Martha Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham Ctr. of Contemporary Dance, Inc. - 380 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 2004)

Rule:

A work is made at the hiring party's "instance and expense" when the employer induces the creation of the work and has the right to direct and supervise the manner in which the work is carried out. The right to direct and supervise the manner in which work is created need never be exercised. 

Facts:

Plaintiffs Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, Inc. et al., a choreographer's sole beneficiary and a foundation, sued defendants Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance Inc., a dance school and a dance center. The action involved a dispute on ownership of the copyrights to 70 dances created by the plaintiff. The district court ruled that most of the copyrights belonged to defendants and that only one copyright belonged to the plaintiffs.  Specifically, the district court ruled that plaintiff was entitled to a declaration of ownership of only the renewal term of copyright in a single dance; defendants were entitled to a declaration of ownership of copyright in 45 dances. Of these, 18 belonged to the center by assignment, and the other 27 belonged to the center because they were works for hire. Sixteen were works for hire under the 1909 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq. (repealed effective 1978), and 11 were works for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C.S. § 101 et seq. Plaintiffs then appealed.

Issue:

Was the trial court correct in its assessment?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that while the district court's work-for-hire assessments were correct, the district court erred with respect to 10 dances created from 1956 through 1965. Although the plaintiff was employed by the defendant during that time, no evidence indicated the scope of her employment included choreography. Three of these dances were published, and only one had the required statutory notice. Thus, the appellate court vacated and remanded to the district court for determination of ownership with respect to seven dances created between 1956 and 1965 and two dances that were incorrectly deemed unpublished and for recalculation of the amount subject to the constructive trust. However, the court ruled determination of ownership with respect to one dance was reversed because its renewal term belonged to the plaintiff. The court held that the district court had a proper evidentiary basis for finding that the plaintiff had validly assigned her pre-1956 dances to the center and a solid evidentiary basis for finding against plaintiffs on their remaining claims. The remaining rulings were affirmed.