Ferdinand Pickett, Cross-Appellee v. Prince
207 F.3d 402 (2000)
Rule of Law:
The owner of a valid copyright possesses the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on the original copyrighted work. A person who creates a derivative work without the authorization of the original copyright owner cannot obtain a valid copyright in that derivative work.
Facts:
- The musician Prince created a unique, unpronounceable symbol and obtained a valid copyright for it as a work of visual art in 1992.
- In 1993, Ferdinand Pickett, a guitar maker, constructed a guitar in the shape of Prince's copyrighted symbol.
- Pickett claims to have shown this symbol-shaped guitar to Prince.
- Shortly after Pickett showed him the guitar, Prince began appearing in public playing a guitar that was very similar in appearance to Pickett's creation.
- Pickett never sought nor received authorization from Prince to create a work based on his copyrighted symbol.
Procedural Posture:
- Ferdinand Pickett sued Prince for copyright infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Prince filed a counterclaim for infringement of his symbol's copyright.
- The district court dismissed Prince's counterclaim as barred by the statute of limitations because it did not relate back to his original, flawed counterclaim.
- Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Prince on Pickett's claim, dismissing Pickett's lawsuit.
- Pickett appealed the dismissal of his infringement claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- Prince filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court's dismissal of his counterclaim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Copyright Act permit an individual to obtain a valid copyright on a derivative work created without the authorization of the owner of the copyright in the underlying work, and then sue that original owner for infringing the unauthorized derivative work?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Chief Judge
No. A copyright for a derivative work is invalid if it was created without the authorization of the owner of the copyright in the underlying work. Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon their original copyrighted work. Pickett's guitar is an unauthorized derivative work of Prince's copyrighted symbol; therefore, Pickett could not obtain a valid copyright for it and has no grounds to sue Prince for infringement. This rule is sensible because concentrating the right to create derivative works in the original owner prevents an endless series of infringement suits with insoluble difficulties of proof, where courts would struggle to determine if one derivative work copied another or if both simply copied the original. Section 103(a) does not create an exception; it merely clarifies that an authorized derivative work cannot lawfully incorporate other, separately copyrighted materials without permission.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength and exclusivity of the derivative work right held by a copyright owner under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). It clarifies that one cannot 'bootstrap' a claim to copyright protection by creating an unauthorized work based on another's protected creation. The court's reasoning prevents a chaotic legal landscape where infringers could sue original authors, thereby protecting the core incentive of copyright law. The ruling establishes a clear gatekeeping function, ensuring that only the original copyright holder controls the creation and exploitation of new works based on the original.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Ferdinand Pickett, Cross-Appellee v. Prince (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"