16 casa duse v. merkin copyright film authorship decision.pdf

*TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptioninthiscasetoconformwiththecaptionabove.

13386516 Casa Duse, LLC v. Alex Merkin & Maurice A. Reichman

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1

FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2AugustTerm,20143

(Argued:September3,2014 Decided:June29,2015)4DocketNo.1338655

616CasaDuse,LLC,7

PlaintiffCounterDefendantAppellee,8v.9

AlexMerkin,10DefendantCounterClaimantAppellant,11

MauriceA.Reichman,Esq.,12Appellant,13

A.MerkinEntertainment,LLC,14Defendant.*15

16Before: KATZMANN,Chief Judge,SACKandLYNCH,Circuit Judges.17

ThedefendantappealsfromaSeptember27,2013,judgmentoftheUnited18

StatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(RichardJ.Sullivan,19

Judge)grantingsummaryjudgmenttotheplaintiffonitscopyrightandstatelaw20

claimsrelatedtoafilmentitledHeads Up,dismissingthedefendants21

counterclaims,andawardingtheplaintiffcostsandattorneysfees.Becausewe22

agreethattheplaintiffownstherelevantcopyrightinterests,weconcludethat23

thedistrictcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheplaintiffonits24

No.13386516 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

2

copyrightclaimsandproperlyenjoinedthedefendantfrominterferingwiththe1

plaintiffsuseoftheworkinquestion.Weconclude,though,thatthedefendant,2

nottheplaintiff,wasentitledtosummaryjudgmentontheplaintiffsclaimfor3

tortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsunderNewYorklaw.Thejudgment4

ofthedistrictcourtistherefore:5

AFFIRMEDinpart,REVERSEDinpart,andREMANDED.6

ELEANORM.LACKMAN(JoshuaS.7Wolkoff,on the brief),Cowan,DeBaets,8Abrahams&SheppardLLP,NewYork,NY 9for PlaintiffCounterDefendantAppellee. 10 11MAURICEA.REICHMAN,NewYork,NY, 12for DefendantCounterClaimantAppellant & 13Appellant. 14

SACK,Circuit Judge:15ThisisanappealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor16

theSouthernDistrictofNewYork(RichardJ.Sullivan,Judge) grantingsummary17

judgmenttotheplaintiffonitscopyrightandstatelawclaims,dismissingthe18

defendantscopyrightcounterclaims,andawardingtheplaintiffcostsand19

attorneysfees.Becauseweagreewiththedistrictcourtthattheplaintiffowns20

thecopyrighttoallversionsoftheworkinquestion,afilmentitledHeads Up,21

andthatcopyrightdoesnotsubsistinindividualcontributionstothatfilm,we22


3

concludethatthedistrictcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttothe1

plaintiffonitscopyrightclaimsanddidnotabuseitsdiscretioninenjoiningthe2

defendantfrominterferingwiththeplaintiffsuseofthefilm.Wealsoconclude,3

however,thatthedefendant,nottheplaintiff,wasentitledtosummaryjudgment4

ontheplaintiffsclaimfortortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsunder5

NewYorklaw.Wethereforeaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremandthecase6

