TOM BEAN V. HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUB., No. 10-16771 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 17 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 10-16771 TOM BEAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08034-DGC v. MEMORANDUM* HOUGHTON MIFFLIN HARCOURT PUBLISHING COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2014** Phoenix, Arizona Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Tom Bean appeals from the dismissal of his copyright infringement action against Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. The district court held that Bean had not met 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) s pre-suit copyright registration requirement because his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). -2photographs were improperly registered under 17 U.S.C. § 409. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612, 614 (9th Cir. 2010), and we VACATE the dismissal order and REMAND for further proceedings. We recently held in a similar case, Alaska Stock, LLC v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, that the registration of a compilation of photographs also registers the individual photographs within the compilation where, as here, the registrant follows Copyright Office practice and does not include the title and author of each individual photograph on the registration application. 747 F.3d 673, 685 (9th Cir. 2014). Consistent with our Alaska Stock opinion s express disagreement with the district court s decision in this case, id. at 684 n.50, we hold that the district court erred in dismissing Bean s action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that his photographs were not individually registered. VACATED and REMANDED. Costs awarded to Appellant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
