Oddo v. Ries
Decision Date | 19 June 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83-6190,83-6190 |
Citation | 743 F.2d 630 |
Parties | , 1984 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,677 Frank ODDO, Appellee, v. Jack W. RIES, MME Publications, MME Publishing Company and Material Movement Enterprises, Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Vance C. Simonds, Jr., Capretz & Casdan, Irvine, Cal., for appellee.
Patrick F. Bright, Kendrick, Netter & Bennett, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Before GOODWIN, SNEED and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
In the guise of a copyright infringement suit, this case presents an accounting problem between two partners. Ries and his codefendants 1 appeal from a judgment awarding Oddo $10,000 statutory damages for infringement, $20,000 attorneys' fees, general damages of $1,000, and costs of suit.
Oddo and Ries entered into a partnership in March 1978 to create and publish a book describing how to restore Ford F-100 pickup trucks. According to the partnership agreement, Ries was to provide capital and supervise the business end of the venture; Oddo was to write and edit the book. By January 1980, Oddo had delivered to Ries a manuscript that contained much but not all of the material the partners planned to include in the book. This manuscript consisted partly of a reworking of previously published magazine articles that Oddo had written and partly of new material, also written by Oddo, that had never before been published.
At about the same time, Ries became dissatisfied with the progress Oddo had made on the manuscript. Ries hired another writer to complete Oddo's manuscript, and then published the finished product. The book that Ries eventually published contained substantial quantities of Oddo's manuscript but also contained material added by the new writer.
Three copyrighted works are at issue in this case. The first, actually a set of copyrighted works, consists of the magazine articles that Oddo reworked into the manuscript that he delivered to Ries. The second work is Oddo's manuscript, and the third is the book that Ries published. We will refer to these works as the articles, the manuscript, and the book. The district court did not specify which copyright Ries had infringed; it simply held "[t]hat the copyright of Plaintiff Oddo was infringed by Defendant Ries when he caused the Guide [i.e., the Book] to be published ...."
The district court erred if it meant that Ries infringed the copyright in the manuscript or the book. The district court concluded that the Oddo/Ries partnership owns the copyrights in the book and the manuscript. As a partner, Ries is a co-owner of the partnership's assets, including the copyrights. Cal.Corp.Code Sec. 15025(1) (Deering 1979). A co-owner of a copyright cannot be liable to another co- owner for infringement of the copyright. Richmond v. Weiner, 353 F.2d 41, 46 (9th Cir.1965); Picture Music Inc. v. Bourne, Inc., 314 F.Supp. 640, 646 (S.D.N.Y.1970), aff'd 457 F.2d 1213 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 409 U.S. 997, 93 S.Ct. 320, 34 L.Ed.2d 262 (1972). Rather, each co-owner has an independent right to use or license the use of the copyright. E.g., Meredith v. Smith, 145 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.1944); Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 140 F.2d 266, 268 (2d Cir.1944); Piantadosi v. Loew's, Inc., 137 F.2d 534, 537 (9th Cir.1943); see generally Comment, Problems in Co-ownership of Copyrights, 8 UCLA L.Rev. 1035, 1039-47 (1961). A co-owner of a copyright must account to other co-owners for any profits he earns from licensing or use of the copyright, Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 221 F.2d 569 (2d Cir.), modified, 223 F.2d 252 (1955); Picture Music, Inc., 314 F.Supp. at 646-47, but the duty to account does not derive from the copyright law's proscription of infringement. Rather, it comes from "equitable doctrines relating to unjust enrichment and general principles of law governing the rights of co-owners." Harrington v. Mure, 186 F.Supp. 655, 657-58 (S.D.N.Y.1960) (footnote omitted). 2
We have not found any cases dealing with the rights of partners in copyrights held by their partnership, but we see no reason why partners should be excluded from the general rules governing copyright co-ownership. 3 Many of the copyright co-ownership cases e.g., Richmond v. Weiner, Piantadosi v. Loew's, might be distinguished from ours on the grounds that co-ownership in those cases arose from joint authorship of the work subject to copyright, and Oddo and Ries are not joint authors. However, nothing in those cases suggests that the rules they set out are restricted to cases of joint authorship. Moreover, the general rule of copyright co-ownership has been applied to co-owners who are not joint authors. E.g., Meredith v. Smith, 145 F.2d at 621 ( ); Crosney v. Edward Small Productions, Inc., 52 F.Supp. 559 (S.D.N.Y.1942).
Accordingly, Ries could not infringe the partnership's copyrights in the manuscript or the book, but he can be required to account to Oddo for any profits he has made from use of those copyrights. Ries may also be liable to Oddo under California partnership law for misuse of the partnership copyrights. See Cal.Corp.Code Sec. 15025(2)(a) (Deering 1979) ( ). A violation of state partnership law, however, would not transform Ries' use of the copyrights into infringement under federal law. See Meredith v. Smith, 145 F.2d at 620 ( ).
In finding infringement, the district court may have meant that Ries infringed Oddo's copyrights in his magazine articles. If so, we must first consider Ries' contention that the publisher of the magazines, not Oddo, owns the copyrights to the articles.
The articles were contributions to collective works. Copyright to such a contribution vests initially in the author of the contribution; in this case, Oddo. The owner of the copyright in the collective work (here, the magazine publisher) is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of publishing the contribution in that particular collective work unless he has received greater rights by an "express transfer." 17 U.S.C. Sec. 201(c) (1982). 4 Ries has not pointed to any evidence of such an "express transfer." Nor can Ries claim that the magazine publisher acquired ownership of the copyrights in the articles as "works made for hire" pursuant to Sec. 201(b), because a contribution to a collective work will be considered a work made for hire only if the parties expressly so agree in a written instrument, Sec. 101, and Ries has not pointed to any such instrument. Oddo owns the copyrights to the articles.
We now turn to infringement of the copyrights in the articles. The manuscript and the book are both derivative works based on the articles. See Sec. 101. 5 As derivative works they necessarily infringe the copyrights in the articles unless Oddo granted permission to use the articles. 1 M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, Sec. 3.01 (1983).
The district court made no findings on whether Oddo gave Ries or the partnership permission to use his articles in the manuscript or the book. We conclude that Oddo, by preparing a manuscript based on his preexisting articles as part of his partnership duties, impliedly gave the partnership a license to use the articles insofar as they were incorporated in the manuscript, for without such a license, Oddo's contribution to the partnership venture would have been of minimal value. However, the implied license to use the articles in the manuscript does not give Ries or the partnership the right to use the articles in any work other than the manuscript itself. See Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 19-21 (2d Cir.1976) ( ). Because the book is a work distinct from the manuscript, Ries exceeded the scope of the partnership's license when he used the articles in the book. Ries has not shown that he was otherwise licensed to use the articles in the book, 6 so his publication of the book infringed Oddo's copyright in the articles.
The parties have spent considerable energy arguing whether statutory damages and attorneys' fees, Secs. 504(c) and 505, may be awarded in this case. Because Ries cannot be held liable for infringement of the copyrights in the manuscript and book that he co-owns with Oddo, his use of those copyrights cannot form the basis for any sort of award under the copyright act. Nor can Oddo recover statutory damages and attorneys' fees for infringement of the copyrights in the articles. Section 412 bars an award of statutory damages or attorneys' fees for "any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yellowcake, Inc. v. Morena Music, Inc.
...to other co-authors for any profits earned from licensing or using the copyright. See Ashton-Tate, 916 F.2d at 522 ; Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1984). Further, unless all co-authors of a "joint work" join in granting an exclusive license, a single co-author (acting on its ......
-
SBK Catalogue Partnership v. Orion Pictures
...independent right to use or license the use of the copyright.'" Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 654 F.Supp. at 1131 (quoting Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633 (9th Cir.1984)). Infringement is the violation of an owner's interest in the copyright by a nonowner. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a); Cortner v. Israel,......
-
Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.
...to those found in the cases above to be preempted, often even sharing the same names, in fact survive § 301. See, e.g., Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 1984) (conversion and breach of fiduciary duty); United States Trotting Ass'n v. Chicago Downs Ass'n, 665 F.2d 781, 785 n. 6 (7th......
-
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
...plaintiff's contribution to a film or other work would otherwise be worthless or of “minimal value.” Id. at 559; see also Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir.1984). That is the case here. Garcia auditioned for a role in a particular film, was paid for her performance and had every reas......
-
A License Is Not a 'Contract Not To Sue': Disentangling Property and Contract in the Law of Copyright Licenses
...license fee was a “condition precedent to implying a license”). 252 . See, e.g. , Effects Assocs. , 908 F.2d at 557–58; Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 1984). 253 . See Wood v. Leadbitter, (1845) 153 Eng. Rep. 351 (Exch.) 354; 13 M. & W. 838, 844– 45 (“A mere license is revocable: but ......
-
E-law 4: Computer Information Systems Law and System Operator Liability
...No. 97 CV 1099H (JFS) (S.D. Cal. June 10, 1997). 596. C.f., Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630 (9th Cir. 597. Gershwin, 443 F.2d at 1162. 598. For these purposes, an "infringing site" is defined as a web page which will transmit copyr......
-
Infringement Nation: Copyright 2.0 and You.
...from conduct" (quoting 3 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT [section] 10.03[A], at 10-36 (1989))); Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1984) (finding that an author who prepares a manuscript based on his preexisting articles as part of his partnership duties im......
-
Interpreting the Copyright Act's Section 201(c) Revision Privilege with Respect to Electronic Media.
...republication, discussed in Part I, presumably would be legal. (80.) Tasini, 972 F. Supp. at 824 n. 12. (81.) See Oddo v. Ries, 743 F.2d 630, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the publisher of a magazine did not have exclusive right to adapt an article into book (82.) See Tasini v. New Y......