« Ind. Courts - A second judge could be assigned to the Marion County major felony drug court next year | Main | Ind. Gov't. - South Shore ridership jumps, again »

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Federal court rules architects' copyright suit against library can proceed

"Architects' suit against library gets green light: Judge refuses to dismiss case filed by firm that designed expansion" is the headline to a story today in the Indianapolis Star by Kevin Corcoran. Some quotes:

The Central Library project's former architects will get their day in court, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder denied a request by attorneys for the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library to dismiss a copyright-infringement case filed by the firm that designed the library expansion.

Tinder ruled that the suit by Woollen, Molzan and Partners might not have complied with every technicality of law but that he would not delay the case by making the Indianapolis company file a corrected lawsuit.

"There is enough maneuvering going on already in the background of this very public fiasco," Tinder wrote. "The time of the parties would be better spent resolving this case." * * *

Woollen Molzan filed its suit against the library after the seven-member Library Board voted in April to terminate the firm's contract, saying design errors continued to surface and the firm was delaying work.

Here is a copy of Judge Tinder's ruling in Woollen Molzan et al v. Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library.

Some interesting dicta from the ruling:

Prior to Woollen Molzan’s filing of its copyright registration, the primary issue underlying Library’s motion to dismiss was whether a district court has jurisdiction to hear a copyright infringement claim when the plaintiff has applied for a copyright but no registration has yet issued. * * *

Under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), no person can begin an action for infringement of a
copyright until “registration of the copyright claim has been made” or, alternatively, until the registration has been refused and the applicant serves a copy of its complaint on the Register of the Copyrights. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). * * *

The jurisdictional issue regarding the requirements of § 411(a) is not a simple one. First, the circuits have divided between the “registration approach,” in which a plaintiff must await the Copyright Office’s actual registration before filing suit, and the “application approach,” in which the plaintiff has a cause of action upon filing a copyright application, along with the appropriate fee and deposit of material to be protected. See La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195, 1202-04 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing, in relatively neutral terms, the arguments in support of each approach); see also 17 U.S.C. 410(d) (defining the effective date of copyright registration as “the day on which an application, deposit, and fee ... have all been received in the Copyright Office”). The Seventh Circuit has not yet addressed this issue directly, although one decision suggests that this circuit may favor the “application approach.” * * *

Secondly, the parties in this case argue over whether § 411(a) is a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit or a requirement for jurisdiction. * * *

Both issues must be set aside for another case, another day. The Copyright Office has now apparently issued a Certificate of Registration to Woollen Molzan, and, as noted above, a district court may look beyond a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations and “view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Ezekiel, 66 F.3d at 897. As such, there is no justiciable issue before this court on whether a cause of action exists before the Copyright Office has registered the copyright or refused registration.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 29, 2006 08:33 AM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions