Opinion ID: 774266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Registration of Morris's Articles

Text: 25 Morris also argues that, as an exclusive licensee, Conde Nast had the right to register the copyrights in her articles and intended to do so when it registered the issues of Allure in which her articles appear. While Morris is correct that Conde Nast could have registered her copyrights, we disagree that it actually did so. 26 Subsection 408(a) of the Copyright Act provides that the owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim. 17 U.S.C. 408(a) (2000). As the owner of the exclusive first right to publish Morris's articles for a ninety-day period, Conde Nast falls within the scope of § 408(a). It therefore had the right to register the copyrights in Morris's articles. 27 Subsection 409 of the Act, however, requires that an application for copyright registration include, among other things, (1) the name and address of the copyright claimant; (2)... the name and nationality or domicile of the author or authors...; [and] (6) the title of the work, together with any previous or alternative titles under which the work can be identified.... 17 U.S.C. § 409 (2000). Conde Nast's registrations of Allure contained none of these items with respect to Morris's articles: None of the registrations identified Morris as the copyright claimant, 4 none of them specified Morris as the author of the work, and none of them listed the titles of Morris's articles. 28 Morris admits that Conde Nast did not designate any of these items on its copyright registrations, but contends that these omissions were errors that can be overlooked. To support her contention, Morris relies on Wales Industrial Inc. v. Hasbro Bradley, Inc., 612 F. Supp. 510 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), where the district court held that improper designation of the copyright claimant on a registration certificate was not grounds to dismiss an infringement claim unless the error was intentional. In that case, Hasbro improperly designated itself as the copyright claimant in registrations for certain toy robots. The district court found that this alleged error would not invalidate the registrations because the error was a technical misdescription... [that] could readily be corrected[.] Id. at 515. Because there was no evidence that the claimed error was committed knowingly, the court held that dismissal of Hasbro's infringement action was not required. Id. 29 We do not find a persuasive parallel between Wales and this case. Unlike the registrations in Wales, which were clearly intended for the toy robots at issue there, Conde Nast's registrations were not intended for Morris's articles but, rather, for the issues of Allure as collective works. See Publications Int'l. Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473, 480 (7th Cir. 1996) (A compilation copyright protects the order and manner of the presentation of the compilation's elements, but does not necessarily embrace those elements.); Howard v. Sterchi, 725 F. Supp. 1572, 1575 (N.D. Ga. 1989) (same). Morris cannot reasonably contend that the valid registrations of Allure were, in reality, error-laden registrations of her articles. 30 Moreover, even if we assume arguendo that Conde Nast's registrations were intended for Morris's articles, the errors contained in the registrations would be much more than the minor technical misdescriptions discussed in Wales; these errors would render the registrations completely inaccurate. The registrations contained none of the information required by § 409 for proper registration of the articles, such as Morris's name, the title of her articles, or the proper copyright claimant. Accordingly, Conde Nast's registrations cannot be viewed as valid copyright registrations under § 408(a). 31 In light of the foregoing, we agree with the district court that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking because the registration requirement of § 411(a) was not satisfied in this case.