Faulkner v. National Geographic Society Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Freelance contributors sued National Geographic, claiming its digital CD-ROM archive of past magazines infringed their copyrights. The court held the digital archive was a privileged “revision” of the original collective works under the Copyright Act, thus not an infringement.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a digital replica of a print collective work, even with new software features, can qualify as a privileged “revision” under § 201(c) of the Copyright Act, so long as the original contributions are presented in their original context.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, freelance photographers and writers, contributed works to the print version of the National Geographic Magazine. Defendant National Geographic Society (NGS), which owned the copyright in the collective works (the individual magazine issues), created “The Complete National Geographic” (CNG), a digital archive on CD-ROM and DVD. The CNG was produced by digitally scanning each page of every past magazine issue, creating a “virtually exact image-based reproduction.” The CNG presented the magazine issues chronologically and preserved the original layout, including text, images, and advertisements. However, the CNG also included new, independently copyrightable elements not present in the print magazines, such as an introductory multimedia sequence, promotional messages, and computer software that provided a search engine and other interactive features. Plaintiffs alleged that NGS’s production and sale of the CNG, which included their individual contributions, constituted copyright infringement because it exceeded the scope of the publication rights they had granted. NGS argued its actions were privileged under § 201(c) of the Copyright Act.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a digital archive that reproduces entire issues of a periodical in their original context, but also adds new software features like a search engine, constitute a privileged “revision” of the original collective work under § 201(c) of the Copyright Act?
Yes. The court held that the CNG is a privileged “revision” of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla par
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a digital archive that reproduces entire issues of a periodical in their original context, but also adds new software features like a search engine, constitute a privileged “revision” of the original collective work under § 201(c) of the Copyright Act?
Conclusion
This case provides a key interpretation of the § 201(c) revision privilege Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli
Legal Rule
Under § 201(c) of the Copyright Act, the owner of a copyright Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vo
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed plaintiffs' argument that NGS was collaterally estopped by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A digital archive of a periodical is a privileged “revision” under