Maljack Prods. v. UAV Corp. - 964 F. Supp. 1416 (C.D. Cal. 1997)

Rule:

17 U.S.C.S. § 7 of the 1909 Copyright Act states that the publication of derivative works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed or any part thereof, or be construed to imply an exclusive right to such use of the original works, or to secure or extend copyright in such original works. Publication of the derivative work does not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed; publication of the derivative work does not mean that use of the original work in other works is precluded; and publication does not mean that a copyright in the original work shall be secured, for example, if the work was in the public domain, or extended, as where the original work was copyrighted before the date that the derivative work is copyrighted.

Facts:

Two versions of an original screenplay for a motion picture were written in 1962. In 1963 plaintiffs produced the motion picture and registered the movie for copyright, but did not separately register the screenplays. The copyright was eligible for renewal in 1991, but plaintiffs failed to renew. In 1993, plaintiffs created a "panned and scanned" version of the motion picture for videocassette, which was copyrighted as a "derivative work." Plaintiff copyright holders sued defendant corporations for infringement of plaintiffs' rights in a home video version of a motion picture. Plaintiffs also sued defendant Register of Copyrights because of the its refusal to register the screenplays, on which the motion picture was based, for copyright. All parties moved for summary judgment.

Issue:

Did the screenplays acquire statutory copyright along with the motion picture in 1963?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted summary judgment on the propriety of the Register's refusal to register the two screenplays. To the extent that the screenplays were contained in the motion picture, they acquired statutory copyright when the motion picture was published with proper copyright notice in 1963. And, the screenplays entered the public domain at the end of 1991 when plaintiffs failed to renew the copyright on the motion picture. However, plaintiffs' "pan and scan" changes to the motion picture, and changes to the soundtrack were properly copyrighted by plaintiffs in 1993 as a derivative work and defendant corporations' duplication of that 1993 movie was an infringement on the copyright.