Center for Gestalt Development v. Bowman — Compilation Copyright Does Not Cover Each Included Work

Background

Frederick Perls, a founder of gestalt therapy, wrote but never published an article called “Psychopathology of Awareness.” After his death, his widow’s estate entered a 1991 agreement giving the Center for Gestalt Development exclusive rights to publish a collection of Perls’s unpublished manuscripts. The collection included the article, but the agreement did not separately transfer the copyright in the article itself.

Years later, therapists Charles Bowman and Jean-Marie Robine obtained the article and incorporated it into a 200-page book alongside commentary from contemporary practitioners. Before publication, the Center objected. Bowman and Robine then contacted Perls’s children, who had inherited the article’s copyright. Acting through a legal representative, the children gave Bowman and Robine oral permission to use the article in exchange for a modest royalty.

In 2021, the Center acquired the article’s copyright through a settlement with the Perls heirs and sued Bowman and Robine for infringement. The Southern District of Indiana entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that the Center’s earlier compilation rights did not cover the standalone article and that its later-acquired copyright remained subject to the defendants’ paid-up oral license.

The Court’s Holding

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Under sections 103(b) and 201(c) of the Copyright Act, copyright in a compilation or collective work is distinct from copyright in each preexisting contribution. A compiler may own the original selection or arrangement without owning the underlying works. The court compared the rule to a magazine: copyright in an assembled issue does not automatically give the publisher the right to reproduce a freelance article by itself.

That distinction meant the Center’s 1991 rights in the manuscript collection did not let it control separate publication of “Psychopathology of Awareness.” The Center obtained the article’s copyright only in 2021, after Perls’s heirs had already licensed Bowman and Robine to include it in their book.

The oral license was valid because it conveyed permission to use the work, not copyright ownership, so the Copyright Act’s writing requirement did not apply. The royalty supplied consideration and made the nonexclusive license irrevocable. The Center therefore took the copyright subject to that existing permission and could not retroactively withdraw it.

The panel also rejected any claim for infringement before the license. Only the copyright owner at the time of an infringement may ordinarily sue, and the 2021 agreement did not assign the heirs’ accrued claims to the Center. Nor did the author’s right of first publication change the ownership analysis: that principle matters to fair use only after the court identifies who owns the relevant copyright.

Key Takeaways

• Copyright in a compilation protects original selection and arrangement, not the preexisting works gathered inside it.
• A nonexclusive copyright license may be oral, and consideration can make it irrevocable.
• A later copyright assignee generally takes subject to licenses the prior owner already granted.
• Accrued infringement claims do not automatically travel with a later assignment unless the agreement transfers them.

Why It Matters

The decision offers a clear ownership roadmap for publishers, archives, estates, and organizations that assemble collections. Possessing a copyright registration or contract for an anthology does not necessarily provide control over every component. Parties acquiring archival rights should identify separately whether they are receiving compilation rights, rights in individual works, accrued claims, or all three.

For authors and licensees, the case also shows why documenting permissions remains wise even when the law permits an oral license. Bowman and Robine prevailed because testimony, a royalty payment, and contemporaneous communications corroborated the permission. A short written license would have made the same point with far less litigation risk.