The Second Circuit said it was difficult to fully assess the collaboration in detail. In Miller’s case, Manny argued Miller co-wrote the screenplay with Manny owner and film director and producer Sean S. Sammataro of Pryor Cashman LLP said.īut while some may see “a harbinger of bad things for Disney in the Avengers/Marvel case,” he said, the analyses will still turn on very different facts, such as Marvel’s much different collaborative model. “If I litigate a case, if I had the Second Circuit affirm my viewpoint, and if I think facts in my case are comparable, I don’t know how I wouldn’t be buoyed,” copyright attorney James G. Even the law may vary, as work created before 1978 falls under a different standard in the Copyright Act of 1909. But they cautioned that the employment analysis, like other parts of copyright law, consisted of a highly fact-specific multifactor test. That employment question could come into play as creators of various Marvel characters try to terminate assignments of rights held by Marvel-and now Disney-in several lawsuits.Īttorneys say the ruling may well embolden the plaintiffs, some represented by Miller’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, to push forward. That is maybe a bigger takeaway than what is agency, and what is an employer-employee relationship.” ‘Sliding Scale’ “They’re called rebuttable presumptions because they can be overturned. “It’s nice to have the Second Circuit say that copyright isn’t affected by other definitions, we have our own,” copyright law professor Philippa Loengard of Columbia Law School said. didn’t fit the definition of employee under copyright law, even though he was a member of a film writers union. He also showed his relationship with producer Manny Co. Miller rebutted the presumption, showing he had enough creative control to make that factor a close call, allowing other factors to swing the decision to him. The “Friday the 13th” screenplay was registered with the Copyright Office as a work for hire, creating a rebuttable presumption that it was one. The case shows that parties seemingly painted in a corner by contract language can fight back when that language doesn’t match the creative process and copyright law definitions of key terms. It’s a small window, and most people don’t know about it.”
Gold of Cole Schotz PC said.Ĭreators often aren’t planning decades ahead when signing rights away, while publishers “know the law stone cold,” Gold said. “I think it’s going to bring further attention to the termination right, which is a valuable right to artists,” copyright attorney David S.
The ruling also illustrates that crafting contract language is critical, but sometimes it can be overcome if the contract doesn’t apply copyright law correctly. It may boost awareness of a right many creators don’t know exists. The decision adds to just a trickle of case law on termination rights disputes, which attorneys say usually settle before setting precedent. The law provides a second chance when work creators licensed or sold becomes more valuable than anticipated. Termination rights let creators reclaim rights 35 to 40 years after assigning them under the Copyright Act of 1976. Instead, he originally owned a copyright and had a right to terminate his licensing of the script.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit he wasn’t an employee writing the script for the 1980 horror movie as a work for hire under copyright law. Victor Miller convinced both a federal district court and the U.S.
Lessons from the “Friday the 13th” writer’s reclamation of rights could benefit creators getting ready to transfer rights to potentially lucrative artistic work-in 2056.