Maria Solange Ferrarini v. Ipek Irgit

Nature of the Filing

This document is Plaintiff Maria Solange Ferrarini’s notice of motion and memorandum asking the court to reconsider part of its January 9, 2020 order. The provided text does not contain an order granting or denying reconsideration. It includes scheduling directions requiring defendants to file any opposition by February 7, 2020, and moving the pre-motion conference to February 20, 2020, at 10:40 a.m.

Background and Plaintiff’s Position

Ferrarini states that the January 9 order denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and concluded that her complaint asserted a copyright-ownership claim because its central issue was ownership rather than infringement. She asks the court to reconsider that conclusion.

Ferrarini argues that her claims concern infringement of a design covered by her June 2018 copyright registration, not joint authorship or co-ownership. She states that defendants do not challenge the validity of that registration and do not contest her ownership of it, but instead argue that her infringement claims are untimely. She contends that defendants’ joint-authorship theory is an affirmative defense and should not change the nature of her claims.

Joint-Authorship Arguments

The motion cites the Copyright Act’s definition of a joint work: a work prepared by two or more authors who intend their contributions to be merged into an inseparable or interdependent whole. It also cites Second Circuit authority stating that a co-authorship claimant must show both independently copyrightable contributions and the parties’ full intent to be co-authors.

Ferrarini asserts that neither she nor Irgit intended the works to be joint works and that both denied such an intention in depositions. She argues that joint authorship requires the dominant author to intend to share authorship, which she says is absent here. She distinguishes cases cited in the January 9 order by arguing that those cases involved acknowledged or previously recognized joint authors, unlike the circumstances described in her motion.

Requested Relief and Current Status

Ferrarini asks the court to reconsider and reissue the portion of the January 9 order that characterized her claims as ownership claims. She argues that a valid copyright registration permits an infringement action and that ownership and infringement claims are distinct, including for purposes of the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period.

The provided document does not state how the court ruled on the reconsideration motion. Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s filing instructions require defendants’ opposition by February 7, 2020, and adjourn the pre-motion conference to February 20, 2020.