Page:Daniel Schrock v. Learning Curve International, Inc. 7th Cir. 08-1296.djvu/6

 must also have Learning Curve’s permission to copyright the photos. Schrock did not have that permission, so the judge concluded that Schrock had no copyright in the photos  and dismissed  his  claim for copyright infringement. Schrock appealed.

II. Discussion
Schrock argues that the district judge mistakenly classified his photos as derivative works and misread or misapplied Gracen. He contends that his photos are not derivative works, and even if they are, his copyright is valid and enforceable because  he had permission from Learning Curve to  photograph the underlying copyrighted works and his  photos  contained sufficient incremental original expression to qualify for copyright. HIT and Learning Curve defend the district court’s determination that the photos are derivative works and argue that the court properly read Gracen to require permission to copyright as well as permission to make the derivative works. Alternatively, they maintain that Schrock’s photographs contain insufficient originality to  be copyrightable and that copyright protection is barred under the  or merger doctrines. Finally, the defendants ask us to affirm on the independent ground that Schrock orally granted them an unlimited license to use his works.