i s s ue , w e f oc us on the [a ] rt i cl es as pres ent ed t o, and p er ce pt i bl e by, the userof the [d] at abas es . ” I d. at 499 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; s e e a l s o F a ul kne r , 409 F . 3d a t38. I n s um , the t e a c hi ngs of T a s i ni a r e tw of

ol d. F i r s t , the c onc e ptof “ r e vi s i on” ne c e s s a r i l y i nc l ude s s om e e l e m e ntof nove l ty or“ ne w ne s s ” a s de f i ne d by the C ou rt , and sec on d, consi dera t i on of the cont exti n w hi ch the cont ri bu t i on s a re pr e s e nt e d i s c r i t i c a l i n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rtha tnove l ty i s s uf f i c i e ntt o de f

e a tthe pu bl i sher ’ s § 20 1(c) pri vi l ege. 11 T hrou gh i t s di sc ussi on of m i cr oform re prod uct i on s, the S up re m e C ou rt e l a bor a t e d on the di f

f e r e nc e be tw e e n r e vi s i ons of c ol l e c t i ve w or ks a nd c ol l e c t i ve w orks w here the i nd i vi du al cont ri bu t i on s have been t aken ou tof cont ext . S ee T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 5 0 1 . I t e x p la in e d th a t “[ m ]ic r o f o r m s ty p ic a lly c o n ta in c ont i nuous phot ogr a phi c r e pr oduc t i ons of a pe r i odi c a l i n the m e di um of m i ni aturi ze d fi l m . A cc ordi ng l y, ar t i cl es appear on t he m i cr oform s, w ri tvery sm al l , i n p re ci se l y the po si t i on i n w hi ch the ar t i cl es appeare d i n t he new spaper . ”13

I d . A n d a lth o u g h “th e m ic r o f ilm r o ll c o n ta in s m u ltip le e d itio n s , a n d th e m ic r o f ilm us e rc a n a dj us tthe m a c hi ne l e ns t o f oc us onl y on [ a n a r t i c l e ] , t o the e xc l us i on of s u r r o u n d in g m a te r ia l, . . . th e u s e rf ir s t e n c o u n te r s [ th e a r tic le s ] in c o n te x t.” I d . B a s e d on thi s f

i de l i ty t o c ont e xt , the S upr e m e C our tr e a s one d tha tthe r e pr oduc t i on of pri ntpu bl i ca t i on s i n m i cr oform w ou l d b e pri vi l eged un der § 20 1(c) . Id. at 50 1– 02 . U nl i ke the “ conv er si on of new spri ntt o m i cr ofi l m , the tra nsfe r of a rt i cl es t o t he [d] at abas es [i n T as i ni di d] no tre pres enta m er e c on vers i on of i nt ac t pe r i odi c a l s ( orr e vi s i ons of pe r i odi c a l s ) f

r om one m e di um t o a nothe r . ” I d. a t502. A p p ly in g T a s in i to th e f a c ts b e f o r e u s , w e f

in d th a t th e C N G is a n a lo g o u s to th e m i c r o f

o r m s d i s c u s s e d th e r e i n . S i m i l a rt o m i c r o f i l m o rm i c r o f

i c h e , th e C NG us e s the i de nt i c a l s e l e c t i on, c oor di na t i on, a nd a r r a nge m e ntof the unde r l y i ng i ndi vi dua l c ontr i but i ons a s us e d i n the or i gi na l c ol l e c t i ve w or ks . 17 U . S . C . § 101; G r e e nbe r g I , 244 F . 3d a t1269; G r e e nbe r g I I , 488 F . 3d a t1335; F a ul kne r , 409 F . 3d a t 3 8 . T h e C N G ’s im a g e - b a s e d r e p r o d u c tio n o f th e M a g a z in e is lik e m ic r o f o r m . T he C N G pr e s e nt s tw o pa ge s of a n i s s ue a ta t i m e , w i th the M a ga z i ne f ol d i n the m i dd l e, and w i th t he page nu m bers i n t he l ow erou t si de corners , exac t l y a s they a re pr e s e nt e d i n the pr i ntve r s i on. S e e F a ul kne r , 409 F . 3d a t38. I n a ddi t i on t o the l a y outof the M a ga z i ne i s s ue s , the c ont e ntof the C N G i s a l s o i n the s a m e pos i t i on a s i n the pr i ntve r s i ons of the M a ga z i ne . A s w e not e d i n G r e e nbe r g I , “ [ w ] ha ttheSee F aulkner , 409 F.3d at 30–31 (“[T]here are no cha ng es in the conte nt, format, or 12 appea ranc e of theissues of the mag azine. The pag es appe ar a s they do in the print version, including all tex t, photographs, graphic s, adver tising, credits and attributions. I ssues of the Mag azine appea

r chronologic ally

with the first issue published appea ringat the beg inning of

the first disk and the last appe aringat the end of the last disk. The individual imag es and te x ts are there foreviewed in a

context almostidentical—but for theuse of a computer sc reen and the power to move from one issue to a nother a nd find various items quickly —to that in which they were orig inally

published.”). 14 us e rof the C N G s e e s on hi s c om put e rs c r e e n . . . i s a r e pr oduc t i on of e a c h pa ge of the M a ga z i ne tha tdi f

f e r s f r om the or i gi na l onl y i n the s i z e a nd r e s ol ut i on of the phot ogr a phs a nd t e xt [ , ] [ w i th] [ e ] ve r y c ove r , a r t i c l e , a dve r t i s e m e nt , a nd phot ogr a ph a ppe a r [ i ng] a s i tdi d i n the or i gi na l pa pe rc opy of the M a ga z i ne . ” 244 F .3 d at 1 2 6 9 ; see also G re en b er g II , 4 8 8 F .3 d at 1 3 3 5 . T h at is, an au th o r’s 12 c ontr i but i on i s vi e w e d w i thi n i t s or i gi na l c ont e xt , w i th e a c h pa ge c ont a i ni ng the a r t i c l e s , phot ogr a phs , a nd/ ora dve r t i s e m e nt s a s the y or i gi na l l y a ppe a r e d i n the M a g a z in e ’s p r in t v e r s io n s . N o a lte r a tio n in p o s itio n in g h a s b e e n m a d e in th e C N G . A u s e ro f th e C N G c a n f

o c u s o n a p a r tic u la rp a g e o rp a r ts o f a p a g e , b u t th is is s i m i l a rt o m i c r of

or m , w he r e the us e r“ c a n a dj us tthe m a c hi ne l e ns t o f oc us onl y on th e [ a ]r tic le , to th e e x c lu s io n o f s u r r o u n d in g m a te r ia l.” T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 5 0 1 . T hu s, G re enberg’ s pho t og raph s do n otappear di sc on nect ed fr om thei r ori gi nal cont ext . R ather, they a re fi rm l y posi t i on ed w i thi n t hei r ori gi nal cont ext , and a user o f th e C N G can n o tm o v e o r al t er t h e p h o t o g rap h s. T he C N G i s a l so di st i nctfr om the G P O C D -R O M of T as i ni . T he G P O i s a nJudg e Ande rson’s dissent finds little difference be tween theCNG and GPO. While the 13 “flip” f unction of the GPO may

not make a la

rg e differenc e from a marke ting standpoint, it does from a le g al per spective. TheGPO isolates an ar ticle clea r of the c ontextof its orig inal print publication whereas theCNG presents an articlewithin the Mag azine’s larg er c ontextas a use r of the CNG c an ea sily

scroll through an entireissue of the Mag azine without having to c onduct an indef inite number of se arc hes trying to retrieveeac h individual article from an issue, ea ch of which is only

viewableto the user standingalone. 15 i m age- base d sys t em w hi ch show s “ ea ch ar t i cl e e xact l y a s i tappeare d o n p ri nt ed pa ge s , c om pl e t e w i th phot ogr a phs , c a pt i ons , a dve r t i s e m e nt s , a nd othe rs ur r oundi ng m a te r ia ls ,” id . a t 4 9 1 , m a k in g it th e m o s t s im ila ro f th e th r e e d a ta b a s e s in T a s in i to th e C N G . W h e n a u s e rc o n d u c ts a s e a r c h u s in g th e G P O , a c o m p u te rp r o g r a m w ill s e a r c h a va i l a bl e i nde xe s a nd a bs tr a c t s , a nd a us e rm a y vi e w e a c h a r t i c l e w i thi n the se ar ch re sul t . H ow ever , “ [t ] he di spl ay of ea ch ar t i cl e provi des no l i nk s t o art i cl es a ppe a r i ng on othe rpa ge s of the or i gi na l pr i ntpubl i c a t i ons ” a nd a us e rc a nnot s i m pl y “ f l i p” t o a nothe ra r t i c l e . I d. a t491 & n. 2. I n the G P O , the or i gi na l c ont e xt o f th e p r in t p u b lic a tio n is n o t p e r c e p tib le to th e u s e r . T h is is in d ir e c t c o n tr a s t to the C N G w he r e the us e ri s f r e e t o f l i p thr ough the pa ge s ori s s ue s of the M a ga z i ne a f t e rc onduc t i ng a s e a r c h, the r e by pr e s e r vi ng the or i gi na l a nd c om pl e t e c ont e xtof th e p ri n ti ssu es. 13 M o r e o v e r , th e a g g r e g a tio n o f m u ltip le is s u e s o f

th e M a g a z in e in th e C N G is n o d i f f e r e n tf r o m th e a g g r e g a t i o n o f

mu l t i p l e e d i t i o n s o ri s s u e s i n mi c r o f o r m. A g g r e g a tio n is p e r m is s ib le if th e o r ig in a l c o n te x t o f

th e in d iv id u a l c o n tr ib u tio n is p r e s e r v e d . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in T a s in i r e c o g n iz e d th a t a lth o u g h “th e m ic r o f ilmWe find unavailingGre enberg ’s attempt to distinguish this case f rom Tasini by

arguing 14 that Tasini was a

disassembly

case(i.e., re moving individual contributions from collec tive works in which they

orig inally

appea red) whereas this ca se is an asse mbly case(i.e., takingcollective works with their individual contributions intact within those collective wor ks and putting the collective w orks into a larg er c ollective wor k). Gre enbergargues that Tasini involved c o mp l e t e l y unr e l at e d

f a c t s f r o mth i s c a s e , an d

th atT a s i n i ’ s c o nt e x tu a li n qu i r y i s s i mp l y a threshold question in any § 201(c) analysis. Tasini, however , never place d a ca

veat on the c onte xtua l in qu ir

y by de sc ribin git a s a

“ sta rtingpo int ” in a

§ 2 01 (c ) a

nalysis . T heCourt

c le arly state d, wi tho ut q

ualif ic atio n, that “ [u]nd e r § 20 1( c ), thequ e sti on is . . . wh e ther t

hedata ba se itself perc eptibly

prese nts the author’s c ontribution as part of a revision of the c ollective wor k.” 5 3 3 U . S . at5 0 4 . T hu s , th e c o nt e x tu a li n qu i r y l a i d o uti nT a s i n i d o e s n o ttur no nth i s a s s e mb l ydis a sse mbly

dic ho tomy

su c h th at it

ne e d n ot b e a dd

re sse d f or an a sse mbly

c a se . N or

is i t so me ho w s imp ly

a thre sh old inq uir y fo r a ny § 2 01 (c ) a

nalysis . It is thec onte xtual in qu ir y that is of fu nd ame ntal im

po rt in a ny § 2 01 (c ) a

nalysis . 16 rol l cont ai ns m ul t i pl e e di t i on s” of a pub l i ca t i on , the re l evantconsi dera t i on w as that

“ the userfi rs tencoun t er s [ the ar t i cl es ] i n con t ext . ” I d. at50 1. T he C ou rtfocuse d o n th e a b ility o f

a u s e rto is o la te a n in d iv id u a l c o p y r ig h ta b le a r tic le f r o m its ori gi nal col l ec t i ve w ork. Id. at50 3– 04 . In the C N G , a use r c anno t“ i sol at e” an a r tic le f r o m its o r ig in a l c o n te x t. T h u s , th a t c o n c e r n d o e s n o t a p p ly h e r e . A gg re gat i ng edi t i on s or i ss ues of one m agaz i ne i nt o a l ar ger c ol l ec t i ve w ork o f that sa m e m agaz i ne i s per m i ss i bl e und er§ 2 01 (c ) i nsofaras the i nd i vi du al c o n tr ib u tio n s a r e p r e s e n te d a n d p e r c e iv a b le to v ie w e r s in th e iro r ig in a l c o n te x t. 14 T he l egi sl at i ve hi st ory s up po rt s thi s c on cl usi on beca use i tre veal s that C o n g r e s s in te n d e d th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e to a llo w p u b lis h e r s to m a k e r e v is io n s to c ol l e c t i ve w or ks , butnott o the i ndi vi dua l c ontr i but i ons the m s e l ve s . A s pa r tof the R ou nd t abl e D i sc ussi on s i n 1 96 4 regardi ng § 2 01 (c ), a prom i nentautho r c aptured th is s e n tim e n t:See also H.R. Rep. No. 89- 2237, at 117 (1966); S. Rep. No. 94-473, at 106 (1975), 15 reprinted in 8 Melville B. Nimmer &David Nimmer, N immer on Copy right app. 4A-171 ( 2007). Simi larly , the Reg ister of Copy rights, which draf

ted § 201(c ) at Congress’s request, noted that “ the[§ 20 1( c )] p ri vil e g e s . . . areno t inte nd e d to pe rm it re vis ion s in thec ontributio n it se lf

or to allow inclusion of the contribution in anthologies or other entirely different collec tive works.” Staff of H . Comm. on the Judi ciar y , 89th Cong., Copy

right L aw Revision pt. 6, Supplementary Report of the Reg ister of Copy rights on the Gene ral Revision of the U.S. Copy right L aw: 1965 17 I h a v e b u t o n e q u e s tio n w ith r e f e r e n c e to th e w o r d in g , a n d th a t is w ith r e s pe c tt o the w or di ng a tthe e nd of s ubs e c t i on ( c ) : “ . . . a nd a ny r e vi s i ons of

i t . ” I f tha tm e a ns “ a ny r e vi s i ons of the c ol l e c t i ve w or k” i n t e r m s of

c ha ngi ng the c ontr i but i ons , orthe i ror de r , ori nc l udi ng di f f e r e ntc ontr i but i ons , obvi ous l y the m a ga z i ne w r i t e r s a nd ph ot og raph er s w ou l d n otobj ec t . B utthere i s a n i m pl i ca t i on , or at l ea stan am bi gu i ty, thatsom ehow the ow ner of the col l ec t i ve w ork h as a r ig h t to m a k e r e v is io n s in th e c o n tr ib u tio n s to th e c o lle c tiv e w o r k . T hi s i s notand sho ul d n otbe the l aw , and con se qu ent l y I sugg es tthat th e w o r d in g a t th e e n d o f s u b s e c tio n ( c ) b e c h a n g e d o re lim in a te d to m a k e th a t a b s o lu te ly c le a r . S . 3 0 0 8 , H .R . 1 1 9 4 7 , H .R . 1 2 3 5 4 , 8 9 th C o n g . § 1 4 ( c ) ( 1 9 6 5 ) , r e p r in te d in C o p y r ig h t L a w R e v is io n p t. 5 , 1 9 6 4 R e v is io n B ill w ith D is c u s s io n s a n d C o m m e n ts 152 ( C om m . P r i nt1965) , quot e d i n T a s i ni v. N . Y . T i m e s C o. , 972 F . S upp. 804, 819 ( S . D . N . Y . 1997) . C ongr e s s r e s ponde d by c ha ngi ng § 201( c ) f r om pr i vi l e gi ng

“ a ny r e vi s i ons of

i t ” t o “ a ny r e vi s i on of

tha tc ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” C om pa r e C opy r i ght L a w R e v is io n p t. 5 , a t 1 5 2 , w ith 1 7 U .S .C . § 2 0 1 ( c ) . A n d th e H o u s e a n d S e n a te R e por t s i ndi c a t e tha tC ongr e s s i nt e nde d tha tl a ngua ge t o pr e ve ntpubl i s he r s f r om “r e v is [ in g ] th e c o n tr ib u tio n its e lf o rin c lu d [ in g ] it in a n e w a n th o lo g y o ra n e n tir e ly di f f e r e ntm a ga z i ne orothe rc ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” H . R . R e p. N o. 94- 1476, a t122 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). 15Revision Bill 69 (Comm. P rint 1965) (e mphasis added) , reprinted in 9 Nimmer on Copy right app. 15-97. In addition to not appearing at all in the leg islative history , the phra se “new collec tive 16 wo rk s”a pp e ars on ly

on c e in t heTa sin i op ini on . T heSup re meCourt state d th at “ [i]t w ou ld sc arc e ly ‘p re se rv e thea

uth or ’s c op y

ri ght i n a c ontributio n’ a s c onte mpl ate d b y Con gre ss, H. R. Rep. 122, if a ne wspape r or mag azine publisher were per mitted to reproduceor distribute copies of the a uthor’s contribution in isolation or within new collective w orks.” Ta sini, 533 U.S. at 497. This is the only

time the Court uses the phra se “new collec tive works.” T aken w ithin the context of the passag e in which it appe ars, the Supre me Court surely did not mean that the addition of any

new e lement to a collec tive work or theplace ment of a “revised”collective w ork within a larg er c ollective wor k by the same publisher

deprive s that publisher of its § 201(c) privileg e. Within the ver y same sente nce in whic h “new collective w orks” a

ppear s, the Court cites to the same H ouse Report whic h states that a publisher c annot include the a uthor’s contribution in a “ne w anthology or an entirely

different mag azine or other c ollective wor k.” H. R. R ep. No . 1 22 -2 3 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . F ur therm ore , in

su pp or t of theTa sin i sentenc e in question, the Supreme Court cites to a law re view ar

ticle. Howe ver, thepag e cited to by the Supreme Court does not use thephrase“new collective w ork” a

nd deals solely

with the dang er of interpreting“re vision” such that it swallows the third prongof § 201(c )—i.e., “ a later collective w ork in the same series.” SeeWendy J . Gordon, F ine-TuningTasini: Privil eg es of ElectronicDistribution and Reproduction, 66 B rook. L . Rev. 473, 484 (2000). Thephrase“new collective w ork” is only

used oncein the law re view ar ticle as we ll, in a sentencereg ardingthe “distribution” of collec tive works which reads: “ Even if a privileg e we re a

vailable to allow a new c ollective wor

k to be made, § 201 w ould not cover distribution of the individually-owne d article s, except in connec tion with the whole collective w ork.” I d. at 499. 18 M oreover, the l egi sl at i ve hi st ory e xp oses the fl aw i n G re enberg’ s c l ai m that the C N G i s a “ ne w c ol l e c t i ve w or k, ” a nd the r e f or e unpr i vi l e ge d. E ve n a s s um i ng th a t th e C N G is a “n e w c o lle c tiv e w o r k ,” C o n g r e s s in te n d e d f o rp u b lis h e r s to r e ta in th e ir§ 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e u n le s s th e r e p u b lic a tio n c o n s titu te d a n “e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t” col l ec t i ve w ork. Id. N ow here do es the l egi sl at i ve hi st ory s ug gestthatpu bl i sher s 16 l os e the i r§ 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge on a c c ountof s om e nove l ty or“ ne w ne s s ” i n the r e p u b lic a tio n o f

a c o lle c tiv e w o r k . A n y “r e v is io n ” o f a c o lle c tiv e w o r k is , s tr ic tly spea ki ng , a “ new ” c ol l ec t i ve w ork. T as i ni , 53 3 U . S . at50 0 (defi ni ng “ re vi si on ” a sWe arenot persuade d by Gre enberg ’s extension of this argument that the addition of 17 any ind epe nd e ntly

c op y ri ghta blee le me nt t o a

c oll e c tiv e wo rk

rend e rs it unp ri vil e g e d. Me re ly a ddingan in depe nd e ntly

c op y ri ghta blefo rewo rd

to a c oll e c tiv e wo rk

wo uld no t ne c e ssa

ri ly forf eit the publisher’s privilegein the work. See2 Wil liam F. Patry , Patry on Copy right § 5:139 (2007) ( “[A] revision may still include new

elements such a s an index, as well as some new material.” (footnote omitted)) . Contrary to Judg e B irch’s c ontention in his di ssent, the addition of two indepe ndently

copy rightable computer

programs does not divest National Geographicof its § 2 01 (c ) p ri vil e g e . E ve n whe n th e de gre e of no ve lty of su c h a n a dditi on

is s uf fi c ie nt t o f

or fe it the privileg e, that dete rmination would not turn simpl y on the independent copy rightability

of thea dditi on a l e le me nt. In Judg e An de rs on ’s dis se nt, heg ive s th e e xamp leof pla c ingtheMa

rc h 2 00 0 mo nth ly 18 edition of National Ge ographic devoted e ntirely to the g eography

and natural bea

uty of Africa into a larg er book entitled “The Complete Intellectual History of Africa f

rom 1900 to 2008” as an impermissible reproduction. Under this opini on’s re asoning , that reproduction and/or distribution would notsurvive the c ontextual analy sis either and I would rea ch the same re sult. 19 a “ ne w ” ve r s i on) . A l though G r e e nbe r g’ s phot ogr a phs c a n be r e pr oduc e d a s pa r tof th e o r ig in a l M a g a z in e s in w h ic h th e y a p p e a r e d , th e y c a n n o t b e r e m o v e d f r o m th e ir o r ig in a l c o n te x t a n d p r in te d in a n e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t m a g a z in e o rd a ta b a s e . G re enberg m i ss es the m ar k w hen h e a rgues thatthe C N G i s notpri vi l eged be c a us e ne w e l e m e nt s ha ve be e n a dde d t o the or i gi na l pr i ntpubl i c a t i ons of the M a ga z i ne . I f

s i m pl y a ddi ng a ne w e l e m e ntt o a c ol l e c t i ve w or k, s uc h a s a n i nde x, t a bl e of c ont e nt s ora ne w f

or e w or d, c r e a t e s a “ ne w c ol l e c t i ve w or k” out s i de the pur vi e w of

§ 201( c ) , the n the “ r e vi s i on” pr ong i s e f f e c t i ve l y nul l i f

i e d. T he 17 addi t i on of new m at er i al t o a col l ec t i ve w ork w i l l no t , by i t se l f, t ake the re vi se d c o lle c tiv e w o r k o u ts id e th e p r iv ile g e , a n d th e p e r tin e n t q u e s tio n f o ra c o u r t is w hether the new m at er i al so al t er s the col l ec t i ve w ork as t o d es troy i t s ori gi nal c o n te x t. 18As no te d e arl ie r, a re vis ion inc lud e s so me thi ng“ ne w”and theamou nt o f “ne wn e ss”wi ll c e rt a inly imp a c t th e c onte xtua l in qu ir y . Wh ilethec onte xt of

theindivi du a l c ontributio n w ith in its orig inal c oll e c tiv e wo rk may havebe e n p re se rv e d in

thea bo vee xamp le , th at c onte xt is infec ted to the extent that a “user” of thelarg er c ollective wor k will not readily

perc eive the indivi du a l c ontributio n w ith in i ts o ri g inal c onte xt. T hu s, Ta sin i’ s c onte xtua l analysis is also dispositi ve in the aboveexample and not simply a thre shold inquiry . 20 L ooki ng a tthe ne w e l e m e nt s of the C N G , w e f

i nd tha tthe y do notbr i ng the C N G out s i de the s c ope of the § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge . F i r s t , the br i e f tw e nty - f i ve s e c ond m ont a ge of

the i ntr oduc t or y s e que nc e , w hi c h s e r ve s a s nothi ng m or e tha n a