tothedistrictcourtwithinstructionsforittograntthedefendantsmotionfor7

summaryjudgmentonthetortiousinterferenceclaimandforsuchfurther8

proceedingsasarewarranted.9

BACKGROUND10

Appellee16CasaDuse,LLC,(CasaDuse)isafilmproductioncompany11

basedinBrooklyn,NewYork.ThecompanyisownedandoperatedbyRobert12

Krakovski.AppellantAlexMerkinisafilmdirector,producer,andeditor.13

AppellantMauriceReichmanisanattorneywhorepresentedMerkininsomeof14

hisdealingswithCasaDuse.15

InSeptember2010,Krakovski,actingatallrelevanttimesastheprincipal16

ofCasaDuse,purchasedtherightstoascreenplayentitledHeads Upfromthe17

worksauthor,BenCarlin.Krakovski,whoplannedtofinanceandproducea18


4

shortfilmbasedonthescreenplay,askedMerkinwhetherhewouldbewillingto1

directthefilm.Merkinagreed,andthetwosettledinformallyonafeeof$1,5002

forMerkinsservices.3

Intheensuingmonths,Krakovskiassembledacastandcrewforthefilm,4

alsoentitledHeads Up.Hehiredadditionalproducers,ascriptsupervisor,a5

photographydirector,cameraoperators,variousdesignersandtechnicians,and6

actors,creatinganensembleofaboutthirtymembers.AlthoughMerkin7

recommendedthatKrakovskiemploysomepersonsascrewmembers,8

Krakovskimadetheultimatehiringdecisions.Inthemeantime,Krakovski,9

Merkin,andothersinvolvedwiththeprojectplannedvariousaspectsofthe10

production,includingprops,locations,andscheduling.11

EachcastandcrewmemberotherthanMerkinenteredintoan12

IndependentContractor[]AgreementwithCasaDuse.Theagreements13

containedstatementsthatCasaDusewouldengagetheservices[ofthecastor14

crewmember]asworkforhireofanindependentcontractor,J.A.485,andset15

outtermsforcompensation,performancestandards,andothermatters.The16

workforhireagreementsalsostatedthatCasaDusewouldretaincomplete17

controlofthefilmsproductionandownalloftheresultsandproceedsof[the18


5

castandcrews]servicesinconnectionwiththe[film]...including,butnot1

limitedto,allrightsthroughouttheworldof...copyright....J.A.487.2

InFebruary2011,KrakovskisentMerkinadraftworkforhireagreement3

entitledDirectorEmploymentAgreement.Itstermsweresimilartothosein4

theagreementssignedbyothercastandcrew.Itprovided,inter alia,thatCasa5

Dusewouldownallrightsinthefilm.Merkinacknowledgedhisreceiptofthe6

draftbyemail,notingthathewouldaskhislawyertoreviewit.7

Sometwoandahalfmonthslater,onMay9,2011,KrakovskisentMerkin8

anemailremindinghimtoexecutetheagreement.Merkindidnotrespond.9

KrakovskicontactedMerkinagainonMay16,aweekbeforeproduction10

wasscheduledtostart,remindinghimagainoftheimportanceofcompletingthe11

agreementbeforeworkonthefilmbegan.Merkinagainfailedtoreply.OnMay12

18,Krakovskiemailedagainaskingforacompletedagreement,tonoavail.13

Despitethelackofacompletedagreement,productionbeganlaterthat14

month.Duringproduction,whichincludedthreedaysoffilming,Merkin15

performedhisroleasdirectorbyadvisingandinstructingthefilmscastand16

crewonmattersrangingfromcameraanglesandlightingtowardrobeand17


6

makeuptotheactorsdialogueandmovement.Merkincompletedhisdirection1

ofthefilmbytheendofMay.2

InJune2011,KrakovskigaveMerkinaharddrivecontainingtherawfilm3

footageinthehopethatMerkinwouldbeabletoeditthefootage.Intheabsence4

ofaworkforhireagreement,thepartiesenteredintoaMediaAgreement5

underwhichMerkinwouldeditbutnotlicense,sell,orcopythefootageforany6

purposewithoutthepermissionofCasaDuse.7

OnJune16,KrakovskisentanemailtoMerkinproposingchangestothe8

MediaAgreementinordertoclarify,first,thatCasaDuseandnotMerkin9

ownedthefootageandharddrive,and,second,thatCasaDusesentryintothe10

MediaAgreementhadnotrelinquishedanydirectorial/editorialterms[or]11

rightsthatwouldbefinallyallocatedbyaworkforhireagreement.J.A.580.12

Merkinreplied,sayingthattheproposedchangesseemedacceptablebutalso13

clarify[ing],forhispart,thathewasnotgivingupanycreativeorartistic14

rightshehadintheprojectandallof[his]creativework...isstill[his]work15

andnotthepropertyof16CasaDuse,LLC.J.A.581.Krakovskiresponded,16

assertingthathehadneverintendedthefilmtobeaJointVentureandinstead17


7

hadintendedtoobtainMerkinsservicespursuanttoaworkforhireagreement.1

J.A.521.2

FromJulytoOctober2011,KrakovskiandMerkincontinuedtonegotiate3

thetermsoftheMediaAgreementandaworkforhireagreement.Theparties4

communicateddirectlyviaemailandthroughtheirattorneys.Fromtimeto5

time,theyappearedtoreachagreementonsomekeyterms,includingCasa6

Dusesownershipofthefilm,Merkinsauthoritytomakeadirectorscut,and7

Merkinsabilitytoremovehisnamefromthefinalproductifhesodesired,but8

negotiationsultimatelycollapsed.Krakovskidemandedthereturnofthehard9

drivecontainingtherawfilmfootage.MerkinrefusedandwarnedKrakovski10

that,withoutanagreementinplace,CasaDusecouldnot,inhisview,releasethe11

film.12

InNovember2011,MerkinsentKrakovskialetterputting[Krakovski]on13

noticethat[Merkin]forb[ade]anyusewhatsoeveroftherawfootage.J.A.400.14

TheletterconcededthatKrakovskiownedthescreenplaybutinsistedthat15

Merkinownedtherawfootage.Id. InDecember2011,Krakovskiresponded16

throughcounsel,who,byemail,proposedthatCasaDusepayMerkinthe17

agreedupon$1,500forhisdirectorialservices,allowhimtocompletehisdesired18


8

directorscut,andensurehisopportunitytoremovehisnamefromthefinished1

productifhewished.Inexchange,Merkinwouldagreetodeemhisdirectorial2

servicesaworkforhireforCasaDuse.TheemailalsoadvisedthatCasaDuse3

had,bythen,retainedadifferenteditor.Merkinrespondedandreiteratedhis4

positionthatCasaDusewasnotpermittedtouse[his]workinanyeditwithout5

[his]involvement.J.A.403.Merkinthreatenedtocontactfilmfestivalsto6

informthemthatCasaDuselackedrightstothefilmintheeventKrakovskidid7

notassent.KrakovskisattorneyrespondedbysendinganemailtoMerkins8

attorney,disputingMerkinspositionandwarningthatanyinterferencewith9

screeningofthefilmwouldpotentiallysubjectMerkintoliability.10

InJanuary2012,asthedisputecontinuedtosimmer,Merkinregistereda11

copyrightinthefilmwiththeUnitedStatesCopyrightOffice.Thetitleofthe12

registrationwasRawfootageforfilmHeadsUpDisks14,reflectingthefact13

thatMerkinhadcopiedthefootagefromtheharddriveontofourDVDs.J.A.71.14

TheregistrationlistedthetypeofworkasMotionPictureandassertedthat15

Merkinwasitssoleauthor.MerkindidnotobtainCasaDusespermissionto16

registerthecopyright,andKrakovskiwasunawareoftheregistration.17


9

InMarch2012,KrakovskibegansubmittingHeads Uptofilmfestivalsand1

makingplanstopublicizethefilm.Tothatend,hescheduledaninvitationonly2

screeningforapproximatelyseventypersonsattheNewYorkFilmAcademy3

(NYFA)onApril18,2012.Krakovskialsoorganizedareceptiontofollowata4

nearbyrestaurant,CityCrab,forwhichhepaidanonrefundabledepositof5

$1,956.58.6

Onthedateoftheevent,theNYFAchairpersoncontactedKrakovskitotell7

himthatMerkinsattorney(Reichman)hadthreatenedtheNYFAwithacease8

anddesistordertopreventthescreeningfromproceeding.Accordingto9

Reichman,itwasMerkinnotReichmanwhocontactedtheNYFAand10

mentionedaceaseanddesistnotice,notanorder,atwhichpointtheNYFA11

contactedReichman.Inanyevent,theNYFAcancelledthescreeninginresponse12

tothesethreats,andCasaDuselostitsrestaurantdeposit.CasaDuse13

subsequentlymissedatleastfourfilmfestivalsubmissiondeadlinesasaresultof14

thedispute.Merkindidnotreturntheharddrive,theDVDs,ortherawfootage15

inanyform.16

CasaDusebroughtsuitagainstMerkinandhislimitedliabilitycompany,17

A.MerkinEntertainment,LLC,(AME)inMay2012seeking,inter alia,a18


10

temporaryrestrainingorderandinjunctionenjoiningMerkinfrominterfering1

withitsuseofthefilm.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthetemporaryrestraining2

orderandissuedanordertoshowcausewhyapreliminaryinjunctionshould3

notissue.Afterbriefing,onMay18,2012,thecourtissuedthepreliminary4

injunctionthatCasaDusesought.5

Sometwomonthslater,inJuly2012,CasaDusefiledanamended6

complaintrequestingajudgmentdeclaringthat(1)CasaDusewasnotliableto7

MerkinorAMEforcopyrightinfringement;(2)NeitherMerkinnorAMEowned8

acopyrightinterestinthefilm;and(3)Merkinscopyrightregistrationwas9

invalid.CasaDusealsoassertedclaimsforbreachofcontract,tortious10

interferencewithbusinessrelations,andconversion.Itsoughtreliefintheform11

ofcompensatorydamages;anorderrequiringMerkintowithdrawhiscopyright12

registration,returnallformsofthefootage,andrefrainfrominterferingwith13

CasaDusesuseofthefilm;andcostsandattorneysfeesasasanctionunder2814

U.S.C.1927andpursuanttotheCopyrightActsfeesprovision,17U.S.C.505.15

ThedefendantsfiledanAmendedAnswerandcounterclaimsinAugust16

2012,requestingajudgmentdeclaringthat(1)AMotionPictureDirectorIsAn17

Author,(2)17U.S.C.HasNoProvisionOf,OrFor,AMergedWork,(3)18


11

ThereCanBeNoWorkForHireOrAssignmentWithoutAnExpressWriting,1

(4)Merkinscopyrightregistrationwasvalid,(5)attorneysfeespursuantto172

U.S.C.505wereunavailableintheabsenceofacopyrightinfringementclaim,3

and(6)itwasimproperforCasaDusescomplainttoincludearequestfor4

sanctionspursuantto28U.S.C.1927.J.A.31823.Merkinalsoassertedaclaim5

forbreachofcontractbasedonCasaDusesfailuretopayhimforhisservices.6

CasaDusemovedforsummaryjudgmentonitsclaimsanditsrequestsfor7

feesandsanctions.Merkincrossmovedforsummaryjudgmentonallofhis8

claimsandmostofCasaDusesclaims,includingitsclaimfortortious9

interferencewithbusinessrelations.Merkinalsorequestedthatthecourtvacate10

thepreliminaryinjunctionandstrikethefeesandsanctionsrequest.AME11

movedtodismissthecomplaintastoAMEinitsentirety.12

Thedistrictcourtdeclinedtovacatetheinjunction.Itgrantedsummary13

judgmenttoCasaDuseonallclaims,alongwithfeesagainstMerkinand14

sanctionsagainstReichman.16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin,No.12CIV.3492RJS,15

2013WL5510770,at*2021,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*6364(S.D.N.Y.16

