Prather v. Neva Paperbacks, Inc., 26458.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1969
• Docket Number: No. 26458.,26458.
• Citation: 410 F.2d 698
• Parties: Richard S. PRATHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEVA PAPERBACKS, INC., Playtime Books, Ltd., United Graphics, Inc., and Stanley R. Schrag, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

410 F.2d 698 (1969)

Richard S. PRATHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEVA PAPERBACKS, INC., Playtime Books, Ltd., United Graphics, Inc., and Stanley R. Schrag, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 26458.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 29, 1969.

Lee Weissenborn, Weinstein, Weissenborn & Burr, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Richard L. Horn, Allan Milledge, Milledge & Horn, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge:

This is a copyright infringement case prosecuted by the Plaintiff Author — Prather — against infringing Publishers — Neva Paperbacks, Inc., Playtime Books, Ltd., United Graphics, Inc., and Stanley R. Schrag. The infringing Publishers do not, indeed could not, appeal from the finding of infringement by the District Judge, as the plagiarism was flagrant. Instead, the Infringers claim that they were not sued by the right party. It is the Infringers' position that Fawcett Publications, Inc., the Plaintiff-Author's publisher and original copyright holder, must necessarily be joined as a plaintiff. We agree with the District Court that Prather has standing to sue without joinder and affirm.

Prather authored the following books: Find This Woman, Strip for Murder, The Wailing Frail, Over Her Dead Body, Kill The Clown, Dig That Crazy Grave, Peddler, The Scrambled Yeggs, and Take A Murder Darling. Prather obtained a copyright on the Peddler and pursuant to a publishing agreement, Fawcett secured the copyright on the remaining books. How a Wailing Frail digging a Crazy Grave, or Killing the Clown could be transmuted into the allurement of Hotel Hustler, Sex Fantasy, Sex Cult, or for that matter, Sex Trap is not clear, but we are spared the travail of inquiry since the Infringers candidly confess their poaching in sex or sex-less part.

Subsequent to discovering the infringement, Prather secured from Fawcett, the copyright owner, a contract described as an assignment.¹ The District Court found that by virtue of this Agreement Prather became the copyright "proprietor" and thus he, and only he, had the right to prosecute the suit for infringement.

The Infringers raised the beguiling argument, based on the recognized copyright principle that a copyright may not be assigned in part, that by Part 3 of the contract Fawcett retained some portion of the copyright — the English language rights — and therefore the entire copyright assignment was ineffective leaving Prather, the attempted assignee, as a mere copyright licensee — a position without the status of a copyright proprietor and therefore one not entitled to sue for infringement.² We say beguiling, because for the most part, the argument is centered in the single word "simultaneously" which leads to all sorts of metaphysical dialectics.³

But we are neither beguiled nor persuaded. More than that, without getting into "the thicket" — much more, not getting lost in it — we find a simple, simple basis which avoids altogether the button game of "copyright, copyright who has the copyright?" a notion which mesmerized all until some penetrating questions on oral argument narrowed the case down to one of simple assignment of a chose in action.

Parts 1 and 2 of the agreement, as contemplated by the parties, is a complete and valid assignment of the accrued chose in action for infringement of the named book. Quite without regard to the impact of Part 3, the contract in Part 2 expressly assigns all accrued causes of action for infringement.

Almost completely overlooked by all counsel is the effectiveness of an assignment of accrued causes of action for copyright infringement. All that is required is that the contract cover in no uncertain terms choses in action for past, prior, accrued damages. The leading decision on this point is Kriger v. MacFadden Publications, Inc., S.D.N.Y., 1941, 43 F.Supp. 170. In Kriger the publisher held title to the copyright when infringement took place. The publisher then assigned the copyright but not the accrued cause of action for infringement, to the author who brought suit. The Court said: "The publisher had a chose in action upon which he alone could sue * * *. There is nothing in this instrument which gives to the plaintiff or any of his co-authors the right to sue for past infringements. The words `right, title and interest' in an assignment have been construed by the courts not to carry with it the right to sue for past trespass or infringement." 43 F.Supp. at 171-172.

Another case, in this Circuit, sounding the same note is DeSilva Construction Corp. v. Herrald, M.D.Fla., 1962, 213 F.Supp. 184, 192, quoting Ball, Copyright and Literary Property 543: "A mere assignment of a copyright does not of itself transfer to the assignee any cause of action for infringements that occurred prior to the assignment. Unless the assignment of copyright contains language explicitly transferring causes of action for prior infringements, the assignee cannot maintain a suit for infringements which happened before the effective date of the assignment."

Here, the parties to the agreement were clearly careful to be clear and are clearly correct. By express language the assignments cover the accrued causes of action for prior infringement. As an assignee of the causes of action for infringement damages, past, present and future, Prather has the right to maintain the action under 17 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. for infringement. There is no...