“ br i e f vi s ua l i ntr oduc t i on” t o the i m a ge - ba s e d c ol l e c t i on of the M a ga z i ne , doe s not i nf e c tthe C N G s uc h tha ti tde s tr oy s the or i gi na l c ont e xtof the m or e tha n 1200 di gi t a l l y r e pr oduc e d i s s ue s of the M a ga z i ne . A s a “ vi r tua l c ove r ” f orthe M a ga z i ne s , the i ntr oduc t or y s e que nc e i n no w a y a l t e r s the c ont e xti n w hi c h the ori gi nal ph ot og raph s w er e pre se nt ed, j ustas a new cover on an encycl op edi a s et w oul d notc ha nge the c ont e xtof the e ntr i e s i n the e nc y c l ope di a . S e e F a ul kne r , 409 F . 3d at38 (not i ng thatthe “ addi t i on al el em ent s [ of the C N G ] , such as , am on g o ther thi ng s, the M ov i ng C ov erS equence . . . do no tsubst ant i al l y a l t erthe ori gi nal c o n te x t w h ic h , u n lik e th a t o f th e w o r k s a t is s u e in T a s in i, is im m e d ia te ly r e c ogni z a bl e ” ) . T he us e of G r e e nbe r g’ s J a nua r y 1962 c ove rphot ogr a ph i n the i ntr oduc t or y s e que nc e , w hi c h i s notj us tG r e e nbe r g’ s phot ogr a ph t a ke n a pa r tf r om i t s ori gi nal cont extbu tra ther the ent i re ori gi nal cover, do es no tnu l l i fy N at i on alEv e n th ou gh th e int ro du c tor y se qu e nc e do e s n ot d epriveNa tio nal G e ogra

ph ic of its 19 § 201(c) privileg e, weareonly decidingthat the CNG as a whole is privileg ed. 21 G eographi c’ s pri vi l ege und er§ 2 01 (c ). 19 In ad d i t i o n t o th e i n tro d u ct o ry seq u en ce, th e co m p u t er p ro g ram ’ s el em en t s, s uc h a s the s e a r c h f

unc t i on orz oom c a pa c i ty , do nott a ke the C N G out s i de the § 2 01 (c ) pri vi l ege. T he C N G i s no d i ff er entthan o ther C D -R O M prod uct s, i n t hat a ll C D - R O M s c o n ta in a n o p e r a tin g c o m p u te rp r o g r a m th a t d ir e c ts th e ir f unc t i ona l i ty . T he C N G ’ s c om put e rpr ogr a m s i m pl y c om pr e s s e s a nd d e c o m p r e s s e s th e d i g i t a l i m a g e s o f th e Ma g a z i n e i s s u e s wh i l e a l l o wi n g a C NG us e rt o s e a r c h a n e l e c tr oni c i nde x of the M a ga z i ne s . T he s e a r c h f unc t i on of

the c om put e rpr ogr a m i s a ki n t o a tr a di t i ona l i nde x, e xc e pttha ti ti s a by - pr oduc tof the m e di um i n w hi c h i tf

i nds i t s f unc t i ona l i ty . J us ta s a r e a de rof a bound- vol um e of previ ou s i ss ues of N at i on al G eographi c m i gh tl oo k t o an i nd ex t o fi nd al l the pages i n w hi c h the phr a s e “ gl oba l w a r m i ng” a ppe a r s , a us e rof the C N G ’ s s e a r c h f

unc t i on c a n e n te rth e p h r a s e “g lo b a l w a r m in g ” a n d th e p r o g r a m w ill r e tr ie v e f o rth e u s e ra ll thos e s a m e pa ge s . T he C N G us e ri s the n f r e e t o f l i p thr ough othe rpa ge s of the i s s ue s w i thoutha vi ng t o c onduc ta ne w s e a r c h. S i m i l a r l y , the z oom f unc t i on, w hi l e a l l ow i ng a C N G us e rt o f oc us on a s pe c i f

i c pa r tof a pa ge , doe s notde pr i ve N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic o f its p r iv ile g e b e c a u s e , ju s t lik e a d ju s tin g a le n s to lo o k a t a s p e c if ic p a r t o f a p a g e o f

a p u b lic a tio n r e p r o d u c e d o n m ic r o f o r m , th e p a g e inGre enbergseeks to distinguish microf orm from the CNG ba sed primarily on an 20 economically-driven a

rgument—he argues that microf orm has no commercial value . However, thereis nothing in the re cord to sug g est that microfor m has no commerc ial value. Thequestion of whe ther the reproduc tion of a collec tive work c reates a “ new mar ket” is leg ally

irrele vant to a § 201(c) privileg e analy sis. The protec tion afforded an a uthor’s individual contribution does not va ry wi th t hemarke t valueof

thec oll e c tiv e wo rk

or a re vis ion of thec oll e c tiv e wo rk

in whic h it appea rs. Contrary

to Judg e B irch’s vie w, this case is not simply “about who g ets the money .” The fa ct that a publisher c an re sell a collec tive work for a prof it with a free lance r’s individual contribution in it i s not determinative of whether that reproduction and/or distribution of the co l l ec t i v e w o rki s p ri v i l ege d as a “ re v i s i o n ” un d er

§ 2 0 1 (c ). Un d er

anex t en s i o no f J u d ge Birc h’s view, republishing a n old mag azine issue in its original for mat to a young er, new marke t wo uld no t bepe rm iss ibl e . T hee c on omi c inq uir y is c le arly no t th e qu e sti on . Rather, it i s a question of whethe r the publisher ha s a privileg e to reproduceand/or distribute “that particular work,”not whether

that reproduction and/or distribution is targ eted at a new ma rket. 22 q u est i o n fi rstap p ears t o th e read er i n co n t ex t . S ee T asi n i , 5 3 3 U . S . at5 0 1 . T h ese a dde d f e a tur e s onl y s e r ve t o pr ovi de f unc t i ona l i ty t o “ the C N G ’ s r a i s on d’ ê tr e ”

— i . e . , the i nt a c tc ol l e c t e d i s s ue s of the M a ga z i ne . S e e G r e e nbe r g I , 244 F . 3 d a t1 2 6 9 . T h e C NG ’ s n e w e l e m e n t s a r e n o d i f f e r e n tth a n m i c r o f

o r m ’ s “ n e w” e le m e n ts , s u c h a s a z o o m le n s o rth e a b ility to p r in t o n ly a p o r tio n o f a d o c u m e n t. T he s e a ddi t i ona l f

e a tur e s do notde s tr oy the or i gi na l c ont e xtof the c ol l e c t i ve w o r k s . W e s e e no m a t e r i a l di s t i nc t i on be tw e e n the C D - R O M s a ti s s ue he r e a nd the p e r m is s ib le “r e v is io n ” o f a c o lle c tiv e w o r k in to m ic r o f o r m a s d is c u s s e d in T a s in i. T he f a c ttha tthe C N G i s on C D - R O M s i n di gi t a l f or m doe s notm a ke the m i c r of or m a na l ogy a ny l e s s r e l e va nt . T he c onve r s i on of m a ga z i ne i s s ue s f

r om 20 p r in t to d ig ita l f

o r m — a s o p p o s e d to th e irc o n v e r s io n f r o m p r in t to p r in t, o rp r in t to m i cr oform

— do es no tcr ea t e a di ff er entbal ance of copyri gh tprot ec t i on un der23

§ 2 0 1 ( c ) b e tw e e n in d iv id u a l a u th o r s a n d p u b lis h e r s b e c a u s e c o p y r ig h t p r o te c tio n is m e d ia n e u tr a l. S e e 1 7 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 ( a ) ( n o tin g th a t “[ c ]o p y r ig h t p r o te c tio n s u b s is ts

. . . i n or i gi na l w or ks of a uthor s hi p f

i xe d i n a ny t a ngi bl e m e di um of e xpr e s s i on, now know n orl a t e rde ve l ope d, f r om w hi c h the y c a n be pe r c e i ve d, r e pr oduc e d, or othe r w i s e c om m uni c a t e d . . . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) . T a s i ni e xpl a i ne d tha tthe l ongem brac ed do ctri ne of m edi a neut ra l i ty m andat es thatthe “ tra nsfe r of a w ork betw ee n m edi a does notal t erthe chara ct erof thatw ork for copyri gh tpu rposes . ” 533 U . S . a t502 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons a nd br a c ke t s om i t t e d) ; s e e a l s o F a ul kne r , 409 F . 3d a t40 ( “ T he tr a ns f

e rof a w or k f r om one m e di um t o a nothe rge ne r a l l y doe s not a lte rits c h a r a c te rf

o rc o p y r ig h t p u rp o s e s .” ) . T o th is e n d , C o n g r e s s a d o p te d b r o a d s ta tu to r y la n g u a g e in c lu d in g w ith in c opy r i ght ’ s a m bi ta l l e xi s t i ng a nd l a t e rde ve l ope d m e di a thr ough w hi c h w or ks c o u l d b e c o mmu n i c a t e d e i th e rd i r e c t l y o rw i th th e a i d o f a d e v i c e . Se e 1 7 U . S. C. §§ 101, 102( a ) . T he l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y unde r s c or i ng the a dopt i on of thi s doc tr i ne ex p l ai n s: T h is b r o a d la n g u a g e is in te n d e d to a v o id th e a r tif ic ia l a n d la r g e ly u n ju s tif ia b le d is tin c tio n s . . . u n d e rw h ic h s ta tu to r y c o p y r ig h ta b ility in c e r ta in c a s e s h a s b e e n m a d e to d e p e n d u p o n th e f o r m o rm e d iu m in w hi ch the w ork i s f

i xed. U nd erthe bi l l i tm akes no di ff er ence w hat th e f o r m , m a n n e r , o rm e d iu m o f f ix a tio n m a y b e — w h e th e rit is in w or ds , num be r s , not e s , s ounds , pi c tur e s , ora ny othe rgr a phi c or s y m bol i c i ndi c i a , w he the re m bodi e d i n a phy s i c a l obj e c ti n w r i t t e n, pri nt ed, ph ot og raph i c, sc ul ptural , pu nched, m agnet i c, or any ot her24

s t a bl e f or m , a nd w he the ri ti s c a pa bl e of pe r c e pt i on di r e c t l y orby m e a n s o f a n y m a c h in e o rd e v ic e “n o w k n o w n o rla te rd e v e lo p e d .” H . R . R ep . N o . 9 4 -1 4 7 6 , at5 6 6 5 . B ecau se th e p ri n ci p l e o f m ed i a n eu tral i ty i s a s ta p le o f th e C o p y r ig h t A c t, 1 7 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 ( a ) , T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 5 0 2 , it is i ncorrec tt o say thatan exactdi gi t al re pl i ca of a pri ntm agaz i ne i s s om ehow a “ new col l ec t i ve w ork. ” F urtherm ore, the fa ctthata c om pu t erprog ra m al l ow s C N G user s t o sea rc h a nd a c c e s s — w i thouta l t e r i ng— the c ol l e c t i ve w or ks i n the i re xa c tor i gi na l f or m a nd c ont e xtdoe s notc ha nge our§ 201( c ) a na l y s i s . A s t e c hnol ogy pr ogr e s s e s a nd di ff er entm edi um s a re cr ea t ed throu gh w hi ch copyri gh t abl e w orks ar e i nt rodu ce d t o t he pu bl i c, copyri gh tl aw m ustre m ai n g roun ded i n the prem i se thata di ff er ence i n form i s notthe sa m e a s a di ff er ence i n sub st ance . “ N o o ne do ub t s that[a p u b lis h e r ] h a s th e r ig h t to r e p r in t its is s u e s in B r a ille , in a f o r e ig n la n g u a g e , o rin m i c r of or m , e ve n though s uc h r e vi s i ons m i ghtl ook a nd f e e l qui t e di f

f e r e ntf r om the or i gi na l . S uc h di f

f e r e nc e s , how e ve r , w oul d l a r ge l y r e s ul tf r om the di f

f e r e nt m e d iu m b e in g e m p lo y e d .” T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 5 1 2

– 1 3 ( S te v e n s , J ., d is s e n tin g ) . T hu s, the re vi si on of a m agaz i ne by re prod uci ng i ti n i t s ori gi nal cont exti n a new

“ di s t i nc tf

or m ”

— i . e . , a di gi t a l ve r s i on— i s nota di f f e r e nc e tha tw oul d undo a p u b lis h e r ’s p r iv ile g e u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) . S e e id . a t 5 0 0 . W i th p u b l i cat i o n s co n t i n u o u sl y b ei n g rep ro d u ced i n n ew m ed i u m s, co u rt s25

s h o u ld n o t d is a p p r o v e o f th e r e p r o d u c tio n o rd is tr ib u tio n o f c o lle c tiv e w o r k s in thos e m e di um s w i thoute va l ua t i ng w he the rthe publ i s he rha s vi ol a t e d the cont extual fi del i ty of the ori gi nal col l ec t i ve w ork o r r evi se d t he i nd i vi du al c o n tr ib u tio n its e lf

. C o u r ts m u s t d e te r m in e w h e th e rth e a d d itio n o f n e w m a te r ia ls to the r e pr oduc t i on c r e a t e s a n “ e nt i r e l y di f f e r e nt ” c ol l e c t i ve w or k w hi c h f a l l s out s i de § 2 01 (c )’ s pri vi l ege, no tw hether the m edi um i t se l f pre sum pt i vel y c re at es a “ new c ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” G r e e nbe r g’ s c opy r i ght s i n hi s i ndi vi dua l c ontr i but i ons t o the N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c M a ga z i ne i s s ue s a nd N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c ’ s c opy r i ght s i n the c ol l e c t i ve w or ks

— a nd N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c ’ s pr i vi l e ge of r e pr oduc i ng a nd di s tr i but i ng the c ol l e c t i ve w or ks

— w e r e notde t e r m i ne d thi r ty y e a r s a go ba s e d on the m e di um i n w hi c h the y w e r e pr oduc e d, a nd the y s houl d notbe de t e r m i ne d on th a t b a s is to d a y . I I . CONCL US I ON I n the l i ghtof

the S upr e m e C our t ’ s hol di ng i n T a s i ni tha tthe be dr oc k of a ny § 2 01 (c ) a nal ys i s i s c on t extual fi del i ty t o the ori gi nal pri ntpu bl i ca t i on as pres ent ed t o, a nd pe r c e i va bl e by , the us e r s of the r e vi s e d ve r s i on of

the or i gi na l publ i c a t i on, w e a g r e e w ith th e S e c o n d C ir c u it in F a u lk n e ra n d f in d th a t N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic is pri vi l eged t o reprodu ce and d i stri bu t e the C N G un der the “ re vi si on ” prong of § 2 0 1 ( c ) .The only issue addre ssed en ba

nc is whethe r the CNG itself is privileg ed under 21 § 201(c) . We adopt and re iteratethe holding of the pane l in Gree nbergI Ithat the introductory sequenc e itself is not privileg ed under § 201(c) . 488 F.3d at 1339. On rema nd, the district court mus t c on sid e r N atio nal G e ogra ph ic ’s oth e r d e fens e s n ot ye t a dju dic ate d w ithre sp e c t to its liability for the useof the 1962 c over photograph in the introduc tory sequenc e. L ikewise, beca use the CNG is privileg ed and othe r def enses relatingto the introductory sequenc e havenot been adjudicated, wealso adopt the GreenbergI Ipanel’ s holding that the district c ourt erroneously

permitted the jury

to find that National Ge ographic willfully violated § 201(c ). I d. at 1341. 26 T h e C N G

— al b ei ti n a d i fferen tm ed i u m th an p ri n to r m i cro fo rm — i s a p er m issib le re p ro d u ctio n o f th e N atio n al G eo g ra p h ic M ag az in e. G re en b er g ’s phot ogr a phs a r e pr e s e r ve d i nt a c ti n the C N G a nd c a n onl y be vi e w e d a s pa r tof the or i gi na l c ol l e c t i ve w or ks i n w hi c h the y a ppe a r e d. S i m i l a rt o the m i c r of or m s of T as in i, w h ich p re se rv e th e c o n tex t o f m u lt ip le issu es o f m ag az in es , th e C N G ’s d ig it al C D -R O M s f

aith fu ll y p re se rv e th e o rig in al co n tex t o f N atio n al G eo g ra p h ic’s p r in t is s u e s . T h e C N G ’s a d d itio n a l e le m e n ts

— s u c h a s its s e a r c h f u n c tio n , its i nde xe s , i t s z oom f

unc t i on, a nd the i ntr oduc t or y s e que nc e — do notde pr i ve N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c of i t s § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge i n tha tthe y do notde s tr oy the ori gi nal cont extof the col l ec t i ve w ork i n w hi ch G re enberg’ s pho t og raph s app ea r. 21 W e R EVER SE a nd RE MAND t o the di s tr i c tc our tf orpr oc e e di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .Th e 19 76 Cop y ri ght A c t w a s su

pp os e d to re ve rs e tw o hun dre d ye ars of pu bli sh e rs ’ 1 exploi tation of authors unde r the 1909 Copy right Act. See B arba

ra Ring er, F irst Thoughts on Copy right Act of 1976, 22 N.Y .U. Sch. L . Rev. 477, 490 (1977) ( “B arba ra Ring er, theReg ister of Copy rights, more than any

other sing le per son, is responsible for thecontent of thenew law . . .”Me lvi lleNi mme r, Pr e fa c e to t he19 78 Com

pre he ns iveTre atis e Re vis ion of 1 M e lvi lle Ni mme r, Th e L aw o f C op y ri ght, at vi(1 98 3) ). Ma

ry be th P e te rs , a

late r Re g ist e r o f C op y

ri ghts , e c ho e d th is i n h e r 2 00 1 le tte r t o Co ngre ss re g ardingNew Y or k T ime s Co . v . T a sin i, 5 33 U. S. 48 3, 12 1 S. Ct. 23 81 (2 00 1) : Section 201(c) was intende d to limi t a publisher’s e xploitation of free lance 27 B I R C H , C ir c u it J u d g e , d is s e n tin g , in w h ic h W I L S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e , jo in s , a n d in w hi ch E D M O N D S O N , C hi ef Judg e, and A N D E R S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e, j oi n i n P ar t A o n l y: I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. I a ls o c o n c u rin J u d g e A n d e r s o n ’s d is s e n t. T he c ontr ol l i ng i s s ue s a nd f a c t s i n thi s c a s e ha ve notbe e n f ul l y i de nt i f

i e d by th e m a jo r ity - - - h e n c e , it is n o t s u rp r is in g th a t it r e a c h e s th e w r o n g c o n c lu s io n s . P ut t i ng as i de the l egal anal ys i s or r at i on al es i n p l ay i n t hi s c as e, the re ader s h o u ld u n d e r s ta n d th e p e c u n ia r y o rc o m m e r c ia l p o s itio n s o f th e p a r tie s a n d th e ir const i tuenci es i n thi s di sput e. O n o ne si de there ar e the ar t i st s, autho rs , and o ther c r e a to r s o f

c o p y r ig h ta b le w o r k s w h o a r g u e th a t th e irc r e a tiv e c o n tr ib u tio n s to c ol l e c t i ve w or ks a l r e a dy e xpl oi t e d by publ i s he r s s houl d notbe f ur the re xpl oi t e d by tho se pu bl i sher s w i tho utshar i ng the profi t s r ea l i ze d b y thatfurther c om m er ci al expl oi t at i on . T hese autho rs , ar t i st s, and o ther c re at ors c on t end t hatthe pu bl i sher s no w w antt o i gn ore the ec on om i c c om prom i se — the bal anci ng of equi t i es — that is r e f le c te d in 1 7 U .S .C . § 2 0 1 ( c ) o f th e 1 9 7 6 C o p y r ig h t A c t. H e r e in a f te r , a ll 1authors’ w orks to ensurethat authors re tained control over subsequent

commerc ial exploi tation of their wor ks. In fac t, at the time § 201 cameinto effe ct, a respec ted attorne y for a major pu bli sh e r o bs e rv e d th at w iththepa ssag e of § 2 01 (c ), a

uth or s “ aremuc h mo rea

ble to control publishers’ use of their work”and that the publishers’ rights under § 201(c) are“ver

y limit ed.” I

ndeed, heconclude d that “the right to include the contribution in any

revision would appe ar to beof little value to the publisher.” Kurt Steele, “ Special Report, Ownership of Contributions to Col lective Works under theNew Copy

right L aw.”L eg al B riefs f or Editors, Publishers, and Writers (McGraw- Hill, July

1978). In contra st, the interpre tation of § 201(c) advanc ed by publishers in Tasini wo uld g ivethe m th e ri ght t o e xploi t an a rtic leon a g lob a l sc a leimm e diate ly followingits ini tial publication, and to continue to exploitit indefinitely . Such a result is beyond the scopeof the statutory languag e and w as never intended be c a us e , in a dig ital ne tw or

ke d e nv ironme nt, it i nterf e re s w itha

uth or s’ a bil ity to exploi t seconda

ry marke ts. Acceptanceof this interpretation would lead to a signific ant risk that authors will not be fairly compensated as e nvisioned by the compromises re ache d in the 1976 Act. Theresult would be a n unintended wi nd fall f or pu bli sh e rs of

c oll e c tiv e wo rk s. 147 Cong. Rec . E182-02 (2001) (L etter f rom Mary beth Peters, TheReg ister of Copy rights of the United States of America, to Repre sentative James P. McGovern, United States House of Representatives (F eb. 14, 2001)) . SeeJ essica D . L ittman, Copy right Compromis e, And L eg islative History , 72 Cornell L . Rev. 857, 893-96 (Interpre ting B arg ains) (1987) . 28 s t a tut or y c i t a t i ons a r e t o T i t l e 17 of the U . S . C ode , unl e s s othe r w i s e i ndi c a t e d. O n the oppos i t e s i de , the publ i s he r s a r e s e e ki ng t o ge ne r a t e ne w r e ve nue s by r e p a c k a g in g a n o ld p r o d u c t — th e “o ld w in e in n e w b o ttle s ” p a r a d ig m ; u p d a te d in thi s i ns t a nc e w i th a n e a s i e ra c c e s s tw i s t - of f m e t a l c a p r a the rtha n a c or k. H e r e the n e w p a c k a g in g o f

th e o ld c o n te n t, re

pl i cat ed bu t

un re vise d , in e le c tr o n ic m e d iu m is both c os t - e f

f i c i e nt , pr of

i t a bl e , a nd a t tr a c t i ve t o a ne w , c om put e r - s a vvy ge ne r a t i on of c ons um e r s . M or e ove r , the pr of i t s a r e e nha nc e d e xpone nt i a l l y w he n theIt should be emphasized that the prope r copy right analysis ex amining this commercial 2 product, the “ The Complete National Geographic ” (“ CNG”), should beno different than if the collection we re of

Play boy or Hustler mag azines. Just as the medium is “neutral” so is the c onte nt f or c op y ri ght p ur po se s. 29 publ i s he rc a n e xc l ude the c ontr i but i ng a r t i s t s , a uthor s , a nd c r e a t or s of the c ont e nt f r om s ha r i ng i n thos e pr of i t s . A tthe e nd of

the da y thi s c a s e i s nota bout e duc a t i on, a c c e s s by the m a s s e s , ore f f i c i e nts t or a ge a nd pr e s e r va t i on — i ti s a bout w h o g et s th e m o n ey. T h e l eg al arg u m en t s an d n o n -l eg al arg u m en t s o n b o th si d es, nots urpr i s i ngl y i n a f

r e e e nt e rpr i s e s oc i e ty , r e duc e d t o the s e e s s e nt i a l s a r e a l l a bout w ho i s pa i d f

orthe i rc ontr i but i ons a nd e f f or t s . A c c or di ngl y , i ti s pr oba t i ve a nd pert i nentt o exam i ne the C on gres si on al m ot i vat i on for pas sa ge of t he st atut ory s e c t i on — §201( c ) — c e ntr a l t o the pr e s e ntdi s put e . I f the m ot i va t i ng i de a a nd i nt e ntof C ongr e s s w a s t o r e qui r e the publ i s he r s t o s ha r e pr of i t s f r om a ne w or di f f e r e ntpr oduc t( i n c opy r i ghtt e r m s — a “ w or k” ) pl a c e d on the m a r ke t , the n the a uthor s , a r t i s t s , a nd c r e a t or s w i n. I f the i nt e ntof

C ongr e s s w a s t o a l l ow a n up- t oda t e , m ode r n, ha ndy , a nd de s i r a bl e i nc a r na t i on of the pr e vi ous l y e xpl oi t e d w or k, th en th e p u b l i sh ers w i n . I w i l l en d eav o r t o d em o n strat e th atth e au th o rs, art i st s, a n d c r e a to r s s h o u ld s h a r e in th e p u b lis h e r ’s p r o f its a n d th a t th e a r g u m e n ts , b o th le g a l a n d p o lic y , b y th e p u b lis h e r s a r e b e r e f t o f lo g ic , le g a l m e r it, a n d a r e to ta lly d i si n g en u o u s. 2 T he r e a r e a tl e a s tthr e e di s t i nc tl e ga l r a t i ona l e s tha ts uppor ta f f i r m a nc e of

the30

j ud gm entof the di stri ctcourtw hi ch fol l ow ed ou r c ou rt ’ s di re ct i on s i n G re enberg v. N at ’ l G eographi c S oc’ y, 24 4 F . 3d 12 67 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( “ G re enberg I”) . E ac h of the s e l e ga l r a t i ona l e s a r e ba s e d upon c or e c opy r i ghtl a w pr i nc i pl e s a ppl i e d t o the f a c t s e xi s t i ng i n thi s r e c or d. A ppl i c a t i on of e a c h s uc h r a t i ona l e de m ons tr a t e s the e r r o n e o u s c o n c lu s io n s a n d lo g ic o f th e m a jo r ity . T h e th r e e r a tio n a le s , s u c c in c tly st at ed , are as fo l l o w s: ( A ) the C N G i s a “ ne w , ” “ e nt i r e l y di f f e r e nt ” c ol l e c t i ve w or k t o w hi c h the put a t i ve § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge doe s nota t t a c h a nd doe s notr e pr oduc e a nd di s tr i but e a r t i c l e s a s “ pa r tof tha tc ol l e c t i ve w or k” or“ a ny r e vi s i on” there of; ( B ) th e N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic S o c ie ty ( “th e S o c ie ty ” ) c a n n o t tr a n s f e rits pr i vi l e ge t o thi r d pa r t i e s t o e xe r c i s e ; a nd, ( C ) the S oc i e ty a nd i t s c o- i nf r i nge r s ha ve unde r t a ke n t o dis play G reen b erg ’ s p ro t ect ed w o rk s p u b lic ly by m e a ns of pr oj e c t i on on a com pu t ersc re en, a non -pri vi l eged exerc i se by a § 20 1(c) grant ee . I n th e c o r r e s p o n d in g s e c tio n s o f m y d is s e n t, I s h a ll d e m o n s tr a te th a t th e S o c ie ty and i t s c o-defendant s have i nfri ng ed the re gi st er ed copyri gh t s of pl ai nt i ff G re enberg. I s hal l endeavor t o d em on stra t e the C N G i s a no n-qu al i fy i ng (per§ 2 0 1 (c)) “new co l l ect i v e w o rk , ” n o td u e t o i t s “ rev i si o n ” o r “ n o n -rev i si o n ” st atu s,National Ge ographic Intera ctive is a division of National Ge ographic Enterprises, Inc. 3 National Ge ographic Enterprises, Inc. wa s a wholly-owne d for- profit subsidiary of National Geographic Venture s, Inc., which w as a wholly-owne d for- profit subsidiary of the Society . Natio nal G e ogra

ph ic Ventu

re s, Inc . h a s si nc e be e n diss olv e d. F a ulk ne r v . N at’ l G e ogra

ph ic Enter. , 409 F.3d 26, 31 ( 2d Cir. 2005). National Ge ographic Intera ctive and N ational Geographic Enterprises, Inc., alongwith National Geographic Holdings, Inc., are now incorpora ted as NGHT, Inc., a wholly-owne d, for- profit subsidiary of the Society . I d. at n.4. 31 bu tbeca use i ti s a rot e c op y of the m agaz i nes s ca nn ed on t o C D -R O M s ( an an al o g o u s rep l i ca t o a m i cro fo rm rep l i ca) w h i ch h as b een co m b i n ed w i th atl east tw o c o p y r ig h ta b le c o m p u te rp r o g r a m s , e a c h a f r e e - s ta n d in g a n d s u i g e n e r is c opy r i ght a bl e w or k. N e c e s s a r y to m y d is c u s s io n th a t f o llo w s a r e s o m e m a te r ia l r e c o r d f a c ts w hi ch have been om i t t ed by the m aj ori ty. In S ept em ber 199 6, N at i on al G e o g r a p h ic I n te r a c tiv e ( “N G I ” ) e n te r e d in to a D is tr ib u tio n A g r e e m e n t w ith 3 M i nd sc ape, Inc. , a D el aw ar e c orpo ra t i on . “ M i nd sc ape i s a com pu t ersoftw ar e publ i s he ra nd di s tr i but orw hi c h c ol l a bor a t e s w i th the S oc i e ty i n i t s e f f or t s t o br i ng i t s pr oduc t s t o the publ i c i n the di gi t a l e nvi r onm e nt . ” R 1- 19 a t2. P ur s ua ntt o the D i stri bu t i on A gree m ent , the S oci ety a nd M i nd sc ape devel op ed the prod uct m ar ket ed as the C N G . T he C N G i s a thi rty C D -R O M com pend i um thatcol l ec t s a n edi t i on of e ac h is s ue of T he N at i on al G eographi c M agaz i ne (“ the M agaz i ne”) ( “ tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k” ) f r om 1888 t o 1996. U nde rthe “ D i s tr i but i onThe pa rties stipulated that the Society would “re ceiveroyalties on all sales [of the CNG] 4 by Min ds c a pe .”RA c c #2 -2 30 at 10 . H ow e ve r, up on a re a din gof

theDi stributio n A gre e me nt, it appea rs that NGI , not the Society , rec eived suc h royalties. R5-284, J oint Trial Ex h. 323 at 13- 15 . T his a

pp e ars to b e c on sis te nt w iththea pp arent ratio nalefo r t

heSoc ie ty

in c re atin gfo r- prof

it subsidiaries in order

to avoid direc t rec eipt of disqualifying inc ome by a non-profit corporation. A copy right notice appe aringon the pac kag ing of the CNG states that the Socie ty holds 5 the copy right in the CNG, and that the CNG “was produc ed from an archive of mag azines 32 A gree m ent , ” N G I w ou l d rec ei ve roya l t i es on sa l es of the C N G by M i nd sc ape. 4 R 5 - 2 8 4 , J o in t T r ia l E x h . 3 2 3 a t 1 3 - 1 5 . I n D e c e m be r1996, the S oc i e ty e nt e r e d i nt o a “ T r a de m a r k a nd C opy r i ght L i cen se A g reem en t ” (“ L i cen se A g reem en t ”) w i th N at i o n al G eo g rap h i c V en tu res, Inc. (“ N G V ”) , a f

or-profi tsubsi di ary of the S oci ety. T he L i ce nse A gree m entw as pr e m i s e d upon the S oc i e ty ’ s de c i s i on t o “ t o e s t a bl i s h i t s e l e c tr oni c publ i s hi ng a nd c a r to g r a p h ic o p e r a tio n s a s u n its o f a s e p a r a te b u t w h o lly o w n e d ta x a b le s ubs i di a r y . ” R 5- 284, J oi ntT r i a l E xh. 323 a t1. U nde rthe L i c e ns e A gr e e m e nt , the S oci ety gra nt ed N G V a “ roya l ty bea ri ng l i ce nse f or ce rt ai n . . . copyri gh t ed m a te r ia ls o f

[ th e S o c ie ty ],” in c lu d in g “[ t]h e A r c h iv e o f N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic M agaz i ne f

orr e pr oduc t i on i n ar c hi v al

f or m onl y , w i thout

m ani pulat i on or al t e r at i on .” I d . a t 1 , A tt. B ( e m p h a s is m in e ) . T o cre at e the C N G , the S oci ety e nt er ed i nt o an agreement w i th D at aw ar e T ec hn ol og i es , Inc. (“ D at aw ar e” ), dat ed 15 A ug ust19 96 , t o d i gi t al l y s ca n t he pages o f th e Ma g a z i n e . T h e a g r e e m e n ta u th o r i z e d Da t a wa r e t o “ d e v e l o p a c u s t o m C D- 5collecte d in a ce ntral repository and is not representative of any singlereg ional edition of NATI ONAL

GEOGRAPHI C mag azine.” R1-20, Exh. A. It is no t di sp ute d th at a

c omp uter p ro gra

m is a fo rm of lit e ra ry wo rk , a nd thu s is 6 c op y ri ghta ble . Se e Me lvi lleB . N imm e r &Da vid Ni mme r, 2 N imm e r o n Co py ri ght § 2. 04 [C] (2008). The1980 amendments to the Copy right Act brought computer programs within the scope of copy right by addingthem to the list of defined wor ks and providingfor limitations on the reproduction and a daptation rights in favor of owners of copies of programs. See §§ 101, 117. These a

mendments were re commended by the Commiss ion on New Te chnolog ical Use s of Copy righted Works which conc luded that computer programs we re theproper subject matter of c op y ri ght. Se e Nat' l Co mm. on New T e c hn olo g ic a l U se s o f C op y ri ghte d Wo rk s, F inal Repo rt 1 (1978). More over, c ourts have recognized the audiovisual display s produce d by a computer programs as a se

pa ra tecopy

rightable wor

k. See Stern Elec s. Inc. v. Ka ufman, 669 F .2d 852 (2d Cir. 1982). Electronic media inherently pose problems in delineating the by-produc ts of orig inal works, such a s derivative w orks, collec tive works, and revisions. Bits of computer code may represent c ontent (text, gra phic imag es, and thelike) or e ncode f unctional, stand-alone computer programs – thereby intertwiningcontent and me thod of delivery . See Micro Star v. For mgen, Inc., 154 F .3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). 33 R O M t em pl at e, i ncl ud i ng i nt egra t i on of a c ust om se tof i nt er fa ce s t o d i spl ay m agaz i ne pages and . . . JP E G i m ages of the sc anned p ages . ” R 4-20 3 at8. “ E ac h is s u e [ o f th e M a g a z in e ] w a s [ ] s c a n n e d , p a g e b y p a g e , in to a c o m p u te rs y s te m . T he s c a nni ng pr oc e s s c r e a t e d a n ex ac t i m age of

e a c h pa ge a s i ta ppe a r e d i n the M a g a z in e . R 1 - 2 3 a t 2 ( e m p h a s is m in e ) . M in d s c a p e d e v e lo p e d a c o m p u te rp r o g r a m ( th e “P r o g r a m ” ) , w h ic h is c o n ta in e d o n e a c h C D - R O M o f th e C N G , to a llo w th e u s e ro f th e C N G to s e le c t, vi e w , a nd na vi ga t e thr ough the i m a ge s of the M a ga z i ne r e pl i c a ( the “ pa ge s ” of the m a ga z i ne s ) on the C D - R O M . G r e e nbe r g I , 244 F . 3d a t1269. W i thoutthe 6 P r ogr a m , the pa ge s c oul d be s t or e d on a C D - R O M , butthe y w oul d notbe e ffic ie n tly a c c e s s i bl e t o the us e r . I d. a t1270. I n c r e a t i ng the P r ogr a m , M i nds c a peIn 1 98 8, Natio nal G e ogra ph ic pu bli sh e d a “ 10 0- ye ar i nd e x.” Th at in de x is a sepa rate ly 7 bound volume consisting of an index to the first 100 year s of National Ge ographic Mag azine. R11 at 18 3- 84 [I daz Gre e nb e rg- Jur y Tria l Cros s E xami natio n]. The reare“ [v]e ry little s im il aritie s ” b e tw e e nth e CD - RO Min d e x an d th e p rint i n d e x. “ Wh e nyo uh av e th e p a p e r in d e x, the year ’s index, you can f ind any thing in the world that you want to find there , but you’renot g oing to beable to print it out and you’renot goingto have a cce ss to it, and it’s not goingto be right t h e r e at o ur

f in g e rtip . Wh e r e a s , wh e nyo uh av e th e p r o d u c t, th e CD - RO M[CN G ], whatever you find in the search eng ine you can immediate ly acc ess and immediately

print [and] copy .” R11 at 143-44 ( I daz Greenberg- unre futed Jury Trial Dire ct Testimony

). 34 i nc orpor a t e d tw o s e pa r a t e , c opy r i ght e d c om put e rpr ogr a m s : the “ C D A uthor D e ve l opm e ntS y s t e m , ” w hi c h i s a s e a r c h e ngi ne c r e a t e d by D a t a w a r e , a nd the

“ P i c T ool s D e ve l opm e ntK i t , ” w hi c h i s a s t or a ge m e c ha ni s m c r e a t e d by P e ga s us Im agi ng C orp. for c om pres si ng and d ec om pres si ng the i m ages sc anned o nt o eac h d i s c . I d . a t1 2 6 9 - 7 0 . M i n d s c a p e h a s n o tr e g i s t e r e d a c o p y r i g h ti n th e Pr o g r a m, i d. a t1270 n. 3, butthe c l a i m s of c opy r i ghtf

orboth the C D A uthorD e ve l opm e nt S y s te m a n d th e P ic T o o ls D e v e lo p m e n t K it, r e s p e c tiv e ly , h a v e b e e n r e g is te r e d w ith th e C o p y r ig h t O f

f ic e . I d . a t 1 2 6 9 - 7 0 . P ar tof the P rogram consi st s of “ a s ea rc h eng i ne base d o n t he N at i on al G e ogr a phi c S oc i e ty pr opr i e t a r y i nde xi ng s c he m e . ” R 1- 20 a tE x. B , p. 2. T he 7 s e a r c h e ngi ne “ c ont a i ns the s a m e i nf or m a t i on a s the pr i nti ndi c e s publ i s he d by the S oci ety, ” R A cc #2 -230 at10 , and i tal l ow s the userof the C N G t o acc es s a rt i cl es

“ by t opi c , t i t l e , ke y w or d, orc ontr i but or . ” G r e e nbe r g I , A ppe l l a nt s ’ B r . a t7. T he P rogram al so cont ai ns “ a f ea ture f or sa vi ng se ar ch re sul t s, ” R 4-20 3 at10 , w hi ch35

w ou l d al l ow a use r t o repeat edl y a cc es s the re sul t s of a form erse ar ch, bu t“ [t ] here i s no t e xt - ba s e d s e a r c h c a pa bi l i ty . ” G r e e nbe r g I , A ppe l l e e s ’ B r . a t25. U si n g an y C D -R O M o f th e C N G , a u ser th erefo re can l o cat e, i so l at e, co p y, a nd pr i ntortr a ns m i ta ny phot ogr a ph thr ough the f ol l ow i ng s t e ps . F i r s t , run the C D - R O M us i ng W i ndow s E xpl or e r ® ( e xt a nta tthe publ i c a t i on of the C N G ) a nd ope n the f

ol de rl a be l e d “ I M A G E S ” f r om w i thi n the C D - R O M . T he n, ope n one of the s ubf ol de r s c ont a i ne d i n the I M A G E S f ol de r . E a c h i m a ge c ont a i ne d i n the subfol der w i l l be di spl ay ed, and each such i m age i s a si ng l e s ca nn ed page of an i ss ue of t he M agaz i ne. N ext , ri gh t -c l i ck on an i m age, pl ac e the curs or ov er“ O pen W ith ,” a n d th e n c h o o s e “P a in t.” U s in g th e “S e le c t” to o l p r o v id e d b y “P a in t,” s e le c t o n ly th e p h o to g r a p h , o m ittin g a ll o th e rm a te r ia l c o n ta in e d in th e im a g e . R i gh t -c l i ck i n t he se l ec t ed ph ot og raph and cho ose “ C op y. ” T hen, fr om the “ F i l e” m e n u in th e to o lb a r , le f t- c lic k “N e w ,” w h ic h c r e a te s a n e w b la n k d o c u m e n t. W ith in th e n e w d o c u m e n t, r ig h t- c lic k a n d c h o o s e “P a s te .” T h e n e w d o c u m e n t w ill now c ont a i n onl y the phot ogr a ph e xtr a c t e d f r om the s c a nne d pa ge , f r e e of a ny of th e o th e rm a t e r i a l o r i g i n a l l y c o n t a i n e d o n th e p a g e a s i twa s s c a n n e d i n t o th e C DR O M . C opi e s of

the phot ogr a ph now c a n r e a di l y be m a de a nd pr i nt e d or tr a n s m i t t e d . S e e R 1 - 2 0 , E x h . A.36 A . T he hol di ng i n N e w Y or k T i m e s C om pa ny , I nc . v. T a s i ni ( “ T a s i ni ” ) , 533 U . S . 4 8 3 , 4 8 8 , 1 2 1 S . C t . 2 3 8 1 , 2 3 8 4 -8 5 (2 0 0 1 ) i s as fo l l o w s: In ag re em en t w i th th e S ec on d C i rc u i t, w e h ol d th at § 2 01 (c ) d oes n ot au t h or i z e t h e c op y i n g at i s s u e h e r e . T h e p u b l i s h e r s ar e n ot sh el te re d b y § 2 01 (c ), w e c on cl u d e, b ec au se th e d atab ases re prod u ce an d dist

ribu te arti cl

es st an d i n g a l on e an d n ot i n con te xt, n ot “as par t of t h at par ti c u larc ol

le c ti v e w ork”

t o w h i c h t h e au t h or c o n t r ib u t e d , “ as par t

of . . . any r e v is i on ” t

h e r e of , o r “ a s p a r t o f

. . . a ny l a t e r c o l l e c t i v e w o r ki n t he s a m e s e r i e s . ” Bo t h t he pr i nt p u b l i sh er s an d th e e l ec tr on i c p u b l i sh er s, w e r u l e, h av e i n fr i n ged th e co p y ri g h ts o f th e freelan ce a u th o rs. (e m ph as i s m i ne). T he S oci ety des i re s t o l i ce nse the use of c er t ai n p ho t og raph s i n a new a s s e m bl y of

i t s pr e vi ous l y publ i s he d m a ga z i ne s e r i e s , butdoe s notw a ntt o pa y the c ontr i but i ng phot ogr a phe r s t o do s o. T o s uc c e e d, the C N G m us tqua l i f y f orthe prot ec t i on of the pri vi l ege e xt ended b y § 20 1(c) . H ow ever , the a s s e m b ly of “[ th o se ] part i cul arcol l ec t i ve w o rk [ s ] ” – 1, 200 m a ga z i ne s – i s a f a rdi f f e r e nt un dert aki ng , i n a pract i ca l as w el l as a c op yr i gh tse nse, than t he perm i t t ed § 2 01 (c ) r e pr oduc t i on orr e

publ i c at i on of “ that

part i cul arcol l ec t i ve w o rk” – e a c h i s s ue of th e m a g a z in e . U nt i l the c a s e r e tur ne d t o ourc our tf oror a l a r gum e nt , ge ne r a l l y theThe a ppellants havechang ed their le g al position in this case more than a politician 8 runningfor e lection. In Februar y of 1998 in the district court they argued: “CD-ROM 108 [the CNG] thus does not qualify as a new c olle c tivewor

k for pur poses of § 201(c ) bec ause it does not differ in any material cre ative re spect from paper copies of theMag azine. As a straightf orwa rd reprint of theMa g azine , th e Soc ie ty is enti tle d to pu

bli shit p ur su ant t o § 20 1( c ) . . . Thus , re vis ion s o f a

pa rtic ula r c oll e c tiv e wo rk

and late r c oll e c tiv e wo rk s in

thesamese ri e s - -- bo th expli citly authorized by

§ 201(c) --- areclea

rly ‘new ’ collec tive works. F or example, ‘a “re vision” can alter a preexisti ngwork by a suff icient degreeto giverise to a ne w orig inal cre ation.” [citing the Tasinidistrict court opinion]. R eply Memorandum of

L aw in Support of D e f e n d ant s ’ M o t i o nt o D i s m i s s C o untII An d t o D i s m i s s f

o r S umm ar y Ju dgm e nto nC o unt s III V of Plaintiffs’ Ame nded Complaint. R1-28 at 4-5 (e mphasis mine). In their Nove mber 1999 “Memora ndum of L aw in Opposition to Pl aintiffs Motion to Vacate Order Gra nting in Part De fend ants ’ M oti on

fo r P artia l Summa

ry Judgme nt, and

fo r o ther Re lie f, ” R1- 62 , a pp e lla nts ma dethefo llo wi ngstate me nt i n ju dic io: “ CD -ROM10 8 [ th eCN G ] i s m e r e ly ar e publi c ation , not a revision , of the Magazine . . . CD-ROM 108 is nothing more tha n a collec tion of issues of theMa g azinein a

dif ferent m e dium . . .”I d. at 7- 8. In th e ir ini tial brie f t o o ur

c ourt in Gre enbergI , appellants c ontinued to assert a nd conce de that CNG is indeed a “new ” collec tive work but qualified that conce ssion by claimingthat: “SECTI ON 201(c ) OF THE COPYRI GHT ACT PERMI TS THE SOCI ETY TO PUB L I SH CD-ROM 108 [ THE CNG] AS A REVI SI ON EVEN IF I T I S A NEW

COLLECTIVE W

ORK , NOTWI THSTANDI

NG THE SECOND CIRCUI T’S OPI

NI ON I N TAS IN I . . . Thus, revisions of a pa rticular c ollective wor

k and later collective w orks in the same se ries . . . are cle arly ‘new ’ collec tive works.” B rief in Opposition to Initial Brief

of Jerry Gre enbergand I daz Greenberg , 19-20. To fur ther for tify their conc ession appellants a dded the f

ollowing de finition: “To ‘revise ’ somethingmeans to ‘makea new , amende d, improved, or up- to-date version’ of it. Webster’s Ninth New Colleg iate Dictionar y at p. 10 10 .”I d. at 22 . Just

a s th ec hama e le on

po litic ian c ha

ng e s p os iti on

wi th t hemos t r e c e nt p oll , our appe llants have c hang ed their le g al position and rationales a s the Tasini ca se worke d its way throu gh th e c ourt s. Ho we ve r, a s I havee nd e avo re d to de mon stratein t his dis se nt, theCN G i s a non-qualify

ing (per § 201( c)) new c ollective wor k, not due to its “revision” or “non-re vision” status , b ut b e c a

us e thee ssenti a lly

arc hiv a l c op y

of Mag azine s sc ann e d into C D- RO Ms (themos t analog ou s r epli c a

to t hemic ro fo rm

repli c a) h a s b e e n c omb ine d w ithat le a st two c op y ri ghta ble (a nd in o nec a sere g ist e re d) c omp uter p ro gra ms — e a c h a fre e -s tanding , s ui g e ne ri s c op y ri ghtelig ible work. Thus, a s the appe llants corre ctly conce ded in their zig- zag a rgument trail, the CNG is not any

sort of re vision — itis an exac t replica place d in a diffe rent medium; which me repla c e me nt doe s n ot c on sti tut e a “ re vis ion .”Mo re ov e r, thea c t of sc ann ingis all that is nece ssary to place therote c opy

of the Mag azine into the digital medium. The “ assembly” of the se , “ sepa

rateand ind epe nd e nt w or

ks in t he mse lve s”[therepli c a

and thec omp uter p ro gra

ms] constitute a “new” a

nd, even “ completely

different,” c ollective wor k. See § 101 def

inition of “collec tive work”which in per tinent part provides: “ A ‘c ollective wor k’ is a wor

k . . . , in which a number of contributions, constituting sepa rateand indepe ndent works in themselve s, are assembled

into a collective whole.” 37 a ppe l l a nt s tr a ve l e d on the “ r e vi s i on” pr ong of § 201( c ) . N ow , gl os s i ng ove ror

8“Theterm ‘c ompilation’ includes collective w orks.” § 101. Thedefinition of 9 “ c oll e c tiv e wo rk ,”pe r § 10 1 in pe rtinent p art : “ . . . isa

wo rk , s uc h a s a [n] . . .. anth olo gy . . .in which a numbe r of c ontributions, consisti ngof sepa rateand indepe ndent works in themselve s [here, ea ch issue of themag azine as we ll as at least two computer programs], are assembled int o 38 m i s s t a t i ng the m e a ni ng of “ tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k” ( w hi c h i s l i m i t e d t o, a n d d e s c r ip tiv e o f

, e a c h i ndi v i dua l i s s ue o f th e m a g a z in e ) , th e y c la im th e S o c ie ty m ay l i ce nse a re prod uct i on or re pu bl i ca t i on of al l i ss ues, col l ec t i vel y i n a new a n th o lo g y o ra g g r e g a tio n , s o lo n g a s e a c h r e p lic a tio n is in “c o n te x t” p e rT a s in i. R ecal l , h o w ev er, th atT asi n i factu al l y w as a “ d i sassem b l y” case n o tan “ assem b l y” ca se . T he C ou rtfocuse d o n t extual and p i ct ori al cont ext , i n a th r e s h o ld e x a m in a tio n , to d e te r m in e w h e th e ra “p a r tic u la rc o lle c tiv e w o r k ” e v e n e x is te d in or de rt o a s c e r t a i n w he the rthe § 201( c ) “ r e vi s i on pr i vi l e ge ” w a s a va i l a bl e . T he C our tde t e r m i ne d tha ti tw a s not , a nd i tne ve rr e a c he d the c ontr ol l i ng i s s ue pr e s e nt e d i n ourc a s e a s t o w he the ra n as s e m blage i s p r i v i l e g e d u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) . As d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , a n a s s e mb l a g e o f a r e p l i c a a n d c o p y r i g h t a b l e c o mp u t e rp r o g r a ms i s n o tp ri v i l eg ed b ecau se a “ n ew co l l ect i v e w o rk ” i s ex pres sl y noti ncl ud ed

i n § 2 0 1 ( c ) p e rHo u s e R e p o r tNo . 9 4 - 1 4 7 6 , a t1 2 2 , a s r e p r i n t e d i n 1 9 7 6 U. S . C . C . A. N. 56 59 , 57 37 (her ei naft er“ H . R . R ep. ”) and each “ part i cul arcol l ec t i ve w ork” (ea ch is s u e o f th e M a g a z in e ) is n o t p a r t o f a “r e v is io n .” T h u s th e S o c ie ty h a s f a ile d to gr a ppl e w i th the r e a l i ty tha ts uc h a he r e t of or e non- e xi s t e nta ggr e ga t i on of the 1, 200 m a g a z in e s h a s n o w b e e n a s s e m b le d in to w h a t c o n s titu te s a “n e w c o lle c tiv e w o r k .” 9a collec tive whole [here, theCNG].”

H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 122-23; Tasini v. New Y ork Times Co., 206 F.3d 161, 167 10 (2d Cir. 2000); Tasini, 533. U.S. at 495, 121 S. Ct. at 2388; Greenbe rgI , 244 F.3d at 1273. “A revision is commonly understood as a

purposef ul alteration of content under taken 11 fo r s omesu

bs tanti vere a so n . . . . L ikewi sewh e n a n e xac t r epli c a

of theorig inal w or

k is produce d the re sult is nota re vision becausenothing ha s been ‘ revised.’ ” L atee f Mtima, Tasini and its Progeny : Ex clusive Right or Fair Use On theElectronicPublis hing F rontier? , 14 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media &Ent. L .J ., 369, 423-26 (Winter 2004) (here inafter “Mtima”). 39 T he S oc i e ty r e pr e s e nt e d, i n i t s c l a i m of c opy r i ghtf

orthe C N G ( “ 108 Y e a r s of N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c M a ga z i ne on C D - R O M ” ) , tha tthe C N G i s a “ C om pi l a t i on of P r e - E xi s t i ng M a t e r i a l P r i m a r i l y P i c t or i a l ” unde rs e c t i on 6 [ e nt i t l e d “ D e r i va t i ve W o r k O rCo mp i l a t i o n ” ] . Pe rH . R. Re p . , c i t e d b y th e Se c o n d Ci r c u i t , th e Su p r e me C our t , a nd the G r e e nbe r g I panel , thi s a ss em bl age a ctual l y c on st i tut es a “ new co l l ect i v e w o rk ” w h i ch i s n o tem b raced , an d i s ex pres sl y exc l ud ed , f

r om the s c ope of § 2 01 (c ). T hi s a ss em bl age i s a new prod uctand a pu bl i c di ss em i nat i on that

10 t ot al l y e vi sc er at es the ec on om i c val ue of t he cont ri bu t ors’ ri gh t s und er§ 2 01 (c ). If the S oci ety i s a l so re l yi ng on the se cond , or “ re vi si on ” prong of § 2 01 (c ), as i thas (f rom t i m e t o t i m e) un t i l no w , i t s a rgum entfa i l s bec ause no re visi on s have been m ad e to the m ag azi nes . N o revi si on s have been m ade because not hi ng has bee n

“ r e vi s e d. ” A c c or di ngl y , s i nc e § 201( c ) s pe c i f i c a l l y pr ovi de s tha ta r e pr oduc t i on 11 and d i stri bu t i on ca n o nl y occ ur “ as partof” a l at eredi t i on or r e v is i on , a pub l i sher i nf r i nge s a f r e e l a nc e c ontr i but or ’ s w or k by e i the ra r e pr oduc t i on ora di s tr i but i onCopy right in each separate contribution to a collectivework is disti nct from c opy right 12 in the collective w ork as a whole, and ve sts init ially in the author of thecontribution. In the absenc e of a

n express transfe r of the c opy right or of any

rights under it, the owner of copy right in the collective w ork is presumed to have ac quired only the privileg e of reproducing and distribut ing

the contribution as par

t of that particula

r collec tive work, a

ny revision of that c oll e c tiv e wo rk , a

nd any late r c oll e c tiv e wo rk

in t hesamese ri e s. As will be discussed below, only appellant Society

(a non- profit entity

) holds the § 13 20 1( c ) p ri vil e g e . H ow e ve r, there c ord is c le ar t hat a sepa ra tele g a l e nti ty , N atio nal G e ogra ph ic Enterprises, Inc. a f

or-profit subsidiary

corporation, toge ther with an independently owned corporation, Mindspring, Inc., ac tually reproduced a

nd distributed the CNG. As explained below, the § 201( c) privilegeis personal to the Society and may not be transf

erred to another person ( i.e., leg al entity

). Ye t it is these two other leg al entities that arecommerc ially exploi ting the plaintiff’s c opy

right and contributions or works, pur portedly under theauspice s and cover of the§ 2 01 (c ) p ri vil e g e a s to wh ic h th e law n e g ate s th e ir putativ e c la im. 40 tha tt a ke s pl a c e not“ a s pa r tof a r e vi s i on. ” R y a n v. C a r l C orp. , 23 F . S upp. 2d 1146, 1149 n. 2 ( N . D . C a l . 1998) ( J udge F e r n S m i th gotthi s i m por t a nta s pe c tof the ca se ri gh teven before the S ec on d C i rc ui tand S up re m e C ou rti n T as i ni ). A s the appel l ant s have c on ce ded and re cogn i ze d t hey m ustdem on stra t e that the C N G const i tut es a “ col l ec t i ve w ork” t hatea ch of t he defendant s ar e 12 p r iv ile g e d u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) to r e p r o d u c e a n d d is tr ib u te . B y its e x p r e s s te r m s , § 13 2 0 1 ( c ) p r o te c ts a n d r e f

e r s to o n ly “c o lle c tiv e w o r k s ” a n d c o n f e r s a “p r iv ile g e ” o n ly t o “ the ow ne rof

the c opy r i ghti n the col l ec t i ve w o rk . ” § 20 1(c) (e m ph as i s m i ne); s e e a ls o H .R . R e p . ( r e f

e r e n c in g § 2 0 1 ( c ) a n d th e d e f in itio n o f “c o lle c tiv e w o r k ” in § 1 0 1 a n d s ta tin g th a t § 2 0 1 ( c ) “d e a ls w ith th e tr o u b le s o m e p r o b le m o f o w n e r s h ip of copyri gh ti n con tri bu t i on s t o ‘ col l ec t i ve w orks. ’ ” U nd erthese st atut oryA “c oll e c tivewor k” is a work, suc h as a periodical issue, a nthology , or enc yclopedia, 14 in which a number

of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves , are assem bled

into a collective whole. A “ co mp u te r p ro g ra m” is a set of stateme nts or instructions to be used direc tly or indirec tly

in a computer

in order to bring a

bout a ce rtain re sult. § 101 (empha sis mine). H.R. Rep. at 122-23 (. . . thepublisher could not re vise the contribution itself or 15 inc lud eit in a new an tho log

yor e ntire ly dif fe re nt m ag

az ineor oth e r c olle c tivewor

k.”(e mph a sis mine). See Tasini, 533 U.S. at 495, 121 S. Ct . at 2388; Tasini v. New Y ork Times Co., 206 F.3d at 167; Gre enbergI , 244 F.3d at 1273. 41 defi ni t i on s, as cl ar i fi ed by the re fe re nced l egi sl at i ve hi st ory, the C N G i s a “ new

14 c o lle c tiv e w o r k .” B e f

o r e e x a m in in g w h y th e C N G is a n e w c o lle c tiv e w o r k , r e c a ll tha tthe T a s i ni c a s e i nvol ve d a f a c tua l s i tua t i on tha tw a s t ot a l l y di f f e r e ntf r om the fa ct s i n t hi s c as e. T hatca se w as a d is a s s e m b ly c a s e nota n a s s e m b ly c a s e — a s is thi s c as e. T hi s a ss em bl age kno w as “ the C N G ” does notconst i tut e a pri vi l eged r e vi s i on be c a us e i ti s , a tthe ve r y l e a s tnota r e vi s i on a nd, m or e ove r , i s a ne w a nd di ff er entcol l ec t i ve w ork t hatC on gres s e xp re ss l y e xem pt ed fr om the coverage of § 201( c ) a nd doe s notc ons t i tut e a r e vi s i on, m uc h l e s s “ pa r tof . . . a ny r e vi s i on” of 15

“ tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t488, 121 S . C t . a t2384- 85. T h e S e c o n d C ir c u it d e c is io n in T a s in i, a f f ir m e d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, began w i th t he un di sput ed as sum pt i on that : “ [T ] he el ec troni c dat abas es ar e nei ther the ori gi nal col l ec t i ve w ork — the part i cul aredi t i on of the peri od i ca l — i n w hi ch th e [ a ] u th o r s ’ a r t i c l e s w e r e p u b l i s h e d [ , ] n o ra l a t e rc o l l e c t i v e w o r k i n th e s a me s e r ie s .” T a s in i, 2 0 6 F .3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 6 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , a f f’d , 5 3 3 U .S . 4 8 3 , 1 2 1 S .C t.Th e “ wo rk” re ferre d to in § 20 1( c ) i s th e indivi du a l peri odic a l or e nc yc lop e dia , n ot a 16 c oll e c tio n o f p e ri odic a ls o r s e ts o f v olume s o ve r doze ns of ye ars . T hedra ft e rs of

thestatut e clea rly had in mind the narrower idea of a sing le issue of a

periodical, not the entire series of periodicals. The terminology “that par ticular c ollective wor

k” certainly

sug g ests this: The leg islative history

ref ers to individual “editions” a nd “volumes.” SeeH.R. Rep. at 122-23 (under se c tio n 2 01 (c ) “ a

pu bli sh ingc omp any

c ou ld reprint

a c ontributio n f

ro m one issue in a later issue of its mag azine . . . .”) ( emphasis mine). Sec tion 101 of the Copy right Act re fer s to a “a periodical issue” in the def inition of a collective w ork. See also Tasini, 206 F.3d at 167 (“ ‘that particula r collec tive work’ me ans a sp e c ifi ce dition or iss ueof ape rio dic al” ) (e mphasis mine). To the question“if the publishers can publish revisions issue by issue, then why c an’t they put all theiss ue s toge ther[?

] ;” the answer would be: “the resulting compilation is a n ewanth o l o gy or newcollective w ork, rather than a revision of ‘that collectivework.’” 42 2381 ( 2001) . T ha tr e a s oni ng l e f tonl y the “ r e vi s i on” pr ong of § 201( c ) r e m a i ni ng 16 t o the publ i s he r s . T he n, the S e c ond C i r c ui tr e j e c t e d the publ i s he r s ’ c ont e nt i on “th a t e a c h d a ta b a s e c o n s titu te s a ‘r e v is io n ’ o f th e p a r tic u la rc o lle c tiv e w o r k in w hi ch ea ch [a ] ut ho r’ s” cont ri bu t i on fi rs tappeare d. Id . a t 1 6 6 . T h e S e c o n d C ir c u it corr ec t l y e xp l ai ned – j ustas ou r G re enberg I opi ni on agre ed — “ [t ] he m ostnatural re adi ng of the ‘ re vi si on ’ of ‘ thatcol l ec t i ve w ork’ cl ause i s thatS ec t i on 20 1(c) prot ec t s onl y l at eredi t i on s of a part i cul ari ss ue of a peri od i ca l , such as the fi nal edi t i on of a new spaper . ” I d . a t167. T hi s a na l y s i s by the S e c ond C i r c ui ta l s o c or r e c t l y obs e r ve d, i nt e rpr e t i ng the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y e xpl a i ni ng the i ntr oduc t i on of § 201 i nt o the the n- ne w 1976 C o p y r ig h t A c t, th a t: “th e ‘r e v is io n ’ c la u s e in S e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) w a s n o t in te n d e d to perm i tthe i ncl usi on of previ ou sl y pub l i shed fr ee l ance cont ri bu t i on s ‘ i n a new antho l og y or a n ent i re l y di ff er entm agaz i ne or ot her c ol l ec t i ve w ork, ’ i . e. , i n l at er43

col l ec t i ve w orks no ti n t he sa m e s er i es . ” I d . ( c i t i ng H . R . R e p. a t122- 23) . T he pa ne l e m pha s i z e d tha t : pe r m i s s i bl e us e s unde r§ 201( c ) “ a r e a n e xc e pt i on t o the general rul e thatcopyri gh tvest s i ni t i al l y i n t he aut ho r of the i nd i vi du al cont ri bu t i on ”; and w arned t hat“ [w ] er e the perm i ss i bl e use s und erS ec t i on 20 1(c) a s b r o a d a n d a s tr a n s f

e r a b le a s [ p u b lis h e r s ] c o n te n d , it is n o t c le a rth a t th e r ig h ts re t ai ned b y the [a ] ut ho rs coul d b e c on si dere d ‘ excl usi ve’ i n any m ea ni ng ful se nse. ” Id . a t 1 6 8 . T h e T a s in i p a n e l a ls o n o te d in a f o o tn o te th a t: “S e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) g r a n ts co l l ect i v e w o rk s au th o rs ‘ o n l y’ a ‘ p ri v i l eg e’ rat h er t h an a ‘ ri g h t . ’ E ach o f th ese t erm s co n n o t es sp eci al i zed l eg al m ean i n g s, an d th ey w ere j u x t ap o sed b y C o n g ress i n t he sa m e s ent ence of S ec t i on 20 1(c) . ” I d . a t 1 6 8 n .3 . T hus , both the S e c ond C i r c ui ti n T a s i ni a nd ourc our ti n G r e e nbe r g I c onc l ude d tha ta “ ne w a nthol ogy ” or“ ne w c ol l e c t i ve w or k” w a s notw i thi n the

“ r e vi s i on” pr i vi l e ge of

§ 201( c ) orothe r w i s e pr ot e c t e d w i thi n the l i m i t e d s c ope of § 2 0 1 ( c ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s a f f ir m a n c e o f

th e S e c o n d C ir c u it’s o p in io n in T a s i ni , notonl y f

a i l e d t o di m i ni s h the f

or c e a nd e f

f e c tof both the S e c ond a nd E l event h C i rc ui top i ni on s thathad i ss ued b ef ore the C ou rtrul ed, bu tra ther fort i fi ed tho se re spec t i ve court s’ anal ys es of ho w new col l ec t i ve w orks (“ ot herSee Mtima, at 425 (“ The c ontent-altered dig ital re-publications in Tasini and 17 Gre enbergwere held to virtually exti nguish any

seconda ry marke t for the c ontributory works c onta ine d th e re in, be c a

us e on c e availa

bleon lin e , th e rewo uld

belittlene e d f

or a lte rn ativ e a c c e ss to the works. An e x act dig ital replica of a c ollective wor

k, particula

rly when disburse d into an online commerc ial databa se, would likely have thesame e ffe ct. Acc ording ly , exact digital replica s can bedisqualified from § 201( c) revision status on the same mar ket impact grounds as thec onte nt- a lte re d dig ital r e -p ub lic atio ns at is su e in T a sin i.” ). [T]he[Ta sin i] Cou rt rule d th at to allow the dig ital re-publications as privileg ed re visions would defeat the leg islative objective underlying § 201( c) . . . theCourt found that the deve lopment of dig ital technology has re sulted in the cre ation of a se condar y ‘stand alone ’ marke t for the individual contributions to collective works and c onstrued that Congress intende d that the contributory authors, as oppose d to the publishers, be the one s to benefit from such new ma rkets . . . . [T] hus the seconda ry , ‘stand alone’ re- publication marke t that § 201(c) restores to individual contributingauthors had be en u s ur p e d b y th e p u b l i s h e r s . ” Id. at 388-89 (c itations omi tted); see also, Thomas Dallal, F aulkner v . N ati o n a l G e o gr a

p h icE nter

p ris e s , In c . : D riv inga

T r u c k T hr o u ghth e E ye o f

a N e e d le , 1 5 T e x. Inte ll. Pr op . L .J. 6 3, 82 -8 4 ( 20 06 ) ( “ A re c e nt a rtic le. . . d e fi ne s ‘ me dia

neutra lity ’ t o me an th at a ‘c op y ri ght o wn e r’ s rights sh ou ld b e thesamere g ardle ss o f t hefo rm , whe ther a

nalogor dig ital, in which the wor

k may be embodied or

fix ed.’ . . . B eca

use the Sec ond Circuit in Faulkner held that the CNG wa s a per

missibl e re vision, itraised theissue of media neutrality only in passing a

nd only in the context of whether theplaintiffs’ contracts e xplicitly forba de the c halleng ed CNG uses. . . . [T] he Second Circ uit dodge d the ce ntral issue of whe ther the CNG w as a ‘ other late r collective w ork’ or

anthology

by decla ringmicrofor

m and microfic he a permissible revision and then a nalog izin gtheCN G t o mi c ro fo rm . In Gre e nb e rg , o n th e oth e r h and , th e El e ve nth Circ uit undertook the require d analysis, determined that the CNG posse ssed substantial indicia of orig inality , and empha siz ed that the Society had admitted as muc h by reg isteringit with the copy right officeas a new compilation. It then correctly , and consistently with the Second Circuit and Supreme Court Ta sini decisions, concluded that the CNG was ‘ a new product (“ an orig inal work of a

uthorship”), in a new medium.’”) ; Alice Ha emmerli, Commentary : Tasini v. New Y ork Times Co., 22 Colum. J . L . & Arts 129 (Winter 1998) (to the same ef fec t). 44 co l l ect i v e w o rk s”) are b eyo n d th e sco p e o f th e § 2 0 1 (c) p ri v i l eg e. S p eci fi cal l y, 17 th e C o u r t e x p la in e d th a t: § 2 0 1 ( c ) a d

ju s ts a p u b lis h e r ’s c o p y r ig h t in its c o lle c tiv e w o r k to a c c o m m o d a te a f

r e e la n c e r ’s c o p y r ig h t in h e rc o n tr ib u tio n . I f th e r e is dem and for a fr ee l ance ar t i cl e s t andi ng al on e or i n a ne w c ol l e c t i on , the C opy r i ghtA c ta l l ow s the f r e e l a nc e rt o be ne f

i tf r om tha tde m a nd; a f t e ra uthor i z i ng i ni t i a l publ i c a t i on, the f r e e l a nc e rm a y a l s o s e l l the art i cl e t o o th ers. T as i ni , 53 3 U . S . at48 5, 12 1 S . C t . at23 83 (e m ph as i s m i ne). T he C ou rtstre ss edTh e Sup re meCourt us e d th e wo rd

“ c omp e ndium ” he re . “ Com pe ndium ” is d e fi ne d a s: 18 “1. a brief tre atment or a ccount of a subjec t, esp. an e x tensive subject; conc ise treatise; 2. a summary , epitome, or a

bridg ement; 3. a f

ull lis t or inventory . Random House U nabridged Di c tio na ry

41 7 ( 2d e d. 19 87 ). Pr e suma

bly, th e Court

re lie d u po n th e thi rd

de fi nition . In o rd e r t o 45 tha ta pr i nc i pa l c om pone ntof the unde r l y i ng pol i c y r a t i ona l e f orf i ndi ng tha tthe p u b lis h e rd id n o t e n

jo y a n y § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e w a s th a t: I tw oul d s c a r c e l y “ pr e s e r ve the a uthor ’ s c opy r i ghti n a c ontr i but i on” a s c ont e m pl a t e d by C ongr e s s , [ H . R . R e p. a t122] , i f a ne w s pa pe ror m agaz i ne pu bl i sherw er e per m i t t ed t o reprodu ce or di stri bu t e c op i es of the a uthor ’ s c ontr i but i on i n i s ol a t i on or w i thi n n ew col l ec t i ve w o rks. T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t497, 121 S . C t . a t2389 ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) ( e m pha s i s m i ne ) . T he T as i ni C ou rtem ph as i ze d t hi s c op yr i gh tpo l i cy i n p rot ec t i ng the aut ho r’ s ( here phot ogr a phe r s ’ ) r i ght s by obs e r vi ng: T he [ p] ubl i s he r s ’ e nc om pa s s i ng c ons truc t i on of the § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge i s u n accep t ab l e, w e co n cl u d e, fo r i tw o u l d d i m i n i sh th e [a]ut h o rs’ ex cl u si v e ri g h t s i n th e [a]rt i cl es. Id . W ith th at p o li cy in m in d , th e C o u rt m o v ed to th e a ctu al test to b e a p p li ed “[i] n de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe [ a ] r t i c l e s ha ve be e n r e pr oduc e d a nd di s tr i but e d ‘a s p a rt of’a ‘ r e v is i on’of the col l ec t i ve w orks i n i ss ue. ” I d. (e m ph as i s m i ne). T he C ou rt s t a t e d tha ti t“ f

oc us [ e s ] on the [ a ] r t i c l e s a s pr e s e nt e d t o, a nd pe r c e pt i bl e by , the us e rof the [ d] a t a ba s e s . ” I d. a t499, 121 S . C t . a t2390. U nde rthi s a na l y t i c a l a ppr oa c h, the C our te xpl a i ne d: O ne m i ghtvi e w the a r t i c l e s a s pa r t s of a ne w [ a ggr e ga t i on] – 18avoid conf usion, beca

use the morefavored def

initions of the word – emphasizing bre vity and concise ness – are inappropriate to the databaseat issue in our ca se, reproducing , as it does, the c omplete Nation al Ge og

ra ph icwith eac h issue as orig inally published rather

than shortene d or summarized in any

way , Ihave instea d used the word “ag greg ation.” Tasini, 206 F.3d at 167; Tasini, 533. U.S. at 495, 121 S. C t. at 2388; GreenbergI , 244 19 F.3d at 1273. 46 n am ely, th e e n ti re ty o f w o rk s in th e [ d ]atab as e. In th at [a g g re g atio n ], e a c h e di t i on of

e a c h pe r i odi c a l r e pr e s e nt s onl y a m i ni s c ul e f r a c t i on of the ever- expand i ng [a gg re gat i on ] . T he [a gg re gat i on ] no m ore c ons t i tut e s a “ r e vi s i on” of e a c h c ons t i tue nte di t i on tha n a 400- pa ge no vel qu ot i ng a s on neti n p as si ng w ou l d repres enta “ re vi si on ” of that p o e m . “R e v is io n ” d e n o te s a n e w “v e r s io n ,” a n d a v e r s io n is , in th is se t t i ng , a “ di st i nctform of som ethi ng re garded by i t s c re at or or ot hers a s one w or k. T he m a s s i ve w hol e of the [ a ggr e ga t i on] i s not r e c o g n iz a b le a s a n e w v e r s io n o f its e v e r y s m a ll p a r t.” Id . at5 0 0 , 1 2 1 S . C t . at2 3 9 1 (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). T h e C o u rtco n cl u d ed : “ T h o se [ d] a t a ba s e s [ the a ggr e ga t i on] s i m pl y c a nnotbe a rc ha r a c t e r i z a t i on a s a ‘ r e vi s i on’ of an y one pe r i odi c al

e di t i on . ” I d . at50 1 n . 9, 12 1 S . C t . at23 91 n. 9 (em ph as i s m i ne). A r e v i e w o f

th e Ta s i n i o p i n i o n s , b o th i n th e Se c o n d Ci r c u i ta n d th e Su p r e me C o u r t, a s w e ll a s o u rG r e e n b e r g I o p in io n , d is c lo s e s th a t a ll th r e e o p in io n s c ite to the s a m e H ous e J udi c i a r y C om m i t t e e R e por tf ori nt e rpr e t a t i on of

the l a s tc l a us e of § 201( c ) , the m e a ni ng of “ r e vi s i on, ” a nd the de f

i ni t i on of i t s s c ope . T he r e l e va nt

19 H o u se R ep o rtp assag e ex p l ai n s: T h e b a s ic p r e s u m p tio n o f s e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) is f

u lly c o n s is te n t w ith p r e s e n t la w a n d p r a c tic e , a n d r e p r e s e n ts a f a irb a la n c in g o f

e q u itie s . A tthe s a m e t i m e , the l a s tc l a us e of the s ubs e c t i on, unde rw hi c h the pri vi l ege of r epub l i shi ng the cont ri bu t i on un der c er t ai n l i m i t ed c i r c um s t a nc e s w oul d be pr e s um e d, i s a n e s s e nt i a l c ount e rpa r tof the“Anthology” is define d as: “[A] collection of literary piece s, such as poe ms, short 20 stories, or plays,” The American H eritage Dictionary of the English Language 114 (2d ed. 1982); or “[a] book or other c ollection of selec ted writing s by various author s, usually

in the same litera

ry form, of thesame pe riod, or on the same subject.”The Random HouseDictionary of the Eng lish L anguag e 88 (2d e d. 1987). The only ref erence to “ anthology” in the Copy right Act appe ars in the § 101 de finition of “collec tive work” : “a wor k, such as a

periodical issue, anthology , or enc yclopedia, in whic h a number of contributions, constituting sepa rateand independe nt works in themselves, are asse mbled into a collective whole.” 47 ba s i c pr e s um pt i on. U nde rthe l a ngua ge of thi s c l a us e a publ i s hi ng c om pa ny c oul d r e pr i nta c ontr i but i on f r om one i s s ue i n a l a t e ri s s ue of i t s m agaz i ne, and cou l d repri ntan ar t i cl e f rom a 198 0 edi t i on of an e nc y c l ope di a i n a 1990 r e vi s i on of i t ; the publ i s he rc oul d n ot rev i se the cont ri bu t i on i t se l f o rin c lu d e it in a n e w a n th o lo g y o ra n e n tir e ly di f f er ent m ag azi ne or other c ol l ec t i ve w ork. H . R . R e p. a t122- 23 ( e m pha s i s m i ne ) . B a s e d upon a s tr a i ght - f or w a r d r e a di ng of tha tl e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y , the tw o T a s i ni opi ni ons a nd ourG r e e nbe r g I opi ni on concl ud ed that§ 2 01 (c ) does notext end p rot ec t i on for a pu bl i shert o i ncl ud e a n a uthor ’ s orphot ogr a phe r ’ s c ontr i but i on i n a c ol l e c t i ve w or k i n a ne w a ggr e ga t i on, T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t500, 121 S . C t . a t2391, ora nthol ogy ( a “ l a t e rc ol l e c t i ve w or k” i n § 2 0 1 ( c ) p a r l a n c e ) . Ta s i n i , 2 0 6 F. 3 d a t1 6 9 ; Ta s i n i 5 3 3 U . S. a t4 9 6 - 9 7 , 1 2 1 S. C t . a t2389- 90. U nde rthi s a na l y s i s , G r e e nbe r g’ s c opy r i ght s ha ve be e n i nf r i nge d. I f o n ly th e S e c o n d C ir c u it h a d f o llo w e d its e a r lie r , a f

f ir m e d a p p r o a c h in T as i ni w hen i tdeci ded F aul kn er , i tw ou l d h ave s t ay ed on the corre cttra ck. In st ar k con tra stt o t he l at erF aul kn erdeci si on , the T as i ni S ec on d C i rc ui tpanel had c l e a r l y he l d tha t : “ I f

the r e publ i c a t i on i s a ‘ ne w a nthol ogy ’ ora di f f e r e nt 20 col l ec t i ve w ork, i ti s notw i thi n S ec t i on 20 1(c) . ” I d . at16 9 (ci t i ng H . R . R ep. at“Collective wor k” is a c opy

right term of ar

t defined in Sec tion 101 of the Act. Seefn 21 12 & 14, supra . B y

that de fi nition , a

“ c oll e c tiv e wo rk” is a

sp e c ie s o r t

y peof c op y ri ghta ble work diff erent from the other

two ty pes of c opy

rightable wor

ks; such as, a c reative work (like a novel or dra

ma) a nd a derivative work ( like a motion picture ba sed upon a nove l). Thus the conflation of “work[s]” and g eneric usag e by the Fa ulkner district judg e, and othe rs, distorts the c or re c t inte rp re tiv e proc e ss. After publication of both the Tasini opinion and the F aulkner opinion, Professor 22 Deborah Tussey

made the f

ollowing insightful and per tinent observation: The NY TO and GPO CDs, on the other hand, w eredistributed as compilations of orig inal issues, requiringa moreextensive inquiry into whether they werefu nc tio nal e qu ivale nts of

re vis ion s o r n e w c oll e c tiv e wo rk s. Con gre ss, in t hele g isl ativ e his tor

y , in dic ate d th at a

pu bli sh ingc omp any

c ou ld reprint

a 48 122- 23 ( 1976) ) . I ts houl d be not e d tha tappe l l a nt s i n the i rbr i e f s t o thi s c our tha ve a tte m p te d to p e rp e tu a te a n in a p p r o p r ia te a n d in a c c u r a te a n a ly s is o r ig in a lly in tr o d u c e d b y th e w r o n g q u e s tio n b y th e tr ia l c o u r t in th e F a u lk n e rc a s e , w h ic h is :