Sept.27,2013).ThecourtgrantedAMEsmotiontodismiss.Id.,2013WL17


12

5510770,at*20,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*64.1Thecourtalsodismissedall1

ofMerkinscounterclaimsexceptforhisclaimforbreachofcontract.Id. The2

courtsubsequentlygrantedMerkinsmotion,agreedtobyCasaDuse,to3

voluntarilydismisshisbreachofcontractclaimwithoutprejudice.After4

acceptingadditionalsubmissionsfromthepartiesastotheproperamountof5

costsandfees,thecourtentereditsfinaljudgmentonDecember19,2013,6

awardingCasaDuse(1)$1,956.58indamagesresultingfromMerkins7

interferencewiththescreeningevent;and(2)$185,579.65inattorneysfeesand8

costs,ofwhichMerkinandReichmanwouldbejointlyandseverallyliablefor9

$175,634andReichmanwouldbesolelyliablefortheremaining$9,945.65.10

MerkinandReichmanappealed.11

1CasaDusedoesnotchallengethisdismissal.


13

DISCUSSION1 Thiscaserequiresustoansweraquestionoffirstimpressioninthis2

Circuit:Mayacontributortoacreativeworkwhosecontributionsare3

inseparablefrom,andintegratedinto,theworkmaintainacopyrightinterestin4

hisorhercontributionsalone?Weconcludethat,atleastonthefactsofthe5

presentcase,heorshemaynot.6

I. StandardofReview7Wereviewadistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo.Blanch 8

v. Koons,467F.3d244,249(2dCir.2006).Summaryjudgmentisappropriate9

whenthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactand...themovingparty10

isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Id.at250(alterationinoriginal)11

(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.56).12

WereviewtheDistrictCourtsentryofapermanentinjunctionforabuse13

ofdiscretion,whichmaybefoundwheretheCourt,inissuingtheinjunction,14

reliedonclearlyerroneousfindingsoffactoranerroroflaw.Knox v. Salinas,15

193F.3d123,12829(2dCir.1999)(percuriam).16

Wereviewadistrictcourtsawardofcostsandattorneysfeesunder1717

U.S.C.505anditsimpositionofsanctionsunder28U.S.C.1927forabuseof18


14

discretion.See Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc.,290F.3d98,1171

(2dCir.2002)(17U.S.C.505);In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3d109,1152

(2dCir.2000)(28U.S.C.1927).3

II. Jurisdiction4Wemustdetermine,asathresholdmatter,whetherwehavetheauthority5

tohearthemeritsofthiscaseonappeal.Wegenerallylackjurisdiction,under286

U.S.C.1291,2overappealsfromnonfinalordersofthedistrictcourts.This7

finaljudgmentrulepromotesjudicialeconomybyforbiddingpiecemeal8

dispositiononappealofwhatforpracticalpurposesisasinglecontroversy.9

Cobbledick v. United States,309U.S.323,325(1940).Accordingly,immediate10

appealisunavailabletoaplaintiffwhoseeksreviewofanadversedecisionon11

someofitsclaimsbyvoluntarilydismissingtheotherswithout prejudice.Rabbi 12

Jacob Joseph Sch. v. Province of Mendoza,425F.3d207,210(2dCir.2005)(emphasis13

inoriginal).Weretheruleotherwise,suchaplaintiffwouldeffectivelyhave14

securedanotherwiseunavailableinterlocutoryappeal.Id.(quotingChappelle v. 15

Beacon Commcns Corp.,84F.3d652,654(2dCir.1996)).16

2Section1291providesinpertinentpart:Thecourtsofappeals...shallhave

jurisdictionofappealsfromallfinaldecisionsofthedistrictcourtsoftheUnitedStates....


15

Inthecasebeforeus,thedistrictcourtenteredjudgmentafterdismissing1

Merkinsbreachofcontractclaimwithoutprejudiceatthepartiesrequest.The2

courtsjudgmentwouldthusordinarilybenonfinal,deprivingusofjurisdiction3

overthemerits.4

Atargumentbeforeus,however,Merkinagreedtoadismissalofhis5

remainingclaim,forbreachofcontract,withprejudice.Apartywholosesona6

dispositiveissuethataffectsonlyaportionofhisclaimsmayelecttoabandon7

theunaffectedclaims,inviteafinaljudgment,andtherebysecurereviewofthe8

adverseruling.Atlanta Shipping Corp. v. Chemical Bank,818F.2d240,246(2dCir.9

1987).Wemaythereforetreatthedistrictcourtsorderasfinal.See Rabbi Jacob 10

Joseph Sch.,425F.3dat211(refusingtotreatorderasfinalwhenthe[plaintiff]11

expresslydeclinedtoabandon[its]claimwithprejudiceatoralargument);see 12

alsoJTC Petroleum Co. v. Piasa Motor Fuels, Inc.,190F.3d775,77677(7thCir.1999)13

([A]targument,theplaintiffslawyerquicklyagreedthatwecouldtreatthe14

dismissalofthetwoclaims[whichthedistrictcourthaddismissedwithout15

prejudice]ashavingbeenwithprejudice,thuswindingupthelitigationand16

eliminatingthebartoourjurisdiction.).Wethereforeproceedtothemerits.17


16

III. CopyrightClaims1Merkinarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinconcluding,first,thatMerkin2

couldnotcopyrighthiscreativecontributionstothefilm,and,second,thathe3

lackscopyrightownershipoftherawfilmfootage.CasaDuserespondsthat4

individualcontributionstoafilm,suchasdirection,arenotthemselvessubjectto5

copyrightprotectionandthatCasaDuseretainssolecopyrightownershipofthe6

filmandtherawfootage,totheextentthetwoaredistinguishableforcopyright7

purposes.8

Twopointsmeritmentionattheoutset.9

First,thepartiesagreethatMerkinisnotajointauthororcoauthorof10

thefilmunderthe1976CopyrightAct.See 17U.S.C.101(Ajointworkisa11

workpreparedbytwoormoreauthorswiththeintentionthattheircontributions12

bemergedintoinseparableorinterdependentpartsofaunitarywhole.).Ifhe13

were,thatfactwouldlikelyprohibithisinterferencewithCasaDusesuseand14

displayofthefilm,because[o]nejointownercannotbeliableforcopyright15

infringementtoanotherjointowner.1MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,16

Nimmer on Copyright6.10[A](2015). AcoauthorshipclaimantinourCircuit17

generallymustshowthateachoftheputativecoauthors(1)made18


17

independentlycopyrightablecontributionstothework;and(2)fullyintendedto1

becoauthors.Thomson v. Larson,147F.3d195,200(2dCir.1998)(citing2

Childress v. Taylor,945F.2d500,50708(2dCir.1991)).Evenassumingthefirst3

prong3ismethere,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthattherecorduniformly4

establishesthat[CasaDuse],throughitsprincipal,Krakovski,neverintendedto5

shareauthorshipofthefilmwithMerkinoranyoneelse,and[t]hereisalso6

considerableevidencethatMerkinneverintendedtobe[CasaDuses]coauthor.7

16 Casa Duse, LLC,2013WL5510770,at*89,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*238

25.49

Second,thepartiesalsoagreethatMerkinseffortscannotbedeemeda10

workmadeforhire.See 17U.S.C.201(b)([T]he...personforwhomthe11

work[forhire]waspreparedisconsideredtheauthor...and,unlesstheparties12

haveexpresslyagreedotherwiseinawritteninstrumentsignedbythem,owns13

3Itseemslikelythat[b]ycopyrightable[theChildress court]meantonlytosaythat

thecoauthorscontributionmustbetheproductofauthorship,i.e.,expression.[Thecourt]didnotmeanthatinordertobeacoauthoronemustbeabletoobtainacopyrightonhisorherseparatecontribution,2Patry on Copyright5:15,oreventhatsuchwouldbepossible.4WenotedinThomsonthatthetestofcoauthorshipintentwillvarydependingonthe

specificfactualcircumstances.Thomson,147F.3dat201n.16.Weneednotdeterminethewaysinwhichthetestmightvaryinthecircumstancespresentedbythiscase,becausethepartiesdisclaimjointauthorship.


18

alloftherightscomprisedinthecopyright.).Aworkforhirearrangement1

requires:2

(1)aworkpreparedbyanemployeewithinthescopeofhisorher3employment;or(2)aworkspeciallyorderedorcommissionedfor4useasacontributiontoacollectivework,asapartofamotion5picture[,orforotherspecifiedpurposes]...ifthepartiesexpressly6agreeinawritteninstrumentsignedbythemthattheworkshallbe7consideredaworkmadeforhire.8

Id.101.MerkinwasnotCasaDusesemployee,seeCmty. for Creative Non9

Violence v. Reid,490U.S.730,74041(1989)([T]hetermemployee[insection10

101]shouldbeunderstoodinlightofthegeneralcommonlawofagency.), and11

thepartiesfailedtoexecuteawrittenagreement.12

A. Copyright in Creative Contributions to a Work 13

Copyrightprotectionsubsists...inoriginalworksofauthorshipfixedin14

anytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownorlaterdeveloped,fromwhich15

theycanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectly16

orwiththeaidofamachineordevice.17U.S.C.102(a).Wehavenever17

decidedwhetheranindividualsnonde minimis creativecontributionstoawork18

inwhichcopyrightprotectionsubsists,suchasafilm,fallwithinthesubject19

matterofcopyright,whenthecontributionsareinseparablefromtheworkand20

theindividualisneitherthesolenorajointauthoroftheworkandisnotaparty21


19

toaworkforhirearrangement.See Thomson,147F.3dat206(acknowledging1

openquestionandresolvingcaseonalternativegrounds).Weanswerthat2

questioninthenegativeonthefactsofthepresentcase,findingthatthe3

CopyrightActsterms,structure,andhistorysupporttheconclusionthat4

Merkinscontributionstothefilmdonotthemselvesconstituteaworkof5

authorshipamenabletocopyrightprotection.6

TheCopyrightActdoesnotdefinethetermworksofauthorship.Section7

102oftheAct,however,listsexamplesofcategoriesofworksofauthorship,8

includingliteraryworks,17U.S.C.102(a)(1),musicalworks,id.102(a)(2),9

andmostrelevantheremotionpicturesandotheraudiovisualworks,id.10

102(a)(6).Thislistisnotexhaustive,butaswehavepreviouslyobserved,11

categoriesofcreativeeffortsthatarenotsimilar[]oranalogoustoanyofthe12

listedcategoriesareunlikelytofallwithinthesubjectmatteroffederal13

copyrightprotection.Natl Basketball Assn v. Motorola, Inc.,105F.3d841,846(2d14

Cir.1997)(concludingthatbasketballgamesdonotfallwithinthesubjectmatter15

offederalcopyrightprotectionbecausetheydonotconstituteoriginalworksof16

authorshipunder17U.S.C.102(a).).Motionpictures,likepantomimes,1717

U.S.C.102(a)(4),anddramaticworks,id.102(a)(3),areworksthatmaybe18


20

expectedtocontaincontributionsfrommultipleindividuals.See Richlin v. Metro1

GoldwynMayer Pictures, Inc.,531F.3d962,975(9thCir.2008)(Amotionpicture2

isaworktowhichmanycontribute;however,thosecontributionsultimately3

mergetocreateaunitarywhole.).ButtheActlistsnoneoftheconstituentparts4

ofanyofthesekindsofworksasworksofauthorship.Thisuniformabsenceof5

explicitprotectionsuggeststhatnonfreestandingcontributionstoworksof6

authorshiparenotordinarilythemselvesworksofauthorship.7

OtherprovisionsoftheActsupportthisconclusion.TheActsdefinition8

ofjointwork,aworkpreparedbymultipleauthorswiththeintentionthat9

theircontributionsbemergedintoinseparableorinterdependentpartsofa10

unitarywhole,17U.S.C.101(emphasisadded),suggeststhatsuchinseparable11

contributionsarenotthemselvesworksofauthorship.Copyrightmaysubsist12

incontributionstoacollectivework,see id. 201(c)(Copyrightineachseparate13

contributiontoacollectiveworkisdistinctfromcopyrightinthecollectivework14

asawhole.),butonlywhensuchcontributionsconstituteseparateand15

independentworks.Id.101(Acollectiveworkisawork,suchasaperiodical16

issue,anthology,orencyclopedia,inwhichanumberofcontributions,17

constitutingseparate and independent worksinthemselves,areassembledintoa18


21

collectivewhole.(emphasisadded)).Therequirementthatcontributionsbe1

separateandindependentinordertoobtaintheirowncopyrightprotection2

alsoindicatesthatinseparablecontributionsintegratedintoasingleworkcannot3

separatelyobtainsuchprotection.4

ThelegislativehistoryoftheCopyrightActfurthersupportsthisreading.5

AccordingtotheHouseReportonthe1976Act:6

[A]motionpicturewouldnormallybeajointratherthanacollective7workwithrespecttothoseauthorswhoactuallyworkonthefilm,8althoughtheirusualstatusasemployeesforhirewouldkeepthe9questionofcoownershipfromcomingup.Ontheotherhand,10althoughanovelist,playwright,orsongwritermaywriteawork11withthehopeorexpectationthatitwillbeusedinamotionpicture,12thisisclearlyacaseofseparateorindependentauthorshiprather13thanonewherethebasicintentionbehindthewritingofthework14wasformotionpictureuse.15

H.R.Rep.No.941476,at120(1976),reprinted in 1976U.S.C.C.A.N.5659,5736.16

Whileissuesofcoownershipofacopyrightmayariseinthemotionpicture17

context,thequestionofseparatecontributionsmeritingseparatecopyrightsas18

worksordinarilywouldnot,unlessthemotionpictureincorporatesseparate,19

freestandingpiecesthatindependentlyconstituteworksofauthorship.Ina20

jointwork,theseparateelements[comprisingthework]mergeintoaunified21

whole,whereasinacollectivework,individualscontributionsremain22


22

unintegratedanddisparate.Id.,H.R.Rep.No.941476,at122,19761

U.S.C.C.A.N.,at5738.2

AsCasaDuseobserves,theCopyrightOfficehas,inanunrelatedcase,3

suggestedasimilarinterpretationoftheAct.TheOfficehasstatedthatan4

individualwholacksaworkforhireagreementbutwhointend[s]her5

contributionorperformancetobemergedintoinseparableorinterdependent6

partsofaunitarywhole[,]17U.S.C.101[,]...mayassertaclaiminjoint7

authorshipinthemotionpicture,butnotsoleauthorshipofherperformanceina8

portionofthework.LetterfromRobertJ.Kasunic,Assoc.Registerof9

CopyrightsandDir.ofRegistrationPolicyandPractices,U.S.CopyrightOffice,10

toM.CrisArmenta,TheArmentaLawFirm(Mar.6,2014)(attachedasappendix11

toBriefinResponsetoSuggestionofRehearingEnBanc[Dkt.54]atADD47,12

Garcia v. Google,No.1257302(9thCir.Mar.12,2014)).Weneednotdefertothe13

CopyrightOfficesinterpretationasageneralmatter,seeCarol Barnhart Inc. v. 14

Econ. Cover Corp.,773F.2d411,414(2dCir.1985),orunderthefactuallydistinct15

circumstancesofthepresentcase.Wefinditsanalysispersuasivenonetheless.16

Therewas,untilrecently,someauthorityapparentlytothecontrary.The17

majorityofathreejudgepaneloftheNinthCircuitconcludedthatcopyright18


23

protectionmaysubsistinanactorsperformanceinamotionpicture.See Garcia 1

v. Google, Inc.,766F.3d929,93336(9thCir.),revden banc,F.3d,No.122

57302,2015WL2343586,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105(9thCir.May18,2015)3

