Collective Works

A collective work consists of smaller works that are independently copyright-protected. Whereas a
work of joint authorship is a single copyrightable work with contributions that were not intended to
stand alone, a collective work compiles constituent parts that do (and often were originally intended
to) stand alone.

The person who assembles the collective work (the "collective author") owns the copyright to the
selection and arrangement, but the owners of the copyrights to the underlying works retain their
rights. See 17 U.S.C. 201(c), 17 U.S.C. 103(b).

Copyright law gives the collective author the right to reuse the underlying works in a subsequent
publication if that subsequent publication is:

1. the same collective work;

2. a revision of the same collective work; or
3. a later collective work in the same series.

See 17 U.S.C. 201(c). If the collective author wants to include the underlying works in a different
manner than the above three categories, she needs to get express permission from each copyright
owner.

Some common examples of collective works are poetry anthologies, newspapers, magazines, and
scholarly journals. In general, each discrete edition of the newspaper, magazine, or journal is a
collective work made up of individual articles, some of which are written by freelancers. (For a
discussion on the difference between the work created by a freelancer--or independent contractor--
and an employee, see the section on Works Owned by Someone Else.) The freelancer owns the
copyright to his individual contribution, and the publisher owns the copyright to the collective
edition of the newspaper.

Generally, a publisher can reprint an article from one issue in a later issue of its newspaper or
magazine ("a later collective work in the same series"). However, when publishers publish in new
media, the legal issues get more complex. In one case, the New York Times digitized articles from its
print edition, put them in a database, and made them individually available online. The Supreme
Court held that because the online version of the articles were viewable individually, they violated the
freelance writers' copyrights because they were were "disconnected from their original context" and
did not replicate the original selection and arrangement. See New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S.
483 (2001). On the other hand, the Court suggested that preserving the collective work through
microfilm would be a permitted revision because the microfilm maintains the original organization,
layout, and context of the collective work. Thus, a magazine publisher can distribute digital scans of
their print magazines, since the resultant work uses the "almost identical 'selection, coordination,
and arrangement' of the underlying works as used in the original collective works." See Faulkner v.
National Geographic Enters., 409 F.3d 26, 38 (2nd Cir. 2005).

While most cases involve a collective work transitioning from print to digital publication, there is no
reason to believe the same would not hold true in the opposite direction. Thus, if you created a web
page of the most influential blog posts from 2001-2005, getting permission from each original poster
to do so, you would need to retain the selection, coordination, and arrangement in order to also
distribute a print version.
What This Means For You

When you allow someone else to use your work in their collective work, you are not giving the
collective author the rights to do whatever she wants. If you are compiling a collective work, the
permission an author gives you to use a work in your collective does not give you free reign to use
that work as you please. You should pay particular attention to these points if you are publishing or
distributing in multiple mediums. If you have a particular concern about how, where, and when
works may be used, be proactive and ensure those details are finalized in a written contract. See the
sections on Copyright Licenses and Transfers and Getting Permission to Use the Work of Others for
more information.