Exactly two years ago today, Judge Conley’s decision was entered on appeal, and Judgement was granted on the issue of whether my 33 copyrighted illustrations constitute separate works. There are some real gems in this decision and you are welcome to read it HERE Case: 3:15-cv-00298-wmc Document #: 356
Flora appealed this decision for the second time, and the Seventh Circuit’s decisions were mind-boggling to say the least. Now, as I prepare for the second jury trial as to whether my copyright protected works have independent economic value, I am consistently flabbergasted by the raising-of-the-bar for artist’s in the Seventh Circuit as it pertains to Copyright. The Seventh Circuit’s decisions are available here
III. Conclusion
“We will attempt to leave no room for doubt about the scope of this remand.” Bradley, 59 F.4th at 905. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment both for violating our mandate and improperly weighing evidence—this case will now proceed to trial on the question of damages. The scope of our remand (and the trial) is narrow and is limited to determining whether Sullivan’s illustrations “constitute 33 in- dividual works or instead are parts of two compilations (corresponding with the two advertising campaigns in which Flora used the illustrations).” Flora I, 936 F.3d at 568–69.
Determining whether the individual works are part of a compilation is a threshold statutory damages question. The fact-finder’s determination may be that only the two compilations have independent economic value, all 33 individual illustrations have independent economic value, or somewhere in the middle. At trial, Flora is not prohibited from “nitpicking” specific aspects of the 33 illustrations to show that they lack independent economic value. Arguments Flora raised here, and during summary judgment below, that directly relate to the independent economic value test are within the scope of remand and are not waived. But Flora is not permitted to relitigate the issues of infringement or joint authorship. These issues have already been decided by a jury and fall outside the scope of our remand.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.