Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-55307.,06-55307. |
| Citation | 531 F.3d 962 |
| Parties | Bradley RICHLIN; Lance Richlin; Mark Mannis; Abigail Richlin Schwartz, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Louise Richlin; Elyssa Parton; Michelle Forkel, Nominal Defendants and Involuntary Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER PICTURES, INC.; Geoffrey Productions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
E. Randol Schoenberg, Laura A. Gibbons, Burris & Schoenberg, LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Thomas A. Brackey, Freund & Brackey LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, for the Plaintiffs-appellants, and nominal defendants and involuntary plaintiffs-appellants.
Jonathan Zavin, Jacques M. Rimokh, Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York, NY; David Grossman, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-09162-DDP.
Before: FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and RANER C. COLLINS,* District Judge.
Inspector Jacques Clouseau, famously unable to crack the simplest of murder cases, would most certainly be confounded by the case we face. While Inspector Clouseau searched for the answer to the question, "Who did it?", we must search for the answer to the question, "Who owns it?" In 1962, Maurice Richlin coauthored a story treatment (the "Treatment")1 involving the bumbling inspector. Later that year, before publication,2 Richlin assigned all rights in the Treatment — including copyright and the right to renew that copyright — to a corporation that used it to create the smash-hit film, The Pink Panther (the "Motion Picture"). The Richlin heirs now claim federal statutory renewal rights in the Treatment and derivative works, including the Motion Picture. They assert that Richlin's coauthorship of the Treatment makes him a coauthor of the Motion Picture. Alternatively, they contend that, because the Motion Picture secured statutory protection for the portions of the Treatment incorporated into the Motion Picture, and because the copyright in the Motion Picture was renewed for a second term, they are co-owners of the Motion Picture's renewal copyright and all derivative works thereof. Although the Richlin heirs have developed several theories that could supply the answer to the question, "Who owns it?", unlike Inspector Clouseau, they have not quite stumbled upon a theory that favors them. We therefore affirm the district court's conclusion that the Richlin heirs have no interest in the copyright to the Motion Picture.
The material facts are largely undisputed. In April 1962, Maurice Richlin and Blake Edwards coauthored a fourteen-page Treatment initially entitled The Pink Rajah, but later renamed The Pink Panther. The Treatment served as the basis for the well-known motion picture, The Pink Panther, and numerous derivative works. It appears that the Treatment set forth many of the plot elements and characters, including Inspector Clouseau himself developed into the screenplay and incorporated into the Motion Picture.
Richlin and Edwards entered into an employment agreement dated May 14, 1962 (the "Employment Agreement") with the Mirisch Corporation of Delaware ("Mirisch") to write the screenplay for the Motion Picture.3 They agreed to create the screenplay as a "work made for hire." Under this contract, Richlin and Edwards combined received $150,000 for their work on the Treatment and the screenplay.4
Later that month, on May 24, 1962, Richlin and Edwards executed a literary assignment agreement (the "Assignment") whereby they transferred and assigned "forever ... that certain story (which term shall cover all literary material written by [Richlin and Edwards] in connection therewith including any adaptations, treatments, scenarios, dialogue, scripts and/or screenplays) entitled: `Pink Rajah' also entitled or known as `Pink Panther'" in exchange for $1 "and other good and valuable consideration in hand" paid by Mirisch. Mirisch also received "the right to use [Richlin's and Edwards's] name[s] as the author of the literary composition upon which said adaptations, or any of them, are based." The Assignment further provided that if Mirisch copyrighted the Treatment, Mirisch "shall enjoy its rights hereunder for the full duration of such copyright or copyrights, including any and all renewals thereof."5
In 1963, The Pink Panther was released and distributed in theaters to great acclaim. It was followed by nine movie sequels,6 many of which gave screen credit to Richlin and Edwards for creating the characters. The original Motion Picture bears a copyright notice of 1963 in the name of Mirisch and G & E Productions. In 1964, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a certificate of registration for the "motion picture" entitled "The Pink Panther" under the Copyright Act of 1909 ("1909 Act").
The Certificate of Registration identifies the claimant and author as "Mirisch-G & E Productions." The certificate lists the date of publication as March 18, 1964, but notes that the copyright notice on the Motion Picture bears a date of 1963. The Richlin heirs concede that neither the Treatment nor the screenplay was ever separately published or registered for federal copyright protection.
Richlin died on November 13, 1990. The original term of copyright in the Motion Picture — twenty-eight years from the first date of publication — was set to expire in 1991,7 but it was renewed that year by the successors-in-interest to Mirisch-G & E Productions, MGM-Pathe Communications Co./ Geoffrey Productions Inc. (collectively, "MGM"). A Renewal Certificate issued, which identified MGM as the claimant and "proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire" and the author and original claimant as Mirisch-G & E Productions. None of the Richlin heirs attempted to secure a renewal interest in the Treatment or screenplay, and there is no separate renewal certificate for either.
The Richlin heirs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking declaratory relief and an accounting. They claim a 50 percent renewal interest in the Treatment and all derivative works. During the course of this litigation, the theories undergirding this claim have evolved. The complaint relies on the theory that publication of the derivative work (the Motion Picture) effectuated publication of the underlying work (the Treatment). Under this theory, when MGM renewed the Motion Picture's statutory copyright in 1991, this renewed the copyright in the Treatment on behalf of the Richlin heirs, which gave the Richlin heirs an interest in the Motion Picture's renewal copyright. These principles carry some theoretical weight in copyright law; however, the Richlin heirs failed to renew their statutory copyright, if any, in the Treatment in 1991. That may explain why, by the time the district court granted summary judgment in favor of MGM, the Richlin heirs had abandoned their argument based on a statutory copyright in the Treatment. Instead, they argued that they have a copyright interest in the Motion Picture as coauthors based on Richlin's coauthorship of the Treatment, which was incorporated into the Motion Picture. The district court analyzed the requirements of a "joint work" prepared by coauthors, who under copyright law would each be deemed an owner of the copyright. The court rejected this theory because, under the factors set forth in Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir.2000), Richlin had no control over the Motion Picture, and there was no manifestation of intent — by contract or otherwise — that Richlin and Edwards would be coauthors of the Motion Picture. See id. at 1234 (). Because the coauthorship theory failed, the district court awarded summary judgment in favor of MGM, declining to reach any other issues. The Richlin heirs timely appeal.
The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338, which confers subject matter jurisdiction over copyright actions. We have jurisdiction over final judgments of the district courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996). In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, we "must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law." Id.
On appeal, the Richlin heirs maintain their contention that because Richlin and Edwards jointly authored the Treatment, and the Treatment became a critical component of the Motion Picture, Richlin was a co-author of the Motion Picture, and was therefore a co-owner on whose heirs' behalf MGM secured a renewal interest in the Motion Picture's copyright in 1991. Alternatively, the Richlin heirs resort to the theory underlying their complaint. They contend that publication of the Treatment with the Motion Picture secured a statutory copyright for the Treatment, which was renewed on their behalf by MGM when it renewed the Motion Picture's copyright. We address each argument in turn.
To determine whether Richlin had an interest in the Motion Picture's federal statutory copyright, we must consider the question of coauthorship. The Richlin heirs argue that because Richlin coauthored the Treatment, which was a substantial component of the Motion Picture, he is also a coauthor of the Motion Picture. This coauthorship, according to the Richlin heirs, gives them an interest in the Motion Picture's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yellowcake, Inc. v. Morena Music, Inc.
...(9th Cir. 1990). "The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in that work." 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) ; Richlin v. MGM Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir. 2008) ; Ashton-Tate, 916 F.2d at 521. Each author must make an "independently copyrightable contribution," which is a c......
-
Yellowcake, Inc. v. Hyphy Music, Inc.
...Ashton-Tate, 916 F.2d at 521 (quoting P. Goldstein, Copyright: Principles, Law and Practice, § 4.2.1 p.379 (1989)); see also Richlin, 531 F.3d at 968. That “to be an author, one must supply more than mere direction or ideas; one must ‘translate an idea into a fixed tangible expression entit......
-
Garcia v. Google, Inc.
...definition of “work” was essential, just as in our case, to the analysis. 202 F.3d at 1233–34 ; see also Richlin v. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir.2008) (relying on Aalmuhammed in reasoning that to determine authorship, the court must first determine the “wor......
-
16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin
...id. § 102(a)(3), are works that may be expected to contain contributions from multiple individuals. See Richlin v. Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Pictures, Inc., 531 F.3d 962, 975 (9th Cir.2008) (“A motion picture is a work to which many contribute; however, those contributions ultimately merge to cre......
-
THE RISE OF THE PRODUCER-NOVELIST: SHIFTING PERCEPTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP IN TRANSMEDIA PUBLISHING.
...infringement since he failed to provide a scintilla of evidence supporting access); cf. Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.,531 F.3d 962, 969-70 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that although the plaintiff coauthored a fourteen-page treatment for The Pink Panther in 1962, the plaintiff......