“ W hatthen d i st i ng ui shes a ‘ re vi si on ’ fr om an ‘ ent i re l y di ff er ent ’ w ork? ” F aul kn er v. N a t ’ l G e ogr a phi c S oc ’ y , 294 F . S upp. 2d 523, 539 ( S . D . N . Y . 2003) . T he co rrecti n q u i ry, read i n g th e p l ai n t ex to f § 2 0 1 (c) i s, rat h er: “ W h atd i st i n g u i sh es a

‘ r e vi s i on’ f

r om a n ‘ othe rc ol l e c t i ve w or k? ’ ” T he H ous e R e por tde f i ne s i tnot 21 sol el y a s a n “ ent i re l y di ff er entw ork, ” a s J ud ge K apl an fr am ed the qu es t i on , bu tas a “ n e w a n th o l o g y o ra n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n tma g a z i n e o ro th e rc o l l e c t i v e w o r k . ” H . R. R e p. a t122- 23. T he F a ul kne rc our t , us i ng a n a t t e nua t e d m i c r of or m a na l ogy f

r om T as i ni di ct a, avoi ded t he ob vi ou s a l t ernat e c on cl usi on thatthe C N G i s a new com pend i um , antho l og y, or “ ot her c ol l ec t i ve w ork” and n ota “ re vi si on ” und er§ 20 1(c) . T he S oci ety a nd M i nd sc ape c anno tpo i ntt o any si ng l e i ss ue of t he som e

22contribution from one issue in a later issue of

its magazine, and could reprint an articlefrom a 1980 e dition of an enc yclopedia in a 1990 revision of it, but p u b l i s h er s co u l d

n o tre v i s e th e c o ntri b ut i o ni t s el f o r i n cl u d e i ti na n ewanth o l o gy or an entirely

different mag azine or other c ollective wor k. Since GPO included pu bli c atio ns oth e r t

ha n th os e take n f

ro m th e New Y or

k T ime s, it c le arly constitutes a new a

nthology and, henc e, a new collec tive work unde r sec tion 20 1( c ). NY TO , whic h a c c umulate d o nly iss ue s o f t

heNew Y or

k T ime s, pre se nts a more dif fi c ult c a se . T heF a

ulk ne r c ourt re a d th e “ e nti re ly

dif ferent”languag e to indicate that a

collective w ork which is merely somewhat diff

erent from the orig inal is privi le g e d a

nd re lie s o n T a sin i di c tum

re g ardingmic ro fo rm s to concludethat accumulations of issues of the same periodical a re permissible. One can a s easily

rea d the passag e, standingalone, to indicatethat an ac cumulation of issues, like NYTO, is a new anthology collectingmultipl e, pre vious compilations (the individual issues). In the abse nce of clea r direc tion from Congress, the cour t should have re solved the question by emphasizing the policy

underly ing se ction 201(c) . T h e l egi s l at i v e h i s t o ry o f s ec t i o n2 0 1 (c ) c l earl y

s u p p o rt s th e m aj o ri ty's interpre tation of Congress' s intent to equalize the balanc e of pow er be tween individual authors and publishers. Theoverriding policy issue ref lected in that history is fairne ss in the allocation of incentives for c reation, not, as Justice Stevens argues, ef

ficienc y of dissemination. The majority offe rs suffic ient empirical evidenceto support that policy analysis, based on the impac t on the authors’ ma

rkets for new a nthologies. H ad the c ourt emphasized this argument and cla rified the que stion whether a ccumulation of multiple issues was permissible, it might haveavoided the result in Faulkne r, which undercuts the policy protec ting a

uthors. Indeed, thecombination of Tasini, F aulkner , and the pu bli sh e rs ' ne w p ra c tic e of

re qu iringthat f

re e lanc e rs lic e ns e a ll c on c e iva bleri ghts a s a pre re qu isi teto p ub lic atio n, su g g e sts that if Con gre ss re ta ins any

int e re st i n protec ting powerless freela ncer s ag ainst overreac hing publisher s, it mustdevise a better me chanism than sec tion 201(c). The c ourt would havedone we ll to pursue an alter native argument, urg ed by the Reg ister of Copy

rights, that the critical right infringe d in Tasini was the right of public display . The Reg ister argued “vig orously” that the display of individual articles to users violate d the authors’ right to public displ ay and that sin c e se c tio n 2 01 (c ) p ro vid e s p ub lis he rs no dis pla y privi le g e , th e de fend ants should be held liable. This approach, had the cour t taken it, might haveavoided thedif fi c ult y of de fi nin gc op ie s a

nd re vis ion s, and

the ir fu nc tio nal e qu ivale nts , in thee le c tron ic c onte xt. When c omb ine d w iththepo lic y analysis , it

wo uld a lso haveprov ide d a

more satis fa c tor

y ra tio nalefo r t

here su lt. Deborah Tussey, Tec hnology Matters: The Courts, Media Neutrality , and Ne w Tec hnologie s, 12 49J . Intell. Prop. L . 427, 484-85 (2005) . 50

1 , 2 0 0 s e p a r a t e c o l l e c t i v e w o r k ma g a z i n e s th a tb e a r s a n y th i n g a n y o n e c o u l d t e r m a “r e v is io n .” E a c h is s u e o f th e m a g a z in e h a s b e e n s la v is h ly a n d id e n tic a lly re prod uced and l od ged i n a di ff er entm ore c om pactand p ort abl e/ st orabl e di gi t al m edi um ac com pani ed by a c om pl et el y new m ov i ng se qu ence w i th aud i ov i sual ac com pani m ent(a deri vat i ve w ork), w hi ch i s di spl ay ed on the com pu t ersc re en a nd pl a y s e a c h a nd e ve r y t i m e a c ons t i tue ntC D - R O M i s boot e d- up on the c o m p u te r . A s s e m b le d w ith th e u n e d ite d /u n r e v is e d c o p ie s a r e s e p a r a te ly c opy r i ght a bl e c om put e rpr ogr a m s ( i . e . , the C D A uthorD e ve l opm e ntS y s t e m a nd th e P ic T o o ls D e v e lo p m e n t K it) . R e c a ll th a t th e 2 5 - s e c o n d a u d io v is u a l c lip c o n s is ts of 10 di f f e r e ntM a ga z i ne c ove r s m orphi ng i nt o e a c h othe rw i th m us i c a nd s ound e f f e c ts in c lu d in g G r e e n b e r g ’s “d iv e r ” p h o to g r a p h ( a c o n tr ib u tio n o rw o r k ) . T h is seq u en ce, w h i ch i s l i t t l e-d i scu ssed i n th e ap p el l an t s’ m an y p ag es o f b ri efs, m an ifes tl y in fr in g ed u p o n G re en b er g ’s, an d th e o th er co n trib u ti n g p h o to g ra p h er s’, ex cl u si v e d eri v at i v e w o rk ri g h t s u n d er § 1 0 6 (2 ) b y u si n g h i s w o rk i n n ew w ays. T hus , a s s um i ng ar

gue ndo tha tthe S oc i e ty c a n i nvoke the § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge on be ha l f of i nf r i ngi ng thi r d pa r t i e s a s w e l l a s de f e ns e of i t s ow n c onduc t , the que s t i on be c om e s : D oe s the c r e a t i on of a w or k tha tne ve rbe f

or e e xi s t e d ( the C N G ) by c om bi ni ng a n e xa c t , unr e vi s e d di gi t a l r e pl i c a of 1, 200 pr e - e xi s t i ng51

c o lle c tiv e w o r k s ( i.e ., th e m a g a z in e s ) to g e th e rw ith a t le a s t tw o in d e p e n d e n tly cr ea t ed and o w ned cop yr i gh t abl e c om pu t erprog ra m s i nt o a si ng l e i nt egra t ed com m er ci al prod uct(the C N G ) c on st i tut e e i ther: (1) a new antho l og y; or, (2) other c o lle c tiv e w o r k ? I f

it is a n e w a n th o lo g y o ro th e rc o lle c tiv e w o r k , th e n it is p r e c l u d e d f

r o m b e i n g p r i v i l e g e d u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) b y th e e x p r e s s l a n g u a g e o f H . R. R ep 9 4 -1 4 7 6 . S ee H . R . R ep . , su p ra. H o w ev er, th e m aj o ri ty atfo o tn o t e 1 1 ci t es a s u p p le m e n ta r y r e p o r t b y th e R e g is te ro f C o p y r ig h ts f

r o m 1 9 6 5 f

o rth e in a c c u r a te and i nart ful prop osi t i on thatw hatC on gres s r ea l l y m ea nti n l egi sl at i ve hi st ory w hi ch st at es thata pub l i sherca nn oti ncl ud e a n aut ho r’ s c on tri bu t i on i n a “ new a n th o lo g y o ra n e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t m a g a z in e o ro th e rc o lle c tiv e w o r k ” r e a lly s h o u ld be r e a d a s a n ‘ e nt i r e l y di f f e r e nt ’ c ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” S e e M a j . O pi n. a t16- 17. T he m aj ori ty pl ac es grea tw ei gh tup on i t s c om pari son o f a m i cr oform ve r s i on of

the M a ga z i ne pur s ua ntt o the put a t i ve a ppr ova l , a l be i ti n di c t a , by the T a s in i C o u r t u n d e rth e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e o f a r e p r o d u c tio n o f

p r in t p u b lic a tio n s in mi c r o f o r m. Th e ma

j o r i ty s t a t e s : “ Ba s e d o n th i s f i d e l i ty t o c o n t e x t , th e Su p r e me C our tr e a s one d tha tthe r e pr oduc t i on of pr i ntpubl i c a t i ons i n m i c r of or m w oul d be pr i vi l e ge d unde r§ 201( c ) . ” I d. a t12. A tthe out s e tof i t s di s c us s i on of

the m i c r of or m a na l ogy a r gum e ntby the publ i s he r s i n T a s i ni the C our ts t a t e d: “ T heRecall that the “GPO” ( Gene ral Periodicals OnDisc) in Tasini, similar to the CD- 23 ROMs here, w ereincluded in the ter m “Data bases.” See Appe ndix A (Te x t on CNG box es of CDs) a nd Appendix B (shrinkwrapped 24 “L icenseAgree ment And L imited W arranty”). Maj. Opin. at 22. This so-called “staple of the Copy right Act” a ctually

appea rs for the 25 first time in a Supreme Court opinion in Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 502, 121 S.C t. 2381, 2392. 52 P ubl i s he r s pr e s s a n a na l ogy be tw e e n the D a t a ba s e s , on the one ha nd, a nd 23 m ic r o f ilm a n d m ic r o f

ic h e , o n th e o th e r . W

e f i nd the anal ogy w ant i ng. ” T a s in i, 533 U . S . a t501, 121 S . C t . a t2391 ( e m pha s i s m i ne ) . T he m a j or i ty the n pr oc e e ds t o fi nd the C N G “ anal og ou s” t o t hese form s of m i cr oform . O n t he heel s of that te n u o u s “a n a lo g y ,” th e m a jo r ity is d is m is s iv e o f

th e a d d itio n o f

th e c o p y r ig h ta b le c om put e rpr ogr a m s i nc orpor a t e d by M i nds c a pe i nt o the C N G - - - the C D A uthor D e ve l opm e ntS y s t e m a nd the P i c T ool s D e ve l opm e ntK i t . A f t e rde s c r i bi ng a nd 24 lu m p in g to g e th e ra ll o f

th e s e in d e p e n d e n t a n d f r e e - s ta n d in g c o p y r ig h ta b le com pu t erprog ra m s the m aj ori ty s um m ar i l y c on cl ud es that : “ [T ] he com pu t er p r o g r a m ’s e le m e n ts . . . d o n o t ta k e th e C N G o u ts id e th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e .” M a j. O pi n. a t19. T he s e c opy r i ght a bl e c om put e rpr ogr a m s a r e r e f e rr e d t o by the m aj ori ty a s “ the se ar ch funct i on , ” “ zoom capaci ty, ” a nd a “ com pu t erprog ra m [ tha t ] s i m pl y c om pr e s s e s a nd de c om pr e s s e s the di gi t a l i m a ge s . ” I d. a t19- 20. T he m a jo r ity in v o k in g th e “a s ta p le o f th e C o p y r ig h t A c t” – “th e p r in c ip le o f m e d ia n e u tr a l i ty ” – o b s e r v e s th a t : “ T h e C NG i s n o d i f f e r e n tth a n o th e rC D- R OM 25Ma j. O pin . at 19 -2 0. Th e state me nt t hat “ [a ] ll CD-ROMs contain an operating 26 computer program”is incorre ct; CDs arecommonly used to store music, data and photograph fi le s w ith out in c or

po ratio n o f a

ny c omp uter p ro gra

m. It is po ssibleto s avepic ture s, imag e s, song s, or videos onto a CD-ROM without addinga sepa ratecomputer program to the disk. As n o t edab o v e, b y

u s i n g on ly

“Windows Explorer®”on a host computer, w ithout a compression or decompression computer program or a search-eng ine computer

program, a

user c an view e ach and every pag e and isolateand copy any photograph on the CD-ROM — thereby destroying a

ny fre elanc e contributors ability to economically

benef it from the sale the reof

. Moreove r, the a pp e lla nts us e of theJIF (o r Jpe gInterc ha

ng e F or mat) prov ide s e a sy , une nc umb e re d a c c e ss t o theindivi du a l im a g e s o f t heMa g azine s o n th e CN G’ s c on sti tuent C D- RO Ms. So e a sy that th is abacus-ag e judg e could a ccomplish it with only a little coac hing f

rom his law cler

ks! Moreover, Professor Patry

even refers to me as a

“L uddite” in his rec ent copy right treatise e dition. 2 Wil liam F. Patry , Patry

on Copy right, § 5:142.95 (2007)

53 p ro d u ct s, i n th atal l C D -R O M s c o n ta in a n o p e r a tin g c o m p u te rp r o g r a m th a t d ir e c ts its f u n c tio n a lity ;” a n d , “T h e s e a d d e d f e a tu r e s o n ly s e r v e to p r o v id e f u n c tio n a lity 26 t o t he ‘ C N G ’ s r ai son d ’ etre . ’ ” I d. (e m ph as i s m i ne). C on fr on t ed w i th a si m i l ar ar g u m en t th e S u p re m e C o u rt m ajo rity in T as in i stated : “ W e lac k th e d isse n t’ s c onf i de nc e tha tthe c ur r e ntf or m of the D a t a ba s e s i s e nt i r e l y a t tr i but a bl e t o the nature of the el ec troni c m edi a, ra ther than t he nature of the ec on om i c m ar ket se rved by t he D at abas es . In any c as e, w e s ee no grou nd i ng i n § 20 1(c) for a

‘ m edi um -dri ven’ nece ss i ty def ense . . . t o t he A ut ho rs ’ i nfri ng em entcl ai m s. ” T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t502 n. 11, 121 S . C t . a t2392 n. 11. F i r s ta nd f

or e m os t , the m a

j or i ty ’ s a na l ogy of

the C N G t o m i c r of

i l m a nd m i c r of i c he i s f a rt oo c om pr e he ns i ve . A va l i d a na l ogy w oul d be t o a r e pr oduc t i on of the M a ga z i ne s by s c a nni ng the m ont o a C D - R O M i n di gi t a l f or m a tus i ng the m e c ha ni c a l ope r a t i ng s of tw a r e e m be dde d i n a s c a nni ng de vi c e — s i m i l a rt o theMe dia neutra lity

me ans that a

c op y ri ght owner

enjoys the same protection in any form 27 where his work is fixed. Stated differently , “media neutrality” convey s the conc ept that the copy right law should not favor a ny particula r tec hnology

over a nother, such that the subject matter of c opy

right includes works fixed on both exi sting media and futuremedia. This broa d 54 phot ogr a phi c m i c r of

i l m i ng of the pa ge s of

a publ i c a t i on. A ttha tpoi nt , w i thoutthe benefi tof a c om pres si on com pu t erprog ra m , on e w ou l d h ave e ss ent i al l y a “ di gi t al m ic r o f ilm ” s to r e d a n d c a p a b le o f d is p la y o n a c o m p u te rs c r e e n tru ly a n a lo g o u s to m i cr ofi l m . T he prob l em for the S oci ety a nd i t s c o-i nfri ng er s, ho w ever , i s thatthat d ig ita l r e p r o d u c tio n w o u ld lik e ly c o n s u m e s e v e r a l h u n d r e d C D s b y a s s e m b lin g it w i thouta c om pr e s s i on c om put e rpr ogr a m . S uc h a r e pr oduc t i on w oul d pl a c e the M a g a z in e s ’ im a g e s in c o n te x t, r e a d a b le a n d d is p la y a b le b y a c o m p u te r— b u t it w oul d notbe a m a r ke t a bl e pr oduc tt o the pr e s e ntc om put e r - s a vvy ge ne r a t i on, “ the e c onom i c m a r ke ts e r ve d by the [ C N G ] . ” I d. T he s a m e c a n be s a i d f orthe s e a r c he n g in e c o m p u te rp r o g r a m . W ith o u t it th e m ic r o f o r m - lik e c o lle c tio n o f

C D s w o u ld n o t b e m a r k e ta b le . S ta te d d if f e r e n tly , th e o ld w in e w ith o u t th e n e w b o ttle s w ith the tw i s tof

f c ap w oul d be a n unm a r ke t a bl e pr oduc t . T he t e c h- s a vvy c ons um e rof to d a y w o u ld b e b e tte ro f f p u llin g th e o ld e d itio n s o f th e N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic M a ga z i ne f

r om the i rpa r e nt s ’ a nd gr a ndpa r e nt s ’ c l os e t s , ba s e m e nt s , ora t t i c s a nd vi ew i ng them for f

re e! T h e c o p y r ig h t p r in c ip le in p la y h e r e is th a t th e n e b u lo u s c o n c e p t o f “m e d ia neut ra l i ty” thathas i t s pri nci pal focus on t he ow nerof the c opy r i ghtr i ght , notthe 27protec tion encourag es authors to c reate more w orks and thereby advanc e the progress of sc ience and usef ul arts. Thus, the purposeof media neutrality is to shape a moreflexibl e copy right law to fit new tec hnology

without revising thestatutory copy right law in the future . H.R. Rep. at 52. Media neutrality

languag e also a

ppear s in a serie s of statutory definitions (e.g ., “audiovisual works,” “ copies,”“fixed,” “litera ry works,” “phonorec ords” a nd “sound re cording s”). See§ 10 1. Ho we ve r, su c h la

nguag e is c on sp ic uo us ly

a bs e nt f ro m th e de fi nition s o f “ de ri vativ e wo rk s” and “c om pil ati on s. ” S e e § 1 0 1 . S e c t i o n2 0 1 ( c ) a l s o l a c k s m e d i a n e utr a l i ty

l an gu a g e . W e n dy

J. Gordon, F ine-TuningTasini: Privil eg es of Ele ctronic D istribution and Reproduction, 66 Brook. L . Rev. 473, 485 n.65 (2000). 55 gran t ee of

a pr i vi l e ge . T ha tc onc e ptc a nnottrum p the c odi f i e d a nd c ons t i tut i ona l l y - ba s e d r i ght s of a c opy r i ghtow ne r . T he s t a tut or y de f i ni t i on of c ol l e c t i ve w or k c l e a r l y a ppl i e s t o the “ a s s e m bl y ” - - - the a ggr e ga t i on - - - of d i st i n ct l y co p yri g h t ab l e w o rk s i n t o “ a co l l ect i v e w h o l e; ” h ere, th e C N G . T h u s, w hen t he di st i nct , se para bl e, copyri gh t abl e c om pu t erprog ra m s ( som e of w hi ch have regi st er ed cl ai m s of c op yr i gh tpredat i ng the cr ea t i on of the C N G ) have been i nt ent i on al l y i ncorpo ra t ed i nt o t he com m er ci al prod uctkn ow n as the C N G t og ether w i th t he exi st i ng com po nent s of the col l ec t i ve w orks — the un re vise d i nd i vi du al i ss ues of the N at i on al G eographi c M agaz i nes — there then exi st s a n “ ot her col l ec t i ve w ork” or surel y, even un der the m aj ori ty’ s ( m i s) i nt erpret at i on , “ an ent i re l y di ff

er entcol l ec t i ve w ork” t hatfa i l s t o q ual i fy for i ncl usi on w i thi n t he § 20 1(c) pri vi l ege. B . T he S oci ety c l ai m s the benefi tof a pri vi l ege f or a group of thi rd part i es that ac tual l y c om pi l ed and p ub l i shed the C N G . T he S oci ety r el i es on pu t at i ve tra nsfe rs“Thematter of what questions may be take n up and re solved for thefirst time on 28 a pp e a l is on e le ft

prima ri ly to t hedis c re tio n o f t

hec ourt s o f a

pp e a ls, to b e e xerc ise d o n th e fa c ts of individual case s.” Single ton v. Wul ff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S. Ct. 2868, 2877 (1976). Courts have g enerally

been a menable to e x erc ising their inhe rent power to consider unbriefe d thresh old issues when they

arise. SeeU.S. Nat’l B ank of O r. v. Indep. Ins. Ag ents of Am. Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 447, 113 S. C t. 2173, 2178 (1993) (“ [A] court may consider a

n issue ‘ante cedent to . . . and ultimately

dispositi ve of’ the dispute before it, even a n issue the par

ties fail to identify and brie f.”) (quotingArc adia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73, 77, 111 S . Ct. 415, 418 (1990)). Moreove r, it is an axiomof appe llate re view that the judgment of a district c ourt may be a ff ir me d u po n a ny a de qu ategro un d, e ve n if it i s o ther t

ha n th e on e on

wh ic h th e c ourt

a c tually relied. SeeSmith v. Allen, 502 F.3d 1255, 1280 ( 11th Cir. 2007). The Society

must rely upon the privileg e in § 201(c ) bec ause it does not hold exclusive 29 ri ght t o Gre e nb e rg ’s ph oto gra ph s. Un de r § 10 3(b) , a

c op y ri ght i n a c omp ilatio n d oe s not

extend to the compiler a

ny exclusive rights in the pre exis ting mate rials brought toge ther in the c o l l e c t i v e w o r

k . Gr e e nb e rg ’ s p h o t o gr a

p h s w e re p r o d

u c e d an d s u b m i tt e d t o th e S o c i e ty be

fore the periodicals were published. Therefore, the photographs were preexisti ngworks in which the Society owned no rights at all absent a written transfer. This delineation is further re inforce d by theCop y ri ght O ff ic e in i ts C irc ula

r 6 2 o n th e re g istra

tio n o f c op y

ri ghts in s e ri a ls, wh e reit s tate s: I f t hese ri a l is su e inc lud e s any ind epe nd e ntly

a uth ore d c ontributio ns in whic h all rights have not

been transfe rre d by

the contributor to the c laimant for the serial issue as a whole, those contributions arenot included in the claim being reg istered, be causethe claimant in thesecontributions is differe nt from the claimant in the entireserial issue. Copy right OfficeCircular N o. 62 (Serials) at 4 (“TheClaimant and the Extent of the Claim”). 56 to th o s e th ir d - p a r tie s o f th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e to in s u la te it f r o m lia b ility f

o rits co n tri b u t o ry i n fri n g em en tan d t o p ro t ecti t s p art n ers i n p u b l i cat i o n fro m l i ab i l i ty. A l tho ug h t he i ss ue of t he tra nsfe rabi l i ty of the pri vi l ege a cc orded u nd er §201( c ) w a s nots qua r e l y br i e f e d by the pa r t i e s , i tw a s i de nt i f i e d di r e c t l y by the 28 S u p r e m e C o u r t in T a s in i. S e e T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 4 9 6 n .5 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 2 3 8 9 n .5 . 29 H e r e , the S oc i e ty , a s the ow ne rof the c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or ks ( the M a ga z i ne s ) , i s the s t a tut or y gr a nt e e a nd hol de rof the pr i vi l e ge . H ow e ve r , the57

re cord ref

l ec t s thatthe S oci ety, throu gh t axabl e s ub si di ar i es , cont ra ct ed w i th an una f f i l i a t e d thi r d pa r ty , M i nds c a pe , t o r e pr oduc e a nd di s tr i but e the M a ga z i ne s on C D -R O M s. R A cc #2 -230 at9. M i nd sc ape i ncorpo ra t ed tw o i nd ependent l y ow ned a nd c opy r i ght e d c om put e rpr ogr a m s ( C D A uthorD e ve l opm e ntK i ta nd the P i c T ool s D e ve l opm e ntK i tow ne d by D a t a W a r e , I nc . a nd P e ga s us I m a gi ng C o rp o r a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) o n t o e a c h C D- R OM o f th e C NG . T he que s t i on i s s tr a i ght f or w a r d: onc e i tha s be e n e s t a bl i s he d w ho ow ns the c o p y r i g h ti n a p a r t i c u l a rc o l l e c t i v e wo r k , wh o ma y e x e r c i s e th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r i v i l e g e ? T he answ eri s e qu al l y s tra i gh t forw ar d: the exerc i se of pri vi l ege a cc orded t he ow ner of a c ol l ec t i ve w ork u nd er§ 2 01 (c ) i s l i m i t ed t o t hatow ner. A s the A ctm akes c le a r , th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) g r a n t, is a p r iv ile g e , n o t a r ig h t. A s s u c h , it is n o t tr a n s f e r r a b le . T hu s, as a th r e s h o ld

m a tte r , th e in v o c a tio n in th is c a s e o f th e § 2 0 1 ( c ) p r iv ile g e is nota uthor i z e d by the l a w on thi s r e c or d.

“ S ec t i on 20 1(c) do es no tand canno tgrantri gh t s ( si nce onl y [ § 1 06 ] do es that ); i nst ea d, i tprov i des ( re bu t t abl e) pres um pt i ve pri vi l eges w here the ow ner of a col l ec t i ve w ork d oes nothave a tra nsfe r of e xcl usi ve ri gh t s f rom a f re e- l ance r. ” W illia m F . P a tr y , P a tr y o n C o p y r ig h t ( h e r e in a f te r“P a tr y ” ) § 5 :1 3 8 ( 2 0 0 7 ) .

“ S ec t i on 20 1(c) grant s s peci fi ed pri vi l eges thatca n b e e xerc i se d o nl y by the ow ner of the ori gi nal col l ec t i ve w ork (or an agentac t i ng on behal f of the col l ec t i ve w orkSee Chesape ake &Ohio Ry . v Miller, 114 U.S. 176, 186, 5 S. C t. 813, 818 (1885) 30 (immunity

from taxation enjoyed by railroa d was a

privileg e and a s such was “personal, and incapa ble of tra nsfer without express statutory direc tion,” and thus did not pass to purchaser of trac t of railroa d land); Wilson v. Gaines, 103 U.S. 417, 420-21 (1880) ( same); Morg an v. L ouisiana, 93 U.S. 217, 223 (1876) ( same); Am. Pelag ic FishingCo. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1374 (F ed. Cir. 2004) (f ishing pe rmits issued by

the g overnme nt not transferable) ; FDI C v. 58 ow ner) and canno t , w i tho utfr ee -l ance rs ’ perm i ss i on , be tra nsfe rr ed t o t hi rd p a r tie s .” I d . P r iv ile g e s a r e le s s e re v e n th a n n o n - e x c lu s iv e lic e n s e s . A s a r e s ul t , the r e c a n be no doubttha tc ol l e c t i ve ow ne r s do notow n a tran sferab l e co p yri g h to w n ersh i p i n t eresti n freel an ce au th o rs’ s e pa r a t e c ontr i but i ons a nd tha ta uthor i z a t i on t o thi r d pa r t i e s t o i nc l ude thos e c ontr i but i ons i n a n e nt i r e l y di f f e r e ntc ol l e c t i ve w or k e xc e e ds the c o lle c tiv e w o r k o w n e r s ’ a u th o r ity u n d e rS e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) . O nl y i f the c o p y r ig h t o w n e rin th e c o lle c tiv e w o rk o w n s a n ex c lu s iv e r ig h t c a n it a u th o ri ze th i rd p a rt i es t o rep ro d u ce a n d d istri b u t e f

reel a n ce a u th o rs’ s e p a r a te c o n tr ib u tio n s . P atry § 5 : 14 1 (em ph as i s m i ne). I n the or i gi na l pr oc e e di ng i n di s tr i c tc our ti n T a s i ni , the tr i a l j udge c onc l ude d tha ta ny § 201( c ) “ pr i vi l e ge ” w a s , unde r§201( d) ( 2) , a “ s ubdi vi s i on of a n y o f th e r i g h t s s p e c i f

i e d b y s e c t i o n 1 0 6 . ” Ta s i n i v . N e w Y o r k Ti me s Co . , 9 7 2 F. S upp. 804, 815- 16 ( S . D . N . Y . 1997) . T hus , he c onc l ude d tha ti tc oul d be tr a ns f e r r e d. I d. H ow e ve r , a s not e d, “ [ t ] he onl y ‘ r i ght s ’ gr a nt e d i n the C opy r i ght A c ta r e [ c ont a i ne d] i n S e c t i on 106, noti n c ha pt e r2. ” P a tr y § 5: 141 n. 2. T ha tthe t er m “ pri vi l ege, ” i n turn, appears on l y i n § 20 1(c) show s thatC on gres s r ec og ni ze d a di ff er ence betw ee n a ri gh tand a pri vi l ege. F urther, “ i n g ener al l aw , ” pri vi l eges a r e “ r e ga r de d a s pe r s ona l a nd nottr a ns f e r a bl e . ” I d.

30Morrison, 747 F.2d 610, 613- 14 (11th Cir. 1984) (“ statutory right of rede mption” under mortg ag e wa s “a personal privileg e, not a tra nsferable property

right”) (alterations omitted); Un ite d St ate s v . Murdo c k, 91 9 F . Su pp . 1 53 4, 15 41 (D . Utah 1 99 6) , a ff ’d , 1 32 F .3 d 5 34 (1 0th Cir. 1997) (under

tribal law princ iples, “huntingand fishingprivileg e within the Ute reser vation is a personal right of user, ‘ neither inhe ritable nor transfe rable ’”) ; Herbert v. Newton Mem’l Hosp., 933 F. Supp. 1222, 1230-31 ( D. N.J. 1996), aff’ d, 116 F.3d 468 ( 3d Cir. 1997) (doctor ’s hospital privilege s not transferable) ; Fulton v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 261, 262 (D. N ev. 19 93 ) ( grazingpe rm it a s to fe de ral la nd s “ is a re vo c a bleprivi le g e iss ue d b y

theg ov e rnme nt; it i s ne ith e r a tr ans fera bleno r a n a ssi gna bleri ght” ). Th e Re state me nt o f t heL aw, Pr op e rt

y , is a lso he lpf ul o n th is p oint, t o w it: A privileg e, as theword is used in this Restatement, is a leg al fre edom on the par t of one person as ag ainst another to do a g iven ac t or a leg al fre edom not to do a g iven a c t. Comment : a. Correlative absenceof right. The re lation indicated by the word “privileg e” ma

y also be stated f

rom the point of view of

the per son ag ainst whom theprivi le g e e xists . F ro m th e po int of view o f t his oth e r p e rs on

it m ay besaid that thereis no right on his par t that the first person should not eng ag e in the particula r cour se of a ction or of nona ction in question. Illustrati on: 1. A is the lesseeof a f

arm. Theleast contains a cove nant with the landlord B that A will cultivate field one , and that he w ill not culti vate f ield two, and ha s n o c ov e na

nt a s to fi e ld t

hre e . A s b e tw e e n Aand

B , Aha s b oth

theduty and the privilegeof cultivatingfield one; hehas both the duty and the privilegeof not cultivating f

ield two; except so far a s he is aff ecte d by the law of

waste, he has the privileg e of cultivating and theprivileg e of not c ultivating fie ld three. Restatement (F irst) of Proper ty § 2 (1936). 59 I f one e xa m i ne s the pe r t i ne ntc opy r i ghtde f i ni t i ons i n § 101 a nd the us a ge of “p r iv ile g e ” a n d “r ig h t” th r o u g h o u t th e A c t, th e e r r o ro f th e T a s in i d is tr ic t c o u r t — and t he appel l ant s her e i nv ok i ng i t— becom es cl ea r. F or i nst ance , § 1 01 defi nes c o p y r ig h t o w n e r s h ip a n d tr a n s f e ra s f o llo w s : “C o p y r ig h t o w n e r ” , w ith r e s p e c t to a n y o n e o f th e e x c lu s iv e r ig h ts c o m p r is e d in a c o p y r ig h t, r e f e r s to th e o w n e ro f

th a t p a r tic u la rr ig h t.§ 201. Owner ship of copy right 31 * * * (d) Transfe r of Ownership.– (1 ) Theowne rs hip of

a c op y ri ght m ay betr ans ferre d in whole or in pa

rt by any means of c onveyanceor by operation of law, and may bebe qu e athe d b y

wi ll o r p a ss a s p e rs on a l prop e rt y by the applica

ble laws of intestate succ ession. (2 ) Any of thee xclu siv e ri ghts c omp ri se d in a c op y ri ght, including a

ny subdivision of any

of the rights specified by section 106, may be tra nsfer red a s provided by

clause(1) a

nd owned separately . The owner of a ny particula r exclusive right is entitl ed, to the extent of that right, to all of theprotec tion and reme dies acc orded to the c opy

right owner by

this ti tle. 60 A “ tra nsfe r of c op yr i gh tow ners hi p” i s a n ass i gn m ent , m ort gage, e xc l us i ve l i c e ns e , ora ny othe rc onve y a nc e , a l i e na t i on, or h y p o th e c a tio n o f

a c o p y r ig h t o ro f

a n y o f th e e x c lu s iv e r ig h ts com pri se d i n a copyri gh t , w hether or noti ti s l i m i t ed i n t i m e or pl ac e of ef fe ct , bu tno ti ncl ud i ng a non excl usi ve l i ce nse. § 101. A s not e d, “ ow ne r s hi p” a nd “ tr a ns f e r ” the r e of

a r e a ddr e s s e d onl y i n the c o n te x t o f

th e § 1 0 6 “e x c lu s iv e r ig h ts .” N o w h e r e is e ith e ro f th e s e te r m s u s e d in c onne c t i on w i th a “ pr i vi l e ge . ” I nc i de nt a l l y , the f or m s of tr a ns f e rm e nt i one d i n the ab o v e d efi n i t i o n an d i n § 2 0 1 (d )(1 ) are fam i l i ar fo rm s o f p ro p ert y tran sfer. Ju st 31 as w i th m o stp ro p ert y tran sfers, an y i n t eresti n co p yri g h tth ati s tr a n s fe r a b le m u st b e a c c o m p lis h e d in a w r itin g , to w it: § 2 0 4 . E x e c u tio n o f

tr a n s f e r s o f c o p y r ig h t o w n e r s h ip ( a ) A tr a n s f

e ro f c o p y r i g h to wn e r s h i p , o th e rth a n b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w, i s notva l i d unl e s s a n i ns trum e ntof c onve y a nc e , ora not e or m e m or a ndum of

the tr a ns f

e r , i s i n w r i t i nga nd si

gn ed by the ow nerof th e r ig h ts c o n v e y e d o rs u c h o w n e r ’s d u ly a u th o r iz e d a g e n t. § 2 0 4 ( e m p h a s is m in e ) . A g a in , o n ly a n “o w n e r ” m a y e f f e c t a tr a n s f

e r . T h u s , it isSee notes 1 & 17, supra . 32 61 i m po rt antand si gn i fi ca ntthatun der § 20 1(c) “ the ow nerof c opy r i ghti n a c o lle c tiv e w o r k ,” n o t a tr a n s f e r e e o rs u b - g r a n te e , is s p e c if ie d a s h a v in g : o n ly the pr i v i l ege of r e

pr oduc i nga nd dis tr i but i ngthe c ontr i but i on [f o r w h ich co p yr ig h t o w n er sh ip is v es ted in th e a u th o r] as p ar t of that p a r tic u la rc o lle c tiv e w o r k [ f o rw h ic h c o p y r ig h t o w n e r s h ip is v e s te d in th e p u b lis h e r ], an y re vi si on of th at col l ec ti ve w ork , and any l at er c o lle c tiv e w o r k in th e s a m e s e r ie s . § 201( c ) ( e m pha s i s m i ne ) . A c l e a rdi s t i nc t i on i s dr a w n be tw e e n the “ ow ne r ” of the cont ri bu t i on and t he “ ow ner” of the part i cul arcol l ec t i ve w ork — the on l y pe rs on pr i v ile ge d to r e p r o d u c e a n d d is tr ib u te s a id c o n tr ib u tio n . H er e w e have a publ i sher , the S oci ety ( a not -f or-profi tcorporat i on ), a lle g e d ly tr a n s f

e r r in g its “r e v is io n ” p r iv ile g e ( s ) to a w h o lly - o w n e d , f o r - p r o f it c o rp o r a tio n , w h ic h th e n p u ta tiv e ly r e - tr a n s f e r s th e “r e v is io n ” p r iv ile g e ( s ) to M i nd sc ape, Inc. i n o rdert o exp l oi tthe cont ri bu t or’ s i nd ependent l y c op yr i gh t ed w or k i n a m a nne rne ve ri nt e nde d by § 201( c ) . H ow e ve r , a s e m pha s i z e d, the 32 l i m i t e d §201( c ) “ pr i vi l e ge ” c a nnotbe e xe r c i s e d by a ny one othe rtha n the “ ow ne rof th e [ o r ig in a l] c o lle c tiv e w o r k ” — h e r e th e S o c ie ty . T hi s l i m i t at i on as t o any tra nsfe r of the § 2 01 (c ) pri vi l ege gai ns further supp ortthrou gh a s tud y of other use s of “ pri vi l ege” i n t he A ct . If a par t i cul arw ord o f a sect i o n o f a st atu t e i s n o to th erw i se ex p ressl y d efi n ed , th atw o rd ’ s u se62

e ls e w h e r e in th e s ta tu te is in d ic a tiv e o f h o w th a t w o r d s h o u ld b e in te rp r e te d w ith in the s e c t i on i t s e l f

. S e e D e p’ tof

R e ve nue of

O r . v. A C F I ndus . , I nc . , 510 U . S . 332, 3 3 3 , 1 1 4 S . C t. 8 4 3 , 8 4 5 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( r e q u ir in g c o u r ts to g iv e w o r d s w h ic h a r e u s e d in m ore than o ne pl ac e i n a st atut e i nt erpret at i on s thatar e c on si st ent ). T he w ord

“ pri vi l ege” appears on l y three t i m es i n t he ent i re 19 76 C op yr i gh tA ct : i n § 20 1(c) , an d i n § § 1 0 9 (d ) an d 1 1 1 (d ). S ect i o n 1 0 9 (d ) p ro v i d es th atp erso n s othertha n the tw o e x p r e s s r e c ip ie n ts ( b u y e r s a n d lib r a r ie s ) o f th e “p r iv ile g e s ” d e s c r ib e d th e r e in c annot ex erci se th o se p ri v i l eg es: ( d) T he pr i vi l e ge s pr e s c r i be d by s ubs e c t i ons ( a ) a nd ( c ) do not , u n l ess autho ri ze d b y the copyri gh tow ner, ext end t o any pers on w ho has a c qui r e d pos s e s s i on of

the c opy orphonor e c or d f r om the c opy r i ght ow ne r , by r e nt a l , l e a s e , l oa n, orothe r w i s e , w i thouta c qui r i ng o w n e r s h ip o f

it. § 1 09 (d) ( em ph as i s m i ne). T hati s, the § 1 09 (d) “ pri vi l eges , ” a s e xcept i on s t o t he § 10 6 ri gh t s, ar e gi ven b y e xp re ss st atut ory l angu age onl y t o b uyer s of c op yr i gh t ed w or ks a nd t o l i br a r i e s . S uc h pr i vi l e ge s do note xt e nd t o thi r d pa r t i e s , s uc h a s nono w n ers o r l i b rary p atro n s w h o m erel y b o rro w ed o r ren t ed th e w o rk s u n l ess

“ a uthor i z e d by the c opy r i ghtow ne r . ” I d. S i m i l a r l y , § 111( d) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) de f i ne s the c ons i de r a t i on ( a c om pul s or y l i c e ns i ng f e e ) tha tc a bl e s y s t e m s m us tpa y f orthe “p r iv ile g e ” o f

r e tr a n s m ittin g te le v is io n b r o a d c a s ts . O n c e p a id f o r , th e p r iv ile g e is part i cul art o t he ca bl e s ys t em i n q uest i on . § 1 11 (d)( 1)(B )( i ).63

I nt e rpr e t i ng “ pr i vi l e ge ” i n § 201( c ) i n a c c or da nc e w i th tha tt e r m ’ s us e i n §§ 109( d) a nd 111( d) , c l a r i f i e s tha tthe § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge s c a nnotbe tr a ns f e r r e d t o the s ubs , N G E /N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c I nt e r a c t i ve a nd M i nds c a pe , I nc . T he c ontr i but i ng ow ner ( here G re enberg) never a ut ho ri ze d t he tra nsfe r. L i ke the pri vi l eges prov i ded for i n § 10 9(d) and § 11 1(d), the expres s l i m i t at i on s on t he pri vi l ege i n § 20 1(c) exi sti n t he st atut ory l angu age i t se l f. O nl y the “ ow ner of the copyri gh ti n t hat col l ec t i ve w ork” (here ea ch M agaz i ne) has the aut ho ri ty t o exerci se any of the § 2 0 1 (c) p ri v i l eg es. T he l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y of the 1976 C opy r i ghtA c ta l s o i nf or m s the nontr a ns f e r a bi l i ty of

pr i vi l e ge s . T he 1961 dr a f ts t a t e d: T h e co p yri g h tsecu red b y th e p u b l i sh er i n th e co m p o si t e w o rk as a w h o le s h o u ld c o v e ra ll o f th e c o n tr ib u tio n s n o t s e p a r a te ly c opy r i ght e d; butthe publ i s he rs houl d be de e m e d t o hol d i n trus tf or th e a u th o ra ll r ig h ts i n t he aut ho r’ s c on tri bu t i on , exce ptthe r i ght to pu bl i sh i ti n a si m i l arcom po si t e w ork and any other r ig h ts e x p r e s s ly a s s i gne d. R e gi s t e rof

C opy r i ght s f

orthe H . C om m . on the J udi c i a r y , 88th C ong. , C opy r i ght L a w R e v is io n P a r t 2 , 2 3 0 ( C o m m . P r in t. 1 9 6 3 ) ( e m p h a s is m in e ) . I n s ta r k c o n tr a s t, a 1964 dr a f

ts t a t e d: T he ow ne rof

c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k s ha l l , i n the a bs e nc e of an express tra nsfe r of the copyri gh tor of any e xcl usi ve r ig h ts [ of the autho r] un der i t , be pres um ed t o h ave a cqui re d o nl y the pr i v i l ege of publ i s hi ng the c ontr i but i on i n tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k.64

S t a f f of H . C om m . on the J udi c i a r y , 88th C ong. , C opy r i ghtL a w R e vi s i on P a r t3, 1 5 ( C o m m . P r in t 1 9 6 4 ) ( e m p h a s is m in e ) . I n a d d itio n to d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t a s ta tu to r y p r iv ile g e is p e r s o n a l to th e s ta tu to r ily d e f in e d r e c ip ie n t th e r e o f

, th e d r a f ts of § 201( c ) de m ons tr a t e tha tthe pr i vi l e ge s w e r e notm e a ntt o be tr a ns f e r a bl e . T he c ha nge i n l a ngua ge f

r om “ r i ght ” ( i n the 1961 dr a f t ) t o “ pr i vi l e ge ” ( i n the 1964 dr a f t ) c onf i r m s the dr a f

t e r s ’ i nt e ntt o pr ovi de publ i s he r s w i th s om e thi ng l e s s tha n a ri g h t— a m ere p ri v i l eg e th atw as not tra nsfe rabl e. T he subj ec tm att erof § 2 01 i s “ copyri gh tow ners hi p and tra nsfe r. ” T hr oughoutthe s e c t i on, the w or ds “ r i ght ” a nd “ c opy r i ght ” a r e us e d i n c onne c t i on w i th a u th o r s o rth e i rs u r r o g a t e s ( e mp l o y e r s f o rh i r e ) . I n th a ts e c t i o n , th e o n l y t i me the w or d “ pr i vi l e ge ” i s us e d a ta l l i n i s c onne c t i on w i th publ i s he r s . § 201 e ts e q. T hi s usa ge re veal s a n i nt entt o l i m i ta pub l i sher ’ s e nt i t l em ent s. If C on gres s had w ant ed t o g i ve pu bl i sher s a “ ri gh t ” t o t ra nsfe r a ut ho rs ’ cont ri bu t i on s t o t hi rd p a r tie s , th e w o r d “p r iv ile g e ” w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n s u b s titu te d f o rth e w o r d “r ig h t” i n § 20 1(c) . C on gres s r equi re d “ expres s tra nsfe rs ” i n t he “ w orks-m ade- for- hi re ” a nd “ tr a ns f

e rof ow ne r s hi p of

c opy r i ght ” de f

i ni t i ons i n §§ 101 a nd 204. S e c t i on 20 1(c) , ho w ever , i s pre m i se d o n t he no n-ex ist ence of a n “ e xpr e s s tr a ns f

e rof the c opy r i ghtorof

a ny r i ght s unde ri t . ” § 201( c ) . A c c or di ngl y , C ongr e s s i nt e nde d the w or d “ pr i vi l e ge ” t o be l e s s tha n a r i ghta nd non- tr a ns f e r a bl e , a na l ogous t o aIn the appe llants’ en bancbrief, at pag e 6, under “STATEMENT O F TH E I SSUE,” 33 th ey s t at e th e f

o l l o wi n g: In its Order of

September 19, 2007, the en bancCourt directe d the par ties to addre ss the followingissue: I s Greenbergentitled to copy right protection for

the subject wor

k subsequent to the United States SupremeCourt’s decision in New Y ork Times Co. v. Tasini , 433 U.S. 483 (2001)? Th e c oroll ary

qu e sti on is: 65 n o n e x c lu s iv e lic e n s e . F o ra ll o f th e s e r e a s o n s , it s h o u ld b e c le a rth a t th e “p r iv ile g e ” o f § 2 0 1 ( c ) is nottr a ns f

e r a bl e butr e s i de s onl y w i th the c opy r i ghtow ne rof the c ol l e c t i ve w or k — he r e the S oc i e ty . A c c or di ngl y , onl y the S oc i e ty m a y c l a i m s he l t e rf r om in f r in g e m e n t u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) a n d th e n o n ly if it e x e r c is e d th e tw o s p e c if ic p r iv ile g e s in th e m a n n e rp e r m itte d — w h ic h it d id n o t. C . A no ther det er m i nat i ve i ss ue has been i gn ored by t he appel l ant s a nd om i t t ed f r o m c o n s id e r a tio n b y th e m a jo r ity — th e “p u b lic d is p la y ” is s u e . S im p ly s ta te d , if i nde e d the a ppe l l a nt s e nj oy a § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge i tdoe s noti nc l ude the pr i vi l e ge of p u b l i cl y d i sp l ayi n g G reen b erg ’ s p ro t ect ed p h o t o g rap h s. T h e C o u r t in T a s in i, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 4 9 8 n .8 , 1 2 1 S . C t. a t 2 3 9 0 n .8 , e x p r e s s ly s t a t e d tha ti tdi d notr e a c h the di s pl a y i s s ue . A ppe l l a nt s a r e r e l y i ng upon the pr i v i l ege th ey co n t en d th atth e S o ci ety h as s o le ly un der § 20 1(c) . S ec t i on 20 1(c) 33Whether, in light of theSupreme Court’s de cision in Tasini , National Ge ographic is entitled to the privilegeof 17 U.S.C. § 201(c) when it reproduce d Gre enberg ’s photographs a s part of an exac t digital

replica of the entire National Geographic magazine series , w ith in whic h th os e ph oto gra ph s f ir st a pp e are d in

print ? As a g eneral matter, theanswe r to the first question is yes. Gre enberg re ta ins his c op y

ri ght p ro te c tio n f

or his indivi du a l w or

ks . T ho sec op y

ri ghts , howeve r, havenot been infringe d in this case bec ause N ational Geographic , as the owner of the c ollective wor

k copy right, is entitl ed to reproduceGre enberg ’s pictures in the CNG by

virtue of § 201( c). (Emphasis mine). 66 p ro v i d es: I n the a bs e nc e of a n e xpr e s s tr a ns f

e rof the c opy r i ghtor of a ny r i ght s unde ri t , the ow ne rof c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k i s pr e s um e d t o ha ve a c qui r e d onl y the p r iv ileg e o

f r e p r o d uc ingand dis tr ib utingthe c ontr i but i on a s p a rt

o f t h a t p a rti cu la r co l

lecti ve w o rk , any r evi si on of thatcol l ec t i ve w ork, and any l at er co l l ect i v e w o rk i n th e sam e seri es. (e m ph as i s m i ne) ( “ cont ri bu t i on ” i n t hi s c as e r ef er s t o t he ph ot og raph s c on tri bu t ed by G r e e nbe r g w ho ha s undi s put e d ow ne r s hi p of the c opy r i ght s f

orthe phot ogr a phs thatappear i n t he C N G prod uct . ). A s the C our tobs e r ve d i n T a s i ni , “ [ t ] he 1976 A c tr e j e c t e d the doc tr i ne of i nd i vi si bi l i ty, re ca st i ng the copyri gh tas a bun dl e of di sc re et“ excl usi ve ri gh t s, ” ea ch of w hi ch “ m ay be tra nsfe rr ed . . . and o w ned separa t el y. ” I d . a t495- 96, 121 S . C t . at23 88 -89 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he T as i ni C ou rt , i n i t s f ou rth foo tno t e,67

q u o t es th e § 1 0 6 ri g h t s, i n cl u d i n g su b p art“ (5 )” w h i ch read s: ( 5 ) in th e c a s e o f

lite r a r y , m u s ic a l, d r a m a tic , a n d c h o r e o g r a p h ic w or ks , pa nt om i m e s , a nd pi c t or i al , g rap h i c, o r scu l p tu ral w o rk s, i ncl ud i ng the i nd i vi du al i m ages of a m ot i on pi cture or ot her a u d io v is u a l w o r k , t o dis play the copyri

gh t ed w ork pub l i cl

y; I d. a t496 n. 4, 121 S . C t . a t2389 n. 4; § 106( 5) ( e m pha s i s m i ne ) . A n e xa m i na t i on o f th e o th e rf

i v e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f

c o p y r i g h tr i g h t s d i s c l o s e th e f o l l o w i n g v e rb f

o r ms w i th e a c h e num e r a t i on: “ ( 1) t o re prod uce ; ( 2) t o p rep a re d e r iv a tiv e w o r k s ; ( 3 ) to d is tr ib u te c opi e s ; ( 4) . . . t o p erf o rm ; . . . ( 6) . . . t o p erf

o rm . . . publ i c l y by m e a ns of a di gi t al audi o t ra nsm i ss i on . ” I d. (e m ph as i s m i ne). A cc ordi ng l y, a c om pari son b etw ee n § 20 1(c) and § 10 6(1)-( 6) di sc l oses that the § 201( c ) “ pr i vi l e ge ” i s c onf i ne d onl y t o tw o of

the c opy r i ghtow ne r ’ s e xc l us i ve r i ght s : tha ti s , “ ( 1) t o r e pr oduc e ” a nd “ ( 3) t o di s tr i but e c opi e s . ” N ow he r e i s the r ig h t u n d e r§ 1 0 6 ( 5 ) , th e r ig h t to “d is p la y ” a p ic to r ia l w o r k , m e n tio n e d o rin c lu d e d . E x p ressi o u n i s estex cl u si o al t eri u s. M oreover, w hen o ne exam i nes § 10 1, w here the st atut ory def i ni t i on s a re se t out , one di s c ove r s tha t“ di s pl a y ” ha s a de f i ni t i on tha ti nc l ude s pr oj e c t i on on a c o m p u te rs c r e e n - - w h ic h is e x a c tly w h a t ta k e s p la c e w h e n a C N G C D - R O M is i nser t ed i nt o t he com pu t erof a use r: T o “ di s pl a y ” a w or k m e a ns t o s how a c opy of i t , e i the rdi r e c t l y orby m ean s o f a fi l m , sl i d e, t el ev i si o n i m ag e, o r an y o th er d ev i ce o r p ro cess or, i n t he ca se of a m ot i on pi cture or ot her a u d i o visu a l w o rk , t o s how68

i n d i v i d u al i m ag es n o n seq u en t i al l y. § 1 01 (e m ph as i s m i ne). T he st atut ory def i ni t i on of “ audi ov i sual w ork” un der § 10 1, further c l ar i fi es the com pu t er i ze d “ di spl ay ”:

“ A ud i ov i sual w orks” a re w orks thatconsi stof a s er i es of re l at ed i m ages w hi ch ar e i ntr i ns i c al l y i nt e nde d t o be s how n by the us e of m ac hi nes, or devi ce s s uch as proj ec t ors, vi ew er s, or e le c tr o n ic e qui pm e nt , t oge the rw i th a c c om pa ny i ng s ounds , i f a ny , r e ga r dl e s s of the na tur e of

the m a t e r i a l obj e c t s , s uc h a s f i l m s ort a pe s , i n w hi c h the w or ks a r e e m bodi e d. Id. (e m ph as i s m i ne). A s obs e r ve d a bove , the T a s i ni C our t , a tf ootnot e 8, s qua r e l y r a i s e d the

“ publ i c l y di s pl a y ” i s s ue . S uc h a n i s s ue pr e s e nt s i t s e l f i n the r e s ol ut i on of

the s c ope of the § 201( c ) pr i vi l e ge onc e w e ge tpa s tthe i ni t i a l hur dl e of “ c ont e xt . ” I n the v ery d o cu m en tci t ed b y th e C o u rt , th e “ l et t er” o f th e R eg i st er o f C o p yri g h t s, M a r y b e th P e te r s , a r e c o g n iz e d c o p y r ig h t s c h o la r , s ta te s : T h e lim ite d p r iv ile g e in § 2 0 1 ( c ) d o e s n o t a u th o r iz e p u b lis h e r s to di spl ay autho rs ’ cont ri bu t i on s pub l i cl y, ei ther i n t hei r ori gi nal col l ec t i ve w orks or i n any subsequentperm i t t ed vers i on s. Itre fe rs onl y t o “ the pr i vi l e ge of r e pr oduc i ng a nd di s tr i but i ng the c o n tr ib u tio n .” T h u s , th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e s ta tu te d o e s n o t p e r m it an i nt erpret at i on thatw ou l d p er m i ta pub l i shert o d i spl ay or aut ho ri ze the di spl ay of the cont ri bu t i on t o t he pu bl i c.

. . . T he othe rda t a ba s e s i nvol ve d i n the c a s e , w hi c h a r e di s tr i but e d on C D - R O M s , a l s o ( butnota l w a y s ) i nvol ve the publ i c di s pl a y of the w or ks . B e c a us e the i ndus tr y a ppe a r s t o be m ovi ng i n the di r e c t i on of a netw orked env i ronm ent , C D -R O M di stri bu t i on i s l i kel y t o b ec om e a l e s s s i gni f

i c a ntm e a ns of

di s s e m i na t i ng i nf

or m a t i on.69 T he C opy r i ghtA c tde f

i ne s “ di s pl a y ” of

a w or k a s s how i ng a c opy of a w or k e i the rdi r e c t l y orby m e a ns of “ a ny othe rde vi c e or proces s. ” T he dat abas es i nv ol ved i n T as i ni cl ea rl y i nv ol ve the di spl ay of the a uthor s ’ w or ks , w hi c h a r e s how n t o s ubs c r i be r s by m e a ns of d e v ic e s ( c o m p u te r s a n d m o n ito r s ) . T o di s pl a y a w or k “ publ i c l y ” i s t o di s pl a y “ t o the publ i c , by m e a n s o f a n y d e v ic e o rp r o c e s s , w h e th e rth e m e m b e r s o f th e p u b lic c a p a b l e o f

r e c e i v i n g th e p e r f

o r ma n c e o rd i s p l a y r e c e i v e i ti n th e s a me pl ac e or i n separ at e pl ac es and atthe sa m e t i m e or a tdi ff er entt i m es . ”

. . . T hi s c onc l us i on i s s uppor t e d by the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y . T he H ou se Judi ci ary C om m i t t ee R eportatthe t i m e § 20 3 w as fi nal i ze d r e f e r r e d t o “ s ounds ori m a ge s s t or e d i n a n i nf or m a t i on s y s t e m a nd capabl e of bei ng perf

orm ed or di spl ay ed atthe i ni t i at i ve of i nd i vi du al m e m be r s of

the publ i c ” a s be i ng the ty pe of “ publ i c ” tr a ns m i s s i on C ongr e s s ha d i n m i nd. W he n C ongr e s s e s t a bl i s he d the ne w publ i c di s pl a y r i ghti n the 1976 A c t , i tw a s a w a r e tha tthe di s pl a y of w or ks ove ri nf

or m a t i on ne tw or ks c oul d di s pl a c e tr a di t i ona l m e a ns of r e pr oduc t i on a nd de l i ve r y of

c opi e s . T he 1965 S uppl e m e nt a r y R e por tof the R e gi s t e rof C o p y r ig h ts , a k e y p a r t o f th e le g is la tiv e h is to r y o f th e 1 9 7 6 A c t, re po rt ed on “ the enorm ou s pot ent i al i m po rt ance of show i ng , ra ther th an d istrib u ti n g co p ies a s a m ea n s o f d isse m in atin g an au th o r’s w ork” and “the i m pl i ca t i on s of i nform at i on st orage and retri eval devi ce s; w hen l i nk ed t og ether by c om m un i ca t i on s s at el l i t es or ot her m e a n s ,” th e y “c o u ld e v e n tu a lly p r o v id e lib r a r ie s a n d in d iv id u a ls thr oughoutthe w or l d w i th a c c e s s t o a s i ngl e c opy of a w or k by tra nsm i ss i on of el ec troni c i m ages . ” I tconcl ud ed thati n cer t ai n are as atl ea st , “ ‘ exhi bi t i on ’ m ay t ake over fr om ‘ re prod uct i on ’ of ‘ copi es ’ as the m ea ns of pres ent i ng autho rs ’ w orks t o t he pu bl i c. ” T he R eport al so st at ed th at“ i n th e fu tu re, t ex tu al o r n o t at ed w o rk s (b o o k s, a r t i c l e s , the t e xtof

the di a l ogue a nd s t a ge di r e c t i ons of a pl a y or p a n to m im e , th e n o ta te d s c o r e o f a m u s ic a l o rc h o r e o g r a p h ic c om pos i t i on e t c . ) m a y w e l l be gi ve n w i de publ i c di s s e m i na t i on by e x h ib itio n o n m a s s c o m m u n ic a tio n s d e v ic e s .”70 W he n C ongr e s s f

ol l ow e d the R e gi s t e r ’ s a dvi c e a nd c r e a t e d a ne w di s pl a y r i ght , i ts pe c i f i c a l l y c ons i de r e d a nd r e j e c t e d a pr opos a l by p u b lis h e r s to m e r g e th e d is p la y r ig h t w ith th e r e p r o d u c tio n r ig h t, no tw i thst andi ng i t s r ec og ni t i on that“ i n t he future e l ec troni c i m ages m a y t a ke the pl a c e of

pr i nt e d c opi e s i n s om e s i tua t i ons . ” H . R . R e p. N o. 89 -223 7, at55 (196 6). T hus , § 201( c ) c a nnotbe r e a d a s pe r m i t t i ng publ i s he r s t o m a ke o ra u th o r iz e th e m a k in g o f p u b lic d is p la y s o f

c o n tr ib u tio n s to c ol l e c t i ve w or ks . S e c t i on 201( c ) c a nnotbe r e a d a s a uthor i z i ng the c o n d u c t a t th e h e a r t o f

T a s in i. T h e p u b lis h e r s in T a s in i a s s e r t th a t b e c a u s e th e c o p y r ig h t la w is “ m edi a- neut ra l , ” the § 2 01 (c ) pri vi l ege nece ss ar i l y r equi re s thatthey b e p e r m itte d to d is s e m in a te th e a u th o r s ’ a r tic le s in a n e le c tr o n ic e n v ir o n m e n t. T h is f

o c u s o n th e “m e d ia - n e u tr a lity ” o f th e A c t is m is p la c e d . A lth o u g h th e A c t is in m a n y r e s p e c ts m e d ia - n e u tr a l, e .g ., i n i t s de f i ni t i on of “ c opi e s ” i n t e r m s of

“ a ny m e thod now know n or l a t e rde ve l ope d” a nd i n § 102' s pr ovi s i on tha tc opy r i ghtpr ot e c t i on s ubs i s t s i n w or ks of

a uthor s hi p f

i xe d i n “ a ny t a ngi bl e m e di um of e x p r e s s io n ,” th e f

a c t r e m a in s th a t th e A c t e n u m e r a te s s e v e r a l s e p a r a te r i ght s of c opy r i ghtow ne r s , a nd the publ i c di s pl a y r i ghti s i nde pe nde nt o f th e r e p r o d u c tio n a n d d is tr ib u tio n r ig h ts . T h e m e d ia - n e u tr a l a s p e c ts of the A c tdo nots om e how m e r ge the s e pa r a t e e xc l us i ve r i ght s of the autho r. 147 C ong. R e c . E 182- 02 ( 2001) ( L e t t e rf r om M a r y be th P e t e r s , T he R e gi s t e rof C opy r i ght s of

the U ni t e d S t a t e s of

A m e r i c a , t o R e pr e s e nt a t i ve J a m e s P . M c G ove r n, U ni t ed S t at es H ou se of R epre se nt at i ves ( F eb. 14 , 20 01 )) . C l ea rl y, user s of the C N G C D -R O M s use thei r c om pu t er s by vi rtue of op er at i ng code (“ a proces s” ) a tdi ff er ent“ t i m es ” a nd “ pl ac es . ” A H ou se Judi ci ary C om m i t t ee re po rtst at es : “ In addi t i on t o t he di re ctshow i ng s of a copy of t he w ork71

[ he r e phot ogr a ph] , ‘ di s pl a y ’ w oul d i nc l ude the pr oj e c t i on of a n i m a ge on a s c r e e n .

. . by a ny m e thod, the tr a ns m i s s i on of a n i m a ge by e l e c tr oni c orothe rm e a ns , a nd the s how i ng of

a n i m a ge on a c a thode r a y tube , ors i m i l a rvi e w i ng a ppa r a tus c onne c t e d w i th a ny s or tof i nf or m a t i on s t or a ge a nd r e tr i e va l s y s t e m . ” H . R . R e p. N o . 9 4 - 1 4 7 6 , r e

p r in te d in 17 U . S . C . A . § 1 06 (W es t20 05 ). T hu s, a c om pu t er i m a ge of the phot ogr a ph( s ) a ti s s ue w oul d c l e a r l y c ons t i tut e a “ di s pl a y . ” T he r e por tc ont i nue s tha t : “ T he de f i ni t i on of ‘ tr a ns m i t ’ . . . i s br oa d e nough t o i nc l ude a l l c onc e i va bl e f

or m s a nd c om bi na t i ons of w i r e d a nd w i r e l e s s c om m uni c a t i ons m edi a . . . . ” T hatw ou l d cer t ai nl y i ncl ud e a C D -R O M thati s s ol d t o t he pu bl i c a t l ar ge, t o schoo l s, t o l i brar i es , and t o o ther dow nstre am “ di spl ay er s” for thatvery pu rpose. T hi s i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s c ons i s t e ntw i th the j udi c i a l a nd a c a de m i c i nt e rpr e t a t i on of tha ts e c t i on. S e e , e . g. , P e r f e c t10, I nc . v. A m a z on. c om , I nc . , 487 F . 3d 701, 716 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( “ I n s um , ba s e d on the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the s t a tut e , a pe r s on di s pl a y s a phot ogr a phi c i m a ge by us i ng a c om put e rt o f i l l a c om put e rs c r e e n w i th a c opy of the phot ogr a phi c i m a ge f i xe d i n the c om put e r ’ s m e m or y . ” ) ; A L S S c a n, Inc. v. R em ar Q C m tys . , Inc. , 23 9 F . 3d 61 9, 62 2-26 (4th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ob se rvi ng that w e b s ite d is p la y o f

c o p y r ig h te d p h o to g r a p h s to in te r n e t s u b s c r ib e r s w a s “p u b lic di s pl a y ” ) ; s e e ge ne r a l l y R . A nthony R e e s e , T he P ubl i c D i s pl a y R i ght : T heThe ter m “distributed” has a

very specificmeaningin copy right law. The statutory 34 definition of “distribution” spec ifies distribution of “copies or phonorec ords of the c opy righted work to t hepu bicby

sale or othe r transf

er of owner ship, or by

rental, lease or

lending .” 17 U.S.C. § 106(3) (empha sis mine). Archive s maintained by media compa

nies may be visited by rese arc hers (phy sically

or virtually

) without thereby

beingoffe red to the public by any of the means spec ified in §106. Nor would they be distributed in the sense of being“published.” See the def inition i n § 101 of “publication,” its relationship to distribution, and the differentiation of “public display” from “publication” a s a for m of distribution. 72 C opy r i ghtA c t ’ s N e gl e c t e d S ol ut i on t o the C ontr ove r s y ove rR A M “ C opi e s ” , 2001 U . I l l . L . R e v. 83. ( 2001) ; D a vi d N i m m e r , N i m m e ron C opy r i ght § 8 . 20 (200 7). F in a lly , I w ill a d d r e s s th e a m ic i’s h is tr io n ic s p e c u la tio n a n d c o n te n tio n th a t a d e c is io n in f

a v o ro f G r e e n b e r g w o u ld le a d to th e w h o le s a le p u r g in g o f th e ir el ect ro n i c arch i v es (i n fo rm at i o n -d estro yi n g p u rg es, l o ss o f reco rd ed h i st o ry, m a s s iv e d e s tru c tio n o f

c o n s titu tio n a lly p r o te c te d in f o r m a tio n , e tc .) . S e e g e n e r a lly A m ic i B r ie f

s . T h is o f

te n - r e p e a te d b u t s e ld o m - a n a ly z e d th r e a t is to ta lly s p e c io u s . A rc hi ves, un der a narr ow construct i on of § 2 01 (c ) a re no tan un autho ri ze d

“ r e pr oduc t i on a nd di s tr i but i on” be c a us e the y a r e not“ di s tr i but e d. ” S e e § 108 ( “L im ita tio n s o n e x c lu s iv e r ig h ts : R e p r o d u c tio n b y lib r a r ie s a n d a r c h iv e s ” ) . S ec t i on 20 1(c) i s a i m ed atprot ec t i ng autho rs i n t he cont extof w orks re prod uced a nd di s tr i but e d t o the publ i c . I f a r c hi ve s a r e m a i nt a i ne d pr i m a r i l y a s a s e tof 34 reco rd s, th ey are u n affected b y th e h o l d i n g s i n T asi n i an d G reen b erg I. O n e m u st di s t i ngui s h, how e ve r , be tw e e n hi s t or y be i ng a va i l a bl e t o the publ i c i n a r c hi ve s , a nd h i s t o r y a s a c o n s u m e rp r o d u c ts o l d t o th e p u b l i c i n m a s s - m e r c h a n d i s e d C D - R O MsS ee § 1 0 7 (f ai r u s e i s p erm i tt edfo r p urp o s es o f s ch o l ar s h ip , cr i t i ci s m , an d t ea ch i n g, 35 amongother thing s). Under the statute, a pur

ported fair use is analy

zed on the basis of fa ctors including, but not limited to, (1) “the pur pose and c hara cter

of the use” ; (2) “thenatureof the c op y ri ghte d w or

k” ; ( 3) theamou

nt o f t hewo rk us e d in re latio n to thec op y

ri ghte d w or

k a s a whole; and ( 4) “theeff

ect of the use upon the pote ntial market for or valueof the c opy

righted work.”I d. Although f

actor s (2) a

nd (3) would f

avor theauthors (whose work is c reative and reprod uc e d in tot o) , f a c tor (1 ), ins of ar a s th e arc hiv a l us e is n on c omm e rc ia l and fo r t hepurp os e of re cordingthe ar

ticle for poste rity , would just as likely favor the archivist despite reproducing theartic leun c ha

ng e d. As fo r f

a c tor (4 ), it w ou ld n ot a

pp e ar t hat a c c e ss t o a

rc hiv e s w ou ld adver sely aff ect the value of the c ontributions to collective works. In addition, one ca n make other a rguments in favor of

public acc ess to arc hives on the basis of the public interest in being fully informed. See , e.g ., Time Inc. v. B erna rd Ge is Assocs., 293 F.Supp. 130, 146 (D.N .Y. 1968) (ostensibly

using a fair userationaleto permit publication of dra wing s derived f

rom c op y ri ghte d p ho togra

ph s o f t heKenn e dy

a ssa ssi natio n, but a lso statin gthat “ [t]he reis a pu bli c interest in havingthe fullest information available on the murde r of Pre sident Kenne dy .”). 73 orda t a ba s e s . I f

publ i c a t i on i s l i m i t e d t o the f or m e r , hi s t or y ne e d notbe l os t( or e ve n i nc onve ni e nt l y s t or e d) ; i tj us tw i l l notbe a pr of i t a bl e c om m odi ty – a s the p u b lis h e r s h e r e h a v e e n d e a v o r e d to m a k e it. M oreover, even i f s uch archi ves w er e t ec hn i ca l l y notprot ec t ed by § 2 01 (c ), thei r i ncl usi on of aut ho rs ’ cont ri bu t i on s w ou l d g ener al l y qual i fy as a f ai r use . 35 B ec ause the cont ri bu t i on s w ou l d n otbe m ade w i del y a vai l abl e t o t he general pu bl i c butw ou l d, ra ther, be i ncl ud ed i n rec ords ut i l i ze d p ri m ar i l y by r es ea rc hers an d sch o l ars, th ere w o u l d b e l i t t l e o r n o i m p acto n th e m ark etfo r th e au th o rs’ co n tri b u t i o n s. T h erefo re, i ti s sp eci o u s t o assertth atth e p u rg i n g o f arch i v es m u st oc c urba s e d upon a n a dve r s e rul i ng t o the publ i s he r s . T hus , the doom s da y c r i e s of a “ l o ss o f h i st o ry” ap p ear atb esth yp erb o l i c, an d atw o rst , d i si n g en u o u s. T he m a j or i ty r a t i ona l e , e s s e nt i a l l y a dopt i ng tha tof F a ul kne r , s houl d be74

r e j e c t e d a nd the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nts houl d be a f f i r m e d on the ba s i s of

the ra t i on al es se tou tabov e.Be causeJudg e B irch’s Par t A would be dispositive of the en ba nc issue, I need not 1 addre ss Parts B a

nd C of Judg e B irch’s opinion. 75 A N D E R S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e, di ss ent i ng , i n w hi ch E D M O N D S O N , C hi ef Judg e, T J O F L A T , B I R C H , a nd W I L S O N , C i r c ui tJ udge s , j oi n: R e s pe c t f ul l y , I di s a gr e e w i th the m a j or i ty . I a gr e e w i th a nd j oi n P a r tA of Ju d g e B i rch ’ s d i ssen t , b u tI w ri t e sep arat el y t o em p h asi ze a few p o i n t s. 1 A. S e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) e m p h a s iz e s th a t th e “[ c ]o p y r ig h t in e a c h s e p a r a te cont ri bu t i on t o a col l ec t i ve w ork i s di st i nctfr om copyri gh ti n t he col l ec t i ve w ork a s a w h o l e , a n d v e s t s i n i t i a l l y i n th e a u th o ro f th e c o n tr i b u t i o n . ” 1 7 U . S. C. §201( c ) . T he s e c t i on goe s on t o e xpl a i n tha t“ the ow ne rof c opy r i ghti n the c ol l e c t i ve w or k i s pr e s um e d t o ha ve a c qui r e d onl y the pr i vi l e ge of r e pr oduc i ng a nd di s tr i but i ng the c ontr i but i on a s pa r tof [ 1] tha tpa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k, [ 2] a ny r e v i s i o n o f

th a tc o l l e c t i v e w o r k , a n d [ 3 ] a n y l a t e rc o l l e c t i v e w o r k i n th e s a me s e r i e s . ” I d. ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . C ongr e s s l i m i t e d the pr i vi l e ge of r e pr oduc t i on a nd d is tr ib u tio n s o th a t p u b lis h e r s c o u ld n o t “r e v is e th e c o n tr ib u tio n its e lf o rin c lu d e it i n a ne w a nthol ogy ora n e nt i r e l y di f f e r e ntm a ga z i ne orothe rc ol l e c t i ve w or k” w i th o u tth e a u th o r ’ s c o n s e n t . N . Y . Ti me s Co . v . Ta s i n i , 5 3 3 U . S. 4 8 3 , 4 9 7 , 1 2 1 S. C t . 23 81 , 23 89 (200 1) (quo t i ng H . R . R ep. N o. 94 -147 6, at12 2-23 (197 6), re pri nt ed in 1 9 7 6 U .S .C .C .A .N . 5 6 5 9 , 5 7 3 8 ) .76

I n th e p r e s e n t c a s e , G r e e n b e r g a n d th e o th e rf r e e la n c e r s a llo w e d th e ir s e pa r a t e c ontr i but i ons – i . e . , c e r t a i n phot os i n the c a s e of G r e e nbe r g – t o be i ncl ud ed i n speci fi c c ol l ec t i ve w orks – i . e. , i nd i vi du al i ss ues of N at i on al G eographi c m agaz i ne. Y ea rs l at er , N at i on al G eographi c r epub l i shed the i nd i vi du al c ontr i but i ons , w i thi n the i ror i gi na l c ont e xtbutc om bi ne d w i th othe rm a ga z i ne i s s ue s , i n “ T he C om pl e t e N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c ” ( “ the C N G ” ) , a nd w e m us tde c i de w h e th e rth e C N G is a p r iv ile g e d “r e v is io n ” o f th e in d iv id u a l is s u e s , a s th e m a jo r ity c onc l ude s , ori ns t e a d, a n unpr i vi l e ge d “ ne w a nthol ogy or. . . e nt i r e l y di f f e r e nt m a ga z i ne orothe rc ol l e c t i ve w or k. ” A l though thi s a dm i t t e dl y i s a c l os e que s t i on, for the re as on s e xp l ai ned i n P ar tA of Judg e B i rc h’ s di ss ent , and for t he re as on s s et ou tbel ow , I c on cl ud e thatthe C N G const i tut es the l att er . A t th e o u tset, m y r es o lu ti o n o f th is q u es ti o n d iffe rs fr o m th e m ajo rity’s b e c a u s e in m y ju d g m e n t, th e c o n te x tu a l a n a ly s is s e t f o r th in T a s in i d o e s n o t f u lly r e s o lv e th e in s ta n t c a s e . I t is tru e , o f c o u r s e , th a t th e T a s in i C o u r t’s a n a ly s is de f i ni t i ve l y r e s ol ve d the c a s e be f or e i t . I n T a s i ni , the r e publ i s he d ne w s pa pe ra nd m agaz i ne ar t i cl es ati ss ue di d n otappear i n con t ext , and t here fore the cont extual a n a ly s is w a s d e c is iv e – i.e ., th e n e w p u b lic a tio n w a s n o t p r iv ile g e d u n d e r§ 2 0 1 ( c ) . 53 3 U . S . at50 0, 12 1 S . C t . at23 91 . O n t he ot her hand, beca use i nd i vi du al ar t i cl es i n the C N G a ppe a ri n the i ror i gi na l c ont e xt , a nd be c a us e us e r s m a y “ f l i p” thr ough77

p ag es as th ey co u ld w ith th e o rig in al m ag az in es , th e r e- p u b li ca ti o n o f G re en b er g ’s p h o to s s a tis f

ie s th e th r e s h o ld c o n te x tu a l a n a ly s is . N o n e th e le s s , th is c a s e p r e s e n ts a n i s s ue nota ddr e s s e d, a nd nota ns w e r e d, i n T a s i ni – i . e . , doe s s a t i s f a c t i on of the cont extual anal ys i s a l w ay s m ea n t hatthe new pu bl i ca t i on enj oys the §2 01 (c ) p r i v i l e g e ? A s a m att erof com m on se nse, i tse em s c l ea r t o m e thatthe answ ert o t hat que s t i on i s : N o. F ore xa m pl e , s uppos e the M a r c h 2000 m onthl y e di t i on of N at i on al G eographi c had been devo t ed ent i re l y t o t he geog raph y a nd natural b eau ty o f A fri ca; l at er, N at i o n al G eo g rap h i c i n cl u d ed th atM arch 2 0 0 0 ed i t i o n as a c ha pt e ri n a l a r ge rbook e nt i t l e d “ T he C om pl e t e I nt e l l e c tua l H i s t or y of A f r i c a f r om 19 00 t o 2 00 8, ” w hi ch pu rport ed t o d es cr i be the hi st ori ca l devel op m entof ever y as pectof A fr i ca n l i fe – i ncl ud i ng i nt eral i a ( and i n add i t i on t o t he chapt er com pri si ng the M ar ch 20 00 edi t i on on geog raph y a nd natural beaut y) the l i t er ature, ph i l osop hy, m usi c, and l egal and econo m i c a spec t s of A fr i ca n soci ety. O f c ou rs e, m y e x a m p le is a tte m p tin g to d e s c r ib e a w o r k s o e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t in f o r m a t, p u rp o s e , a n d u tility th a t e v e r y o n e w o u ld a g r e e th a t it w o u ld q u a lif y a s “a n e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t c o lle c tiv e w o r k ” ; i.e ., e v e r y o n e w o u ld a g r e e th a t it is n o t p r iv ile g e d . Be c a u s e th e i n d i v i d u a l c o n tr i b u t i o n s c o mp r i s i n g th e M a r c h 2 0 0 0 e d i t i o n i n my exam pl e a re re prod uced i n con t ext , and yetthe new bo ok w ou l d st i l l const i tut e a nOf c ourse, Na tional Geographic could sec ure theright to republish the individual 2 contributions through contra ct, but National Ge ographic has asse rted no such agree ment here . Ins te a d, thee xtent of

theri ghts Natio nal G e ogra ph ic c la ims by

vir tueof c ontr a c t is theri ght t o republish the individual contributions by virtue of §201( c)’ s limi ted privileg e. 78 ent i re l y di ff

er entcol l ec t i ve w ork, i tthu s s ee m s c l ea r t o m e thatT as i ni ’ s c on t extual a n a ly s is is m e r e ly a th r e s h o ld is s u e . N otw i ths t a ndi ng the f

a c ttha tthi s thr e s hol d i s s a t i s f i e d i n thi s c a s e , the c ru c ia l is s u e r e m a in s w h e th e rth e C N G is a “r e v is io n o f th a t c o lle c tiv e w o r k ” ( to w h ic h N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic ’s p r iv ile g e w o u ld e x te n d ) , o rw h e th e rit is “a n e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t . . . o ro th e rc o lle c tiv e w o r k ” ( to w h ic h th e p r iv ile g e w o u ld n o t e x te n d ) . S e ve r a l a s pe c t s of

the C N G c onvi nc e m e tha ti tc ons t i tut e s the l a t t e r , thus exce edi ng the pu bl i sher ’ s §20 1(c) pri vi l ege. B. F i rs t , there i s c on si dera bl e dou btthat§2 01 (c ) by i t se l f c on fe rs up on N at i on al G e o g r a p h ic th e p r iv ile g e o f r e p r o d u c in g th e in d iv id u a l c o n tr ib u tio n s , e v e n in th e ir o r ig in a l c o n te x t, w ith in th e c u m u la tiv e to ta l o f a ll N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic m a g a z in e s . T h a t is , p u ttin g a s id e th e C D - R O M f o r m a t o f th e C N G a n d its a d d e d f e a tu r e s , I doubttha t§201( c ) pe r m i t s the publ i s he rt o bi nd t oge the re ve r y s i ngl e i s s ue of N a t i ona l G e ogr a phi c m a ga z i ne a nd s e l l the c om pi l a t i on a s one c om pr e he ns i ve ( a l be i tunw i e l dy ) vol um e w i thoutc om pe ns a t i ng the i ndi vi dua l c ontr i but or s or o b ta in in g th e irc o n s e n t. S e c tio n 2 0 1 ( c ) p e r m its N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic to d is tr ib u te 2Ineed not de cide whe ther such a compilation is a “later

work in the sameseries,” 3 beca use National Geographic has disavowe d relianc e on that prongof §201(c ). 79 G r e e nbe r g’ s phot o a s pa r tof a pa r t i c ul a rc ol l e c t i ve w or k – a s i ngl e i s s ue of the m a ga z i ne – ora s a pa r tof a r e vi s i on of

tha tm a ga z i ne , buts ur e l y the c om pi l a t i on o f a ll N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic is s u e s d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a “r e v is io n ” o f a n y s in g le i s s ue . A f

t e ra l l , the T a s i ni C our tnot e d tha tpl a c i ng a l l the a r t i c l e s f r om one 3 edi t i on of the N ew Y ork T i m es i nt o a C D -R O M dat abas e a l on g w i th al l the ar t i cl es f r om othe re di t i ons of

tha tpa pe r , doe s notc ons t i tut e a r e vi s i on of e a c h e di t i on:

“ T he D a t a ba s e no m or e c ons t i tut e s a ‘ r e vi s i on’ of e a c h c ons t i tue nte di t i on tha n a 40 0-page no vel qu ot i ng a s on neti n p as si ng w ou l d repres enta ‘ re vi si on ’ of that poe m . ” 533 U . S . a t500, 121 S . C t . a t2391. T hi s e xpl a na t i on c om por t s w i th the S ec on d C i rc ui t ’ s e xp l anat i on thatthe dat abas e of N ew Y ork T i m es ar t i cl es i s “ at besta new antho l og y of i nn um er abl e e di t i on s of the T i m es , and atw orsta new a n th o lo g y o f

in n u m e r a b le a r tic le s f

r o m th e s e e d itio n s ,” a n d th u s “c a n n o t b e s a id to b e a ‘r e v is io n ’ o f

a n y ( o ra ll) p a r tic u la re d itio n s .” T a s in i v . N .Y . T im e s C o ., I n c ., 2 0 6 F .3 d 1 6 1 , 1 6 9 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . T h e p o in t is , a c c o r d in g to th e S u p r e m e C o u r t, tha t“ [ t ] he m a s s i ve w hol e of the D a t a ba s e i s notr e c ogni z a bl e a s a ne w ve r s i on of i t s e ve r y s m a l l pa r t . ” T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t500, 121 S . C t . a t2391. S i m i l a r l y , the m as si ve w ho l e of the C N G i s notre cogn i za bl e a s a new vers i on of the i nd i vi du al m a ga z i ne s i n w hi c h G r e e nbe r g’ s phot os or i gi na l l y a ppe a r e d. N otw i ths t a ndi ng theThe publishers in Ta sini had urg ed the c omparison to microfor m under the a ssumption 4 that microfor

m falls within the §201(c) privilege , see Ta sini S upremeCourt Br. f or Pet’rs, 2001 WL27573, at 45 (c laiming, without citation of a ny authority , that the Second Circuit’s Ta sini opinion “cannot possibly

be cor rec t, beca use it would deem microf ilm and microficheto be infring ing” ). 80 f a c tth a tGr e e n b e r g ’ s p h o t o g r a p h s a p p e a ri n th e i ro r i g i n a l c o n t e x t , th e C NG r e m a in s a t b e s t a n e w a n th o lo g y o f th e m a n y e d itio n s o f

N a tio n a l G e o g r a p h ic . P ubl i s hi ng G r e e nbe r g’ s phot os i n s uc h a ne w a nthol ogy ( or“ othe rc ol l e c t i ve w o r k ” ) e x c e e d s th e lim ite d p r iv ile g e C o n g r e s s e s ta b lis h e d in § 2 0 1 ( c ) . T h e m e r e f

a c t th a t in d ic ta in T a s in i th e S u p r e m e C o u r t d is tin g u is h e d th e a tis s u e d a ta b a s e s f

r o m m ic r o f

ilm a n d m ic r o f

ic h e d o e s n o t in d ic a te , a s th e m a jo r ity se em s t o b el i eve, thatm i cr oform s, w hi ch oft en col l ec tm ul t i pl e e di t i on s of a part i cul arnew spaperor m agaz i ne, const i tut e a pri vi l eged “ re vi si on ” of e ac h i ndi vi dua l e di t i on. T he T a s i ni C our tm e r e l y r e j e c t e d a c om pa r i s on be tw e e n the da t a ba s e s a nd m i c r of

or m s be c a us e the da t a ba s e s , unl i ke m i c r of or m s , f a i l e d the thres ho l d requi re m entthatthe ar t i cl e m ay on l y be di stri bu t ed i n i t s ori gi nal c ont e xt . S e e 533 U . S . a t501- 02, 121 S . C t . a t2391092. 4 A dm i t t e dl y , m i c r of

i l m a nd m i c r of

i c he a r e l ongs t a ndi ng m e a ns of publ i s hi ng c ol l e c t i ve w or ks . A s s um i ng tha tthe publ i s he rof a c ol l e c t i ve w or k doe s not i nfri ng e the se para t e c op yr i gh t s hel d b y i nd i vi du al cont ri bu t ors w hen t he pu bl i sher se l l s m i cr oform s c on t ai ni ng m ul t i pl e e di t i on s of the col l ec t i ve w ork, I s ug gestthat81

th e r e a s o n is m o r e lik e ly a c o n tr a c t r e a s o n , c o u p le d w ith th e d o c tr in e o f m e d ia ne utr a l i ty , a s oppos e d t o a §201( c ) pr i vi l e ge . F or tuna t e l y , w e ne e d notde c i de w he the rpubl i s he r s ’ s a l e s of s uc h m i c r of

or m s f a l l w i thi n the pr i vi l e ge gr a nt e d by § 2 0 1 ( c ) , o ra r e o th e r w is e p r o te c te d u n d e rth e C o p y r ig h t A c t, b e c a u s e th e is s u e is n o t b e f o r e u s , ju s t a s it w a s n o t b e f o r e th e T a s in i C o u r t. A t n o p o in t in T a s in i d id the S up re m e C ou rtac tual l y hol d t hatm i cr oform copi es of m ul t i pl e e di t i on s qual i fy f orthe §201( c ) pr i vi l e ge . A s s uc h, a l though the C N G , l i ke m i c r of or m s , pa s s e s the thres ho l d con t extual re qu i re m ent , thi s f ac tdo es no tend t he anal ys i s of w hether pu bl i sher s m ay , pu rs uantt o § 20 1(c) , di stri bu t e a col l ec t i ve w ork t hati s c om bi ned w ith o th e rc o lle c tiv e w o r k s . F urtherm ore, even as sum i ng thatm i cr oform re prod uct i on s e nj oy the §2 01 (c ) pri vi l ege, the C N G cont ai ns si gn i fi ca ntdi ff er ence s f rom m i cr oform s thatbo l st er m y opi ni on thatthe C N G i s a new antho l og y or a n ent i re l y di ff er entot her col l ec t i ve w ork. A s J ud ge B i rc h abl y e xp l ai ns i n h i s di ss ent , the C N G ’ s a dv ance d se ar ch funct i on , com pres si on / decom pres si on prog ra m , and i t s di gi t al form atar e r e l e va ntt o de c i di ng w he the rthe C N G c ons t i tut e s a n unpr i vi l e ge d ne w c ol l e c t i ve w o r k . G r e e n b e r g g r a n te d th e r ig h t to in c lu d e h is p ic tu r e s in s e v e r a l s in g le m o n th ly edi t i on s. N at i on al G eographi c c l ai m s i n t hi s c as e thati t s r i gh t s t o t he se vera l m onthl y m a ga z i ne s f

orc a s ua l r e a di ng i s e xt e nde d by vi r tue of §201( c ) t o the r i ght82

to p u b lis h a n e n tir e ly n e w p r o d u c t – a s o p h is tic a te d r e s e a r c h to o l c a p a b le o f r e a d ily a c c e s s in g a n d is o la tin g a n y a r tic le o rs u b je c t m a tte rth a t h a d b e e n p u b lis h e d in N at i on al G eographi c m agaz i nes f or ov er10 0 yea rs – t hu s app ea l i ng t o a new m ar ket . I do n otbel i eve that§2 01 (c ) c an encom pass the m agni tud e of the changes w r oughthe r e . A l though the m e r e c onve r s i on f r om pr i ntt o di gi t a l m e di a , the a d d itio n o f

n e w f u n c tio n a lity , a n d /o rth e in c lu s io n o f o th e rin d e p e n d e n tly c o p y r ig h ta b le m a te r ia l m ay nota l w a y s r e s ul ti n the c r e a t i on of a n e nt i r e l y di f

f e r e nt col l ec t i ve w ork, w hen N at i on al G eographi c c om bi ned rou gh l y 1, 20 0 i ss ues of a m ag azi n e i n t o a n ew p ro d u cti n a n ew fo rm atw i th th ese n ew featu res an d th ese new uses , the pu bl i sherhas c re at ed a new col l ec t i ve w ork t hatexce eds i t s §20 1(c) p r i v i l e g e . A s s u mi n g a r g u e n d o th a tth e d o c tr i n e o f me d i a n e u tr a l i ty h a s s o me ope r a t i on i n the c ont e xtof a §201( c ) pr i vi l e ge – a s oppos e d t o the us ua l c ont e xtof th e c o p y r ig h t o w n e ro f

th e u n d e r ly in g a r tic le s – I d o u b t th a t th e d o c tr in e s h o u ld ope r a t e w i th s uc h f

ul l f or c e i n thi s c ont e xta s t o nul l i f y the s i gni f

i c a ntc ha nge s a nd a s s e m b la g e w r o u g h t in th is n e w p r o d u c t. F i nal l y, the fa ctthatthe S up re m e C ou rti n T as i ni hel d t hatthe §2 01 (c ) pr i vi l e ge di d note xt e nd t o the publ i c a t i on r e f e r r e d t o a s G P O pr ovi de s s tr ong su p p o rtfo r m y p o si t i o n , an d th ato f Ju d g e B i rch , th atth e § 2 0 1 (c) p ri v i l eg e al so do es no text end t o t he C N G . R ec al l thatthe G P O “ show [s ] ea ch ar t i cl e e xact l y a sAs the Court in Tasini noted, “it hardly follows” from my

position that an injunction 5 should issue. 533 U.S. at 505, 121 S. C t. at 2393 (sug g estingthat courts “ma y drawon nume ro us mod e ls f

or . . . re mun e ratin ga

uth or s” ). In my

judgme nt, thec irc ums tanc e s o f a c a se like this call for c areon the par t of trial cour

ts to ensure that a

hold-out fre elanc er doe s not 83 i tap p eared o n [th e o ri g i n al ] p ri n t ed p ag es, co m p l et e w i th p h o t o g rap h s, cap t i o n s, advert i se m ent s, and o ther s urroun di ng m at er i al s. ” 533 U . S . at49 1, 12 1 S . C t . at 23 86 . T he di ff

er ence betw ee n t he G P O and the C N G i s thatthe userof the form er m a y notf

l i p f r om one a r t i c l e t o a nothe r , w he r e a s the C N G us e rc a n. A s a m a t t e rof com m on se nse a nd com m on experi ence , thati s nota di ff er ence thatw ou l d m ake a di ff er ence t o t he user , or t o t he pu bl i sherw ho se i nt er es ti s m ar ket i ng the new pr oduc t . T he e xi s t e nc e ve l non of the f l i p f e a tur e i s s i m i l a r l y i r r e l e va ntt o the a u th o r s o f

th e in d iv id u a l a r tic le s . T h e v a lu e o f G r e e n b e r g ’s c o p y r ig h t is u n d e r m i n e d i n a m a n n e rc o m p a r a b l e t o th a to f th e i n d i v i d u a l a u th o r s i n th e GP O.

“ Itw ou l d sca rc el y pre se rve the aut ho r’ s c op yr i gh ti n a cont ri bu t i on , as cont em pl at ed by C on gres s . . . i f a new spaperor m agaz i ne pu bl i sherw er e pe r m i t t e d t o r e pr oduc e ordi s tr i but e c opi e s of the a uthor ’ s c ontr i but i on i n i s ol a t i on orw i thi n ne w c ol l e c t i ve w or ks . ” T a s i ni , 533 U . S . a t497, 121 S . C t . a t2389 (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n fro m th e H o u se R ep o rto m i t t ed ). L i k e th e G P O , th e C N G i s a n e w p r o d u c t, a p p e a lin g to a n e w m a r k e t. F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , a nd f orthe r e a s ons e xpr e s s e d by P a r tA of J udge B ir c h ’s d is s e n t, I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. 5exercise e ither veto power or blac kmail power. 84

### MiNIMUM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

WINDOWS® 95 OR WINDOWS® 3.1 CD • 80486DX 33 MHz processor • Windows 3.lx running under DOS 6.0 or higher or Windows 95 Version 1 .8MB RAM • 10 MB free disk space • VESA Standard VGA • 640 x 480 resolution x 256 colors • Windows compatible sound card • Dual-speed CD-ROM Optional: printer (300 dpi or higher) MACINTOSH® CD • 68030 33 MHz processor • System 7.5 or higher '8 MB RAM • 10 MB free disk space • 640 x 480 resolution x 256 colors • Dual-speed CD-ROM Optional: printer (300 dpi or higher) ISBN O7L12b?1-4 

# DO

a 24294 12671 a © 1997 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved. Produced by National Geographic Interactive, Washington, D.C. 20036. Distributed by Mindscapc, Inc. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC and the Yellow Border Design are registered trademarks ® of National Geographic Society. Marcas Registradas. Mindscape is a registered trademark and the Mindscape logo is a trademark of Mindscape. Inc. Kodak. Kodak corporate symbol and Take Pictures. Further, are trademarks of Eastman Kodak Company. Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corp. Macintosh, QuickTime, and the QuickTime logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc. used under license. © 1997 AT&T Corporation. All Rights Reserved. AT&T World.Net is a service mark of AT&T Corporation. The Complete NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC on CD-ROM was produced from an archive of magazines coUected in a central repository and is not representative of any single regional edition of NATIONAl GEOGRAPHIC magazine. All other trademarks and registered trademarks are the property of their respective holders. Made from renewable resources. USE OF THIS PRODUCT IS SUBJECT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED WARRANTY CONTAINED IN THIS PACKAGE.

APPENDIX A

### IMPORTANT

- 

### READ CAREFULLY BEFORE

USING THIS PRODUCT LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED WARRANTY BY USING THE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH THIS AGREEMENT ("PROGRAM") YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE WITH MINDSCAPE, iNC. ("MINDSCAPE"). IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, AND YOU ARE ALSO THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THIS PROGRAM LICENSE ("ORIGINAL PURCHASER"), PROMPTLY RETURN THE SOFTWARE TOGETHER WITh ALL ACCOMPANYING ITEMS TO YOUR DEALER FOR A FULL REFUND. UMITEI) USE LICENSE. Mindscape and its suppliers grant you the right to use one copy of the Program for your personal use only. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Mlndscape or its suppliers. You must treat the Program and associated materials and any elements thereof like any other copyrighted material (e.g., a book or musical recording). This Agreement is governed by the internal substantive laws of the State of Califomi& YOU MAY NOT: • Use the Program, or permit use of the program, on more than one computer, computer terminal, or workstation at the same time. • Make copies of the materials accompanying the Program, or make copies of the Program or any part thereof. • Except as permitted by the Program, copy the Program onto a hard drive or other device and you must run the Program from the CD-ROM (although the Program itself may copy a portion of the Program onto your hard drive during installation in order to run more efficiently). • Use the Program, or permit use of the Program, in a network or other multi-user arrangement or on an electronic bulletin board system or other remote access arrangement. • Rent, lease, license or otherwise transfer this Program without the express written consent of Mindscape, except that you may transfer the complete Program copy and accompanying materials on a permanent basis, provided that no copies are retained and the recipient agrees to the terms of this Agreement • Reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of, the Program. • Publicly perform or publicly display this program. LIMITED WARRANTY. Mindscape warrants to the Original Purchaser only, that the Program shall perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying written materials for ninety (90) days from the date of purchase. EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. The Original Purchaser's exclusive remedy for the breach of this license shall be, at Mindscape's option, either (a) the repair or replacement of the Program that does not meet Mindscape's Umited Warranty and which is returned to Mindscape with a copy of your receipt; or (b) a refund of the price, if any, which you paid for the Program and associated materials. This Limited Warranty is void if the failure of the Program has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, or use of the Program with incompatible hardware. NO OTHER WARRANTIES. MINDSCAPE AND ITS SUPPLIERS, IF ANY, DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROGRAM AND ACCOMPANYING MATERIALS, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABIL1T' NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THIS LIMITED WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS. DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU LIVE, YOU MAY HAVE OTHER RIGHTS, WHICH VARY FROM STATE/COUNTRY TO STATE/COUNTRY. LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL MINDSCAPE OR ITS SUPPLIERS, IF ANY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM OR PROGRAM PACKAGE, EVEN IF MINDSCAPE OR ITS SUPPLIERS, IF AN HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. MINDSCAPE'S LIABILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ACI1JAL PRICE PAID FOR THE LICENSE TO USE THE PROGRAM. BECAUSE SOME STATES/COUNTRIES DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The Program and documentation are provided with restricted tights. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (cXlXü) of The Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.221-7013 or subparagraphs (cXI) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software-Restricted Rights at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. The Contractor/Manufacturer is Mindscape, Inc., 88 Rowland Way, Novato, CA 94945. 

### SAVE THIS LICENSE FOR FUTURE REFERENCE 2999999-301001/R04Thc

APPENDIX B