The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, finding that ownership of a copyright in a compilation does not confer rights in its individual components and that a subsequent copyright assignment remains subject to a previously granted irrevocable oral license. Center for Gestalt Development, Inc. v. Bowman, Case No. 25-3336 (7th Cir. Oct. 26, 2026) (Scudder, Pryor, Maldanado, JJ.)
Dr. Frederick Perls, a pioneer of gestalt therapy, authored an unpublished article titled “Psychopathology of Awareness.” In 1991, his widow’s estate granted the Center for Gestalt Development exclusive rights to publish a collection of Perls’ unpublished manuscripts, including the “Psychopathology” article. The Center did not publish the collection until 2021. Meanwhile, Charles Bowman and Jean-Marie Robine published the article in a 2019 book accompanied by commentary from other gestalt therapists. In 2019 or 2020, Perls’ children, who had inherited the copyright in the article, orally authorized Bowman and Robine to use the article in exchange for royalties. In 2021, the children settled a separate lawsuit with the Center by assigning their rights in the article to the Center for the duration of the litigation. The Center sued Bowman and Robine for copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bowman and Robine, finding that the Center’s original rights extended only to the collection and that its subsequent acquisition of the article’s copyright was subject to the earlier oral license. The Center appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, explaining that the Copyright Act distinguishes between ownership of a compilation and ownership of the individual works the compilation contains. Under § 103(b), a compilation copyright protects only the original material contributed by the compiler, such as the selection, coordination, or arrangement of the underlying works. Section 201(c) further provides that copyright in an individual contribution is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole. Relying on the US Supreme Court’s decisions in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991) and New York Times Co. v. Tasini (2001), the Seventh Circuit explained that the Center’s 1991 agreement conveyed rights in the collection’s “selective curation,” not in the article standing alone. Because Bowman and Robine reproduced only the article, rather than the collection, their use did not infringe the Center’s compilation copyright.
The Seventh Circuit next addressed the Center’s acquisition of the article’s copyright in 2021. By that time, Perls’ children had already granted Bowman and Robine a nonexclusive oral license to publish the article. The Court explained that although § 204(a) of the Copyright Act, sometimes called the Statute of Frauds, requires transfers of copyright ownership to be in writing, nonexclusive licenses are exempt from that requirement under § 101. The license was also irrevocable because Bowman and Robine had paid royalties in exchange for permission to use the article. Accordingly, the Center acquired the article’s copyright subject to the existing license and could not revoke Bowman and Robine’s authorization to continue publishing it.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected the Center’s argument that factual disputes concerning the timing and existence of the oral license precluded summary judgment. The license was supported by a sworn declaration, a royalty check, and subsequent correspondence. Although the precise date of the license remained uncertain, it was undisputed that the license preceded the Center’s acquisition of the article’s copyright in 2021. Any infringement occurring before the license was granted belonged to Perls’ children, and the 2021 assignment did not transfer their accrued infringement claims to the Center.
Finally, the Seventh Circuit rejected the Center’s argument that its compilation copyright included the right of first publication under the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises. The Court distinguished Harper & Row as addressing the significance of an unpublished work in the context of fair use, not copyright ownership. Because the Center had no independent right to publish the article outside the collection until 2021, it could not prevent Bowman and Robine from publishing the article pursuant to their earlier license.
