Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

Decision Date22 July 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-6093,87-6093
Citation845 F.2d 851
Parties, 1988 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,272, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1723, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1570 Herbert L. COHEN, dba Bizarre Music, Co., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Evan S. Cohen, Cohen and Luckenbacher, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Howard King, Gang, Tyre, Ramer & Brown, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before HUG, TANG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

HUG, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a novel issue of copyright law: whether a license conferring the right to exhibit a film "by means of television" includes the right to distribute videocassettes of the film. We hold it does not.

FACTS

Herbert Cohen is the owner of the copyright in a musical composition entitled "Merry-Go-Round" (hereinafter "the composition"). On May 12, 1969, Cohen granted H & J Pictures, Inc., a "synchronization" license, which gave H & J the right to use the composition in a film called "Medium Cool" and to exhibit the film in theatres and on television. 1 Subsequently, H & J assigned to Paramount Pictures all of its rights, title, and interest in the movie "Medium Cool," including all of the rights and interests created by the 1969 license from Cohen to H & J. Sometime later, Paramount furnished a negative of the film to a videocassette manufacturer, who made copies of the film--including a recording of the composition--and supplied these copies to Paramount. Paramount, in turn, sold approximately 2,725 videocassettes of the film, receiving a gross revenue of $69,024.26 from the sales.

On February 20, 1985, Cohen filed suit against Paramount in federal district court alleging copyright infringement. Cohen contended that the license granted to H & J did not confer the right to use the composition in a reproduction of the film in videocassettes distributed for home display. The parties stipulated to the facts and both filed motions for summary judgment. The district court entered judgment in favor of Paramount, and Cohen appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1982). 2

DISCUSSION

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Darring v. Kincheloe, 783 F.2d 874, 876 (9th Cir.1986). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Cohen, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986).

The interpretation of a contract presents a mixed question of law and fact. Where, as here, the district court's decision is based on an analysis of the contract language and the application of contract law, our review is de novo. Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364, 367 (9th Cir.1985).

To resolve this case, we must examine the terms of the license, in order to determine whether the license conveyed the right to use the composition in making and distributing videocassette reproductions of "Medium Cool." The document begins by granting the licensee the "authority ... to record, in any manner, medium, form or language, the words and music of the musical composition ... with ['Medium Cool']... to make copies of such recordings and to perform said musical composition everywhere, all in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations hereinafter set forth...." (Emphasis added.) Paragraph 4 states, "The ... license herein granted to perform ... said musical composition is granted for: (a) The exhibition of said motion picture ... to audiences in motion picture theatres and other places of public entertainment where motion pictures are customarily exhibited.... (b) The exhibition of said motion picture ... by means of television ..., including 'pay television', 'subscription television' and 'closed circuit into homes' television...." (Emphasis added.) Finally, paragraph 6 of the license reserves to the grantor "all rights and uses in and to said musical composition, except those herein granted to the Licensee...." Although the language of the license permits the recording and copying of the movie with the musical composition in it, in any manner, medium, or form, nothing in the express language of the license authorizes distribution of the copies to the public by sale or rental.

One of the separate rights of copyright, as enumerated in section 106 of the Copyright Act, is the right "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. Sec. 106(3). Thus, the right to distribute copies of the videocassettes by sale or rental remained with the grantor under the reservation of rights provision in paragraph 6, unless in some way it is encompassed within the right to perform the work.

The limitation on the right to perform the synchronization with the composition in it is found in paragraph 4 and that paragraph limits the right to perform, or to authorize others to perform, to: 4(a) exhibition of the motion picture to audiences in motion picture theatres and other places of public entertainment where motion pictures are customarily shown, and 4(b) exhibition of the motion picture by means of television, and "closed circuit into homes" television.

It is obvious that the distribution of videocassettes through sale and rental to the general public for viewing in their homes does not fit within the purpose of category 4(a) above, which is restricted to showing in theatres and other similar public places. Paramount argues that it fits within 4(b), in that the distribution of videocassettes for showing in private homes is the equivalent of "exhibition by means of television." Paragraph 4(b) grants to Paramount the limited right to authorize broadcasters and cable television companies to broadcast the movie over the airwaves of to transmit it by cable, microwave, or some such means from a cental location. The words of that paragraph must be tortured to expand the limited right granted by that section to an entirely different means of making that film available to the general public----the distribution of individual videocassettes to the general public for private "performances" in their homes. The general tenor of the section contemplates some sort of broadcasting or centralized distribution, not distribution by sale or rental of individual copies to the general public. Furthermore, the exhibition of the videocassette in the home is not "by means of television." Though videocassettes may be exhibited by using a television monitor, it does not follow that, for copyright purposes, playing videocassettes constitutes "exhibition by television." Exhibition of a film on television differs fundamentally from exhibition by means of a videocassette recorder ("VCR"). Television requires an intermediary network, station, or cable to send the television Videocassettes, of course, allow viewing of a markedly different nature. Videocassette entertainment is controlled within the home, at the viewer's complete discretion. A consumer may view exactly what he or she wants (assuming availability in the marketplace) at whatever time he or she chooses. The viewer may even "fast forward" the tape so as to quickly pass over parts of the program he or she does not wish to view. By their very essence, then, videocassettes liberate viewers from the constraints otherwise inherent in television, and eliminate the involvement of an intermediary, such as a network.

signals into consumers' homes. The menu of entertainment appearing on television is controlled entirely by the intermediary and, thus, the consumer's selection is limited to what is available on various channels. Moreover, equipped merely with a conventional television set, a consumer has no means of capturing any part of the television display; when the program is over it vanishes, and the consumer is powerless to replay it. Because they originate outside the home, television signals are aphemeral and beyond the viewer's grasp.

Television and videocassette display thus have very little in common besides the fact that a conventional monitor of a television set may be used both to receive television signals and to exhibit a videocassette. It is in light of this fact that Paramount argues that VCRs are equivalent to "exhibition by means of television." Yet, even that assertion is flawed. Playing a videocassette on a VCR does not require a standard television set capable of receiving television signals by cable or by broadcast; it is only necessary to have a monitor capable of displaying the material on the magnetized tape.

Perhaps the primary reason why the words "exhibition by means of television" in the license cannot be construed as including the distribution of videocassettes for home viewing is that VCRs for home use were not invented or known in 1969, when the license was executed. The parties both acknowledge this fact and it is noted in the order of the district judge. Thus, in 1969--long before the market for videocassettes burgeoned--Cohen could not have assumed that the public would have free and virtually unlimited access to the film in which the composition was played; instead, he must have assumed that viewer access to the film "Medium Cool" would be largely controlled by theatres and networks. By the same token,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • US v. AMERICAN SOC. OF COMPOSERS, AUTHORS & PUB.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 8 Agosto 1991
    ...would not be fairly covered by the wording of the Decree or the presumed understanding of its drafters. Cf. Cohen v. Paramount Pictures, Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853-854 (9th Cir.1988). 13 Insofar as the system operator is providing another form of service — that is, enhanced visual quality for......
  • Realnetworks, Inc. v. Dvd Copy Control Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 11 Agosto 2009
    ...construction, but only to the extent such rules do not interfere with federal copyright law or policy), citing Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir.1988). The court proceeds to apply state law in a manner that does not conflict with federal copyright law and B. Othe......
  • S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 10 Febrero 1989
    ...The critical The license must be construed in accordance with the purposes underlying federal copyright law. Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir.1988); Harris, 734 F.2d at 1334. Chief among these purposes is the protection of the author's rights. Cohen, 845 F.2d at......
  • COHEN v. The UNITED States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 14 Abril 2011
    ...public marketplace." See Pl.'s App. A103, A107, A110 (HRD Press contracts). This case is also similar to Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (Paramount), 845 F.2d 851, 852 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the copyright owner of a musical composition licensed to H & J Pictures, Inc. (H & J Pictures) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • A License Is Not a 'Contract Not To Sue': Disentangling Property and Contract in the Law of Copyright Licenses
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-3, March 2013
    • 1 Marzo 2013
    ...Inc., 67 F.3d 917, 920 (Fed. Cir. 1995); supra notes 1–2 and accompanying text. 11. See, e.g. , Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1988) (consulting federal copyright policy in deciding how to construe a license agreement’s scope with regard to later-arising tech......
  • Don't put my article online!: Extending copyright's new-use doctrine to the electronic publishing media and beyond.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 143 No. 3, January 1995
    • 1 Enero 1995
    ...were recognized by knowledgeable people in the entertainment and motion picture industries") with Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir. 1988) (refusing to enlarge the grant in the parties' contract to include videocassette distribution rights because "VCRs for home ......
  • Developements in the Second Circuit: 1997-98
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 73, 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...Curious George in animations for "television viewing" does not extend to videocassette release); Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1988) (license to use musical score in television production does not extend to use in videocassette release). 155 150 RM 132 (2......
  • Interpreting the Copyright Act's Section 201(c) Revision Privilege with Respect to Electronic Media.
    • United States
    • Federal Communications Law Journal Vol. 52 No. 3, May 2000
    • 1 Mayo 2000
    ...articles." Id. (59.) See, e.g., Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F. 2d 150 (2d Cir. 1968); Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988) (establishing two distinct approaches to construing licensing contracts with respect to new media); see also Ricordi & Co. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT