As I said elsewhere, I overstated. It would be more accurate to say that no court has recognized has recognized a directors copyright. Settlements are nice, but they only benefit the parties involved. They cannot be cited by a director seeking redress for infringement.
So yes, a court does need to state this. That is how the legal system works.
Once a court interprets a copyright law in this way (and if it stands on appeal), then that case can be cited in subsequent suits providing protection to all directors. The specification in Einhorn that a director's copyright could be recognized in another case. That statement is too weak to have much impact in any legal argument. But that is the best we got now.