through 1968 .... ” (Mem. at 9, 15.) Defendants contend that after 1968 Abbott and Costello’s heirs were required to register a renewal of the copyright to the Routine. (Id. at 15.) Given the plausible allegation that Abbott and Costello assigned their common law copyright in the Routine to UPC with the 1940 Agreement, Defendants argument that the duo’s heirs had to register a renewal of the copyright is unavailing. ' Because as much of the 1938 Routine as was disclosed in the motion picture was published when the motion picture was published, and because the law treats motion pictures as a unitary works, the copyrights in One Night and The Naughty Nineties that UPC registered “merged” the Routine with the films. See 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d 247, 257-58 (2d Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); see also Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d
holding that because filmmaking is a collaborative process typically  involving artistic contributions from large numbers of people statutory copyright in the film itself could be undermined if copyright subsisted separately in each of their contributions to the completed film citing richlin 531 f3d at 975 a motion picture is a work to which many contribute however those contributions ultimately merge to create a unitary whole holding that mere authorization and approval of copyright infringements taking place outside the united states is not a copyright violation and does not create jurisdiction over those extraterritorial acts holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement holding in suit between film and photograph archive companies that copyright act preempted misappropriation claim and pllaintiffs could not by nsiscasting their causes of action secure the equivalent of copyright protection under guise of state law