"there is nothing preventing you from registering your copyright well after you first published the material"

Your point is exactly what people in power want. IT IS CODIFIED IN LAW that unless you go through a kafkaesque process, your work can be reused and you get no compensation for it.

That is precisely the OPPOSITE of "just" and the law was written by capitalists for capitalists.

Just look at the original precedent case: https://casetext.com/case/vacheron-constantin-le-coultre-wat... "two successive applications for a certificate of registration were refused by the Register of Copyrights upon the ground that the subject matter was not a work of art within the requirements of the Act"

Perfect - so we set up a kafkaesque process that is opaque and up to a handful of unelected elite to make rulings on art (oh please) and if you don't do this then it's Legal and therefore right.

Diogenes remains dissapointed

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html https://copyrightalliance.org/faqs/why-register-copyright/

Well, here's the actual text from the decision:

> Each defendant argues that McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright claims must be dismissed because neither of them has registered their images with the Copyright Office. They also move to “limit” Anderson’s copyright claim to infringement based only on the 16 collections of works that she has registered. See, e.g., Declaration of Paul M. Schoenhard (Dkt. No. 51-1), ¶¶ 5-6; see also Compl. ¶ 28 & Exs. 1-16.3

> In opposition, plaintiffs do not address, much less contest, McKernan or Ortiz’s asserted inability to pursue Copyright Act claims. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel clarified that they are not asserting copyright claims on behalf of these two plaintiffs. July 19, 2023 Transcript (Tr.), pg. 17:1-5. As such, McKernan and Ortiz’s copyright act claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

> Likewise, plaintiffs do not address or dispute that Anderson’s copyright claims should be limited to the collections Anderson has registered. The scope of Anderson’s Copyright Act claims are limited to the collections which she has registered.

TL;DR: plaintiffs didn't attempt to argue that the copyright claims should be construed broadly, defendants argued they should, so defendants win at motion-to-dismiss stage. The defendants actually lost their argument that they should win because Anderson didn't identify the specific registered works, the entire case should be thrown out--the judge said there's enough specificity to let the case go to discovery to figure out which registered works may have been infringed.