(Garcia(en banc)).InGarcia,asinthepresentcase,anindividualwhomadea4

contributiontoafinishedfilminthatcase,anactorclaimedownershipofa5

copyrightinterestinhercontribution.Thecourtreasonedthattheactors6

performanceexhibitedatleastaminimaldegreeofcreativitysuchthatthe7

actorhadprobablyengagedinanoriginalactofauthorship.Id.at934(quoting8

Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499U.S.340,345(1991)).Andthe9

performancewas,inthecourtsview,fixedinatangiblemediumaspartofthe10

finishedfilm.Id. 11

Anen bancpanelreversed,however,adheringtotheCopyrightOffices12

viewand,basedthereon,concludingthattheactorstheoryofcopyrightlaw13

wouldresultin[a]legalmorass[,]...[making]Swisscheeseofcopyrights.14

Garcia(en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*6,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,15

at*23(internalquotationmarksomitted).Weagree.Filmmakingisa16

collaborativeprocesstypicallyinvolvingartisticcontributionsfromlarge17

numbersofpeople,includinginadditiontoproducers,directors,and18


24

screenwritersactors,designers,cinematographers,cameraoperators,anda1

hostofskilledtechnicalcontributors.Ifcopyrightsubsistedseparatelyineachof2

theircontributionstothecompletedfilm,thecopyrightinthefilmitself,whichis3

recognizedbystatuteasaworkofauthorship,couldbeunderminedbyany4

numberofindividualclaims.Thesevariouscontributorsmaymakeoriginal5

artisticexpressions,whicharearguablyfixedinthemediumoffilmfootage.But6

whileoriginalityandfixationarenecessaryprerequisitestoobtainingcopyright7

protection,see 17U.S.C.102(a),theyarenotalonesufficient:Authorsarenot8

entitledtocopyrightprotectionexceptfortheworksofauthorshiptheycreate9

andfix.See id.;see alsoGarcia,766F.3dat941(N.R.Smith,J.,dissenting).10

Ourconclusioninthepresentcasedoesnotsuggestthatmotionpicture11

directorssuchasMerkinmayneverachievecopyrightprotectionfortheir12

creativeefforts.Thedirectorofafilmmay,ofcourse,bethesoleorjointauthor13

ofthatfilm,suchthatsheorhecansecurecopyrightprotectionforthework.See14

Cmty. for Creative NonViolence,490U.S.at737(Asageneralrule,theauthoris15

thepartywhoactuallycreatesthework,thatis,thepersonwhotranslatesan16

ideaintoafixed,tangibleexpressionentitledtocopyrightprotection.);see also F.17

JayDougherty,Not A Spike Lee Joint? Issues in the Authorship of Motion Pictures 18


25

Under U.S. Copyright Law, 49UCLAL.Rev.225,312(2001)([T]hedirectorofthe1

filmiscertainlypotentiallyoneofitsmostimportantauthors.).Andauthorsof2

freestandingworksthatareincorporatedintoafilm,suchasdanceperformances3

orsongs,maycopyrighttheseseparateandindependentwork[s].17U.S.C.4

101(definingcollectivework).Butadirectorscontributiontoanintegrated5

workofauthorshipsuchasafilmisnotitselfaworkofauthorshipsubjectto6

itsowncopyrightprotection.7

Afinalobservation:Aconclusionotherthantheoneweadoptwould8

grantcontributorslikeMerkingreaterrightsthanjointauthors,who,aswehave9

noted,havenorighttointerferewithacoauthorsuseofthecopyrightedwork.10

See Childress,945F.2dat508(Jointauthorshipentitlesthecoauthorstoequal11

undividedinterestsinthework.).WedoubtthatCongressintendedfor12

contributorswhoarenotjointauthorstohavegreaterrightsenablingthemto13

hamstringauthorsuseofcopyrightedworks,asapparentlyoccurredinthecase14

atbar.Weagreewiththeen bancNinthCircuit,then,thatthecreationof15

thousandsofstandalonecopyrightsinagivenworkwaslikelynotintended.16

Garcia (en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*7,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,17

at*26.18


26

WeconcludethatMerkindidnotobtainanddoesnotpossessacopyright1

inhisdirectorialcontributionstothefinishedfilm.52

B. Copyright in Raw Film Footage 3

MerkinalsocontendsthatheandnotCasaDuseownsallcopyright4

interestsintherawfilmfootagewhichwascontainedontheharddriveand5

DVDsandfromwhichthefinalfilmHeads Upwasorwillbeproduced.6

UnlikeMerkinscreativecontributionstothefilm,thefilmfootageis7

subjecttocopyrightprotection.Anoriginalmotionpictureissurelyaworkof8

authorshipinwhichcopyrightprotectionsubsistsundertheCopyrightAct.9

5WethusneednotreachCasaDusesalternativecontention,whichthedistrictcourt

didnotaddress,thatevenifMerkinmaintainedsomecopyrightinterestinhiscontributions,hegrantedCasaDuseanimpliedlicensetousethosecontributions.SeeGraham v. James,144F.3d229,236(2dCir.1998)(Acopyrightownerwhograntsanonexclusivelicensetousehiscopyrightedmaterialwaiveshisrighttosuethelicenseeforcopyrightinfringement.).

Wenote,however,thatwhileonecommentatorhassuggestedthat[t]hecorrectapproachtoresolvingthesituationwhereanindividual...contributesexpressiontoaworkbutisfoundnottobeajointauthoristofindanimpliedlicense,2Patry on Copyright5:17,thereareatleastsomecircumstancesinwhichtheimpliedlicenseapproachmaynotpermanentlyresolvethedispute.[U]nderfederalandstatelawamaterialbreachofalicensingagreementgivesrisetoarightofrescissionwhichallowsthenonbreachingpartytoterminatetheagreement.Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc.,987F.2d580,586(9thCir.1993),as amended,Mar.24,1993.If,forexample,CasaDusehadmateriallybreachedanyimpliedlicensingagreementithadwithMerkin(by,forexample,failingtopayhim),Merkinssubsequentrefusaltogiv[e]upanycreativeorartisticrightsheheld,J.A.581,mayhaveconstitutedjustifiablerescissionofthelicense.


27

See 17U.S.C.102(a)(6).Andwhereaworkispreparedoveraperiodoftime,1

theportionofitthathasbeenfixedatanyparticulartimeconstitutestheworkas2

ofthattime.Id.101.Theuneditedfilmfootageatissueinthiscaseseemsto3

ustobeanearlyversionofthefinishedproduct,constitutingthefilmasofthat4

time.BecausetheCopyrightAct[]affordsprotectiontoeachworkatthe5

momentofitscreation,Weissmann v. Freeman,868F.2d1313,1317(2dCir.1989),6

copyrightsubsistseveninsuchanunfinishedwork.67

Withrespecttotheownershipofanysuchcopyright,[c]opyrightina8

workprotectedunderthistitlevestsinitiallyintheauthororauthorsofthe9

work.17U.S.C.201(a).TheCopyrightActcontemplatesinstancesinwhich10

multipleauthorsofasingleworkmaymaintainsomeformofcopyright11

ownershipinthatwork,butthepartiesagreethatHeads Up fitsintononeof12

thosecategories.7Incasesinwhichnoneofthemultipleauthorscenarios13

specificallyidentifiedbytheCopyrightActapplies,butmultipleindividualslay146Forthisreason,wedonotsharetheconcernofthedissentingjudgeinGarcia(en banc)

that[i]fGarciassceneisnotawork,theneverytakeofeverysceneof,say,Lord of the Ringsisnotawork,andthusnotprotectedbycopyright,unlessanduntiltheclipsbecomepartofthefinalmovie.Garcia (en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*13,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,at*43(Kozinski,J.,dissenting).Copyrightsubsistsinasingleworkatanystageofitscreation,evenatpointsatwhichtheworkisnotyetcomplete.7Thepartiesagree,forexample,thattheyarenotjointauthors.See 17U.S.C.201(a).


28

claimtothecopyrightinasinglework,thedispositiveinquiryiswhichofthe1

putativeauthorsisthedominantauthor.See Childress, 945F.2dat508.2

Thedistrictcourtconcluded,andweagree,thatCasaDusewasthat3

dominantauthor.See 16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*10,2013U.S.Dist.4

LEXIS143958at*29.OurCircuithasnotprofferedrulesfordeterminingwhich5

ofmultipleauthorsisdominant.See Childress, 945F.2dat508(discussingjoint6

authorshipinquirywhereoneperson[]isindisputablythedominantauthorof7

theworkandtheonlyissueiswhetherthatpersonisthesoleauthororsheand8

another[]arejointauthors).Wehave,however,identifiedfactualindiciaof9

ownershipandauthorshiprelevanttothejointauthorinquiry.Thomson,14710

F.3dat202.Thesefactorsincludingdecisionmakingauthority,billing,and11

writtenagreementswiththirdparties,see id.at20204arealsorelevanttoour12

dominantauthorinquiry.13

Astodecisionmakingauthority,whichreferstothepartiesrelativecontrol14

overwhatchangesaremadeandwhatisincludedinawork,id.at202,the15

partiesagreethatMerkinexercisedasignificantdegreeofcontrolovermanyof16

thecreativedecisionsunderlyingboththerawfilmfootageandthefinished17

product.Asdirector,Merkinmadeavarietyofcreativedecisionsrelatedto18


29

camerawork,lighting,blocking,andactorswardrobe,makeup,anddialogue1

delivