Opinion ID: 868508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Registration and Copying

Text: Lippitt claims to have satisfied both the statutory formality of copyright registration and her burden of producing evidence to demonstrate Warrick’s infringement. In response, Warrick argues Lippitt’s claim is sustainable only if she produces the original work as registered. Lippitt makes the better argument. The parties have conflated the statutory formality of registration with the burden of proving the content of the allegedly infringed work. The two are separate issues. Copyright registration is not a prerequisite for copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. §§ 102, 7 While we realize Lippitt, in her deposition testimony, opined that her rights extended even to the ideas underlying her diagram, her mistaken view does not prevent her from enforcing the rights she does hold under the copyright law. - 12 - 408(a); see La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 130 S. Ct. 1237, 1243 n.2 & 1248 (2010). Rather, registration is necessary only as a prerequisite to suing for infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); see Clay Realtors, 416 F.3d at 1199. Here, Lippitt satisfied the statutory registration requirement. She obtained a copyright in 1987 when she fixed her diagram by writing it down. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). As Warrick acknowledges, Lippitt has registered a variety of works containing versions of the diagram.8 This satisfied her duty to register the work before bringing suit. See 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The parties’ arguments about the evidence of copying are perplexing because the parties seem to agree on the salient point: Warrick copied Lippitt’s diagram. Ordinarily, Lippitt, as plaintiff, would bear the burden of presenting evidence allowing the court to 8 Lippitt was unable to produce the work registered in 1987 as proof that the diagram was included in it. But the diagram was included in other works registered in 2000 and 2003. See R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC, 577 F.3d 1133, 1143 (10th Cir. 2009) ([I]f the same party owns a copyright in both a derivative work . . . and the underlying work that is incorporated in the derivative work, registration of a copyright in the derivative work is sufficient to permit an infringement action on either the preexisting (unoriginal) material or on any newly contributed material.). Moreover, Lippitt testified at her deposition that the diagram was first included in materials registered in 1987: “The chart first appeared in Transition: Accomplishing Organization Change . . . which is Exhibit 5.” (App’x 76.) The appendix contains the 1987 certificate of registration for this work. Warrick has presented no evidence giving any reason to doubt Lippitt's testimony about the diagram’s inclusion in the work she registered in 1987. - 13 - compare the original work with the alleged infringements. See Reno, 555 F.3d at 1177. Here, however, Warrick admits he was given a copy of Lippitt’s diagram and used it to produce Diagram 2. He even credited Lippitt for her creation of the diagram. Because this is the rare case where there is direct evidence of copying, Lippitt need not show copying indirectly by the usual method of demonstrating access and substantial similarity. See Reno, 555 F.3d at 1178 (observing a plaintiff may prove copying either with direct evidence of copying or by showing access and “probative similarities”); Country Kids, 77 F.3d at 1284 (same).