BancTraining Video Systems v. First American Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-5340,91-5340 |
| Citation | 956 F.2d 268,1992 WL 42345 |
| Parties | 1992 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,880, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 7969, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 2014 NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. BANCTRAINING VIDEO SYSTEMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FIRST AMERICAN CORP., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr., ALAN E. NORRIS and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff-appellant, BancTraining Video Systems, appeals the District Court's granting of JNOV for defendant-appellee, First American Corp., on its copyright infringement claim and the District Court's granting of defendant's motion to dismiss on its claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. The issues before us are whether plaintiff proved authorship of the copyrights either as a joint author or in a work made for hire arrangement, and whether plaintiff sufficiently stated a RICO claim by alleging an intent to infringe copyrights or an intent to obstruct justice. We affirm the District Court's rulings because BancTraining failed to show that it was the author of the copyrights and failed to plead sufficiently a RICO claim.
BancTraining Video Systems is a partnership created by a joint venture agreement between Financial Shares Corp. (FSC) and CMF & Z Advertising Agency for the purpose of making and selling employee training videotapes for banks. A joint venture agreement was signed by the presidents of FSC and CMF & Z, but BancTraining is neither a party nor a signatory to the agreement. 1 That agreement states:
To produce the videotapes, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and Jeanie Jorgensen, a BancTraining employee, selected a topic. Then script-writers from FSC were hired to prepare an outline. The outline was reviewed by Jorgensen and the ABA, and the script-writers prepared the full script. Finally, video producers from CMF & Z were hired to build sets, hire actors and produce the film. Jorgensen supervised and reviewed both the script-writing and the video production, and filed the paperwork to register the copyrights on the tapes. Banctraining filed copyright registrations for each of the tapes. Each of these registrations lists "BancTraining Video Systems" as the copyright claimant and author of the tape, and contains an "X" in the "Yes" box for the question, "Was this contribution to the work a 'work made for hire?' "
Defendant, First American Corp., a bank with branches throughout Tennessee, purchased 36 videotapes from BancTraining between 1983 and 1986, as well as a number of duplicate tapes. Defendant also purchased tapes from a St. Louis firm, Bankers Training, which defendant's employees admitted copying. In 1986, Bankers Training filed suit [hereinafter "the St. Louis suit"] against defendant for copyright infringement. Upon learning of the concerns about copyright infringement, First American stopped copying tapes purchased from other tape companies, had all affiliate banks return duplicates to the training department, and erased and taped over the videotapes other than those of Bankers Training. The St. Louis suit was settled before trial, and First American's attorney discarded documents from that litigation except for some discovery materials and depositions.
Plaintiff contends that defendant's employees also copied plaintiff's tapes for use within the bank and sent copies to affiliate banks. An attorney from the St. Louis suit testified that one First American employee stated in a deposition that First American ordered BancTraining tapes, that tapes from outside sources were copied "if needed or necessary," and that a copy of one of BancTraining's tapes was made. In addition, defendant's resource catalog offered a tape-copying service, and listed one of BancTraining's tapes as being available in one-half-inch and three-fourths-inch formats, although defendant had purchased only one format from plaintiff. Defendant's employees, however, testified that they did not know of anyone's copying plaintiff's tapes. At trial, the jury found that defendant had violated the copyrights as to three of the 36 tapes. The jury awarded plaintiff statutory damages of $10,000 per tape, or $30,000. In granting defendant's motion for JNOV, the District Court held that BancTraining had demonstrated that defendant infringed the copyrights, but that it had failed to show that it owned the copyrights as a joint author or through a work made for hire agreement.
BancTraining's Second Amended Complaint also contains a RICO claim, alleging that defendant initiated a scheme in which defendant would duplicate plaintiff's tapes and send them by mail to affiliate banks. The complaint further claims that defendant contacted plaintiff by phone and mail to induce plaintiff to sell its videotapes to defendant without disclosing an intent to violate the Copyright Act, that the tapes were illegally pirated and shipped through the mail to affiliate banks in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1343, and that defendant's employees destroyed pirated tapes and documents, although there were then pending both an F.B.I. investigation and the St. Louis lawsuit.
The District Court dismissed the RICO claim, holding that the complaint failed to allege the necessary acts of racketeering activity and failed to allege an intent to defraud or to obstruct justice.
We must review de novo the District Court's granting of the JNOV. Pinney Dock & Transp. Co. v. Penn Central Corp., 838 F.2d 1445, 1472 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 880, 109 S.Ct. 196 (1988). In reviewing a motion for JNOV, we must apply the same standard the District Court should have applied: a JNOV is appropriate only when, based on the evidence, reasonable minds could not find as the jury has found. Certer v. Chattanooga, 803 F.2d 217, 225 (6th Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 850 F.2d 1119 (6th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1010, 109 S.Ct. 795 (1989). We are to view the facts proven at trial in the light most favorable to BancTraining, Hill v. Spiegel, Inc., 708 F.2d 233 (6th Cir.1983), and we may not consider the credibility or the weight of the evidence, Patrick v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 641 F.2d 1192, 1197 (6th Cir.1980).
For the reasons that follow, we find that the judgment of the District Court must be affirmed.
Initial ownership of a copyright vests in the author or authors of the work, or, in the case of a work made for hire, in the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared, who is considered to be the author. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) and (b). The certificate of registration requires that the name of the author of the work and the name of the claimant of the copyright be separately designated, even if they are one and the same, and further requires that if the claimant is different from the author, a statement be included explaining how the claimant obtained ownership of the copyright. See Jt. Appendix 1215-1348, Jt. Exhibits 45A through 80A. Thus, a copyright claimant could establish authorship either by showing that it is a joint author or that it is the employer in a work made for hire arrangement. It otherwise could establish ownership of the copyrights by providing the required statement detailing how transfer of the copyrights to it were made.
The filing of a certificate of registration creates a rebuttable presumption of the validity of a copyright and of the facts contained in the certificate regarding ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). 2 Therefore, BancTraining's certificates of registration, which denominate BancTraining as both the author and the copyright claimant, are prima facie evidence of its authorship of the tapes either as a joint author or through a work made for hire agreement, 3 and of its representation that it claimed ownership of the copyrights by virtue of authorship and not by transfer.
Defendant, however, rebutted the presumption of authorship by showing that BancTraining was neither a joint author nor the employer in a work made for hire arrangement. The presumption of joint authorship was rebutted through Jeanie Jorgensen's own testimony 4 that indicated that she was not sufficiently involved in the creative process of making the tapes to be a joint author. Authors of a joint work 5 are co-owners of the copyright in the work, 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). A person who conceives an idea is not an author. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). 6 An author is "the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection." Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 742, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 2171 (1989). Providing sketches, ideas or supervision over copyrightable material is not sufficient to make one a joint author. M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v. Ameron Homes Inc., 903 F.2d 1486, 1493 (11th Cir.1990) (); S.O.S. Inc. v. Payday Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir.1989) (); Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross, 728 F.Supp. 597 (N.D.Cal.1989) (), aff'd, 916 F.2d 516, 521 (9th Cir.1990); Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory Inc., 609 F.Supp. 1307, 1318-19 (D.Pa.1985) (same), aff'd on other grounds, 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1031, 107 S.Ct. 877 (1987). But see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Advocacy Organization for Patients and Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr., 941 F.2d 1220, 1230-31 (D.C.Cir.1991); see also BancTraining Video Sys. v. First Am. Corp., 956 F.2d 268, 1992 WL 42345, at * 5 (6th Cir.1992) (per curiam). In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs did not adequately plead thi......
-
B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Mach., LLC
...Office. While "the burden of proving ownership is at all times on the party claiming infringement," BancTraining Video Sys. v. First Am. Corp. , 956 F.2d 268 (6th Cir. 1992), "Congress has bestowed upon those who have obtained copyright registration ‘made before or within five years after f......
-
Design Basics, L.L.C. v. Deshano Cos.
...A certificate of copyright registration is prima facie evidence of ownership of a valid copyright. BancTraning Video Sys. V. First Am. Corp., 956 F.2d 268, *3 (6th Cir. 1992) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)). See Also MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown Info, Inc., 375 F.3d 190, 192 (2d Cir.2004). Defe......
-
Carroll v. Kahn
...945 F.2d 500, 505 (2d Cir. 1991) (joint authors hold undivided interest in the work); see also Banctraining Video Systems v. First Am. Corp., 956 F.2d 268, 1992 WL 42345 (6th Cir. 1992) (table). There are no assertions in the Complaint that Benjamin Kahn is not a co-owner. According to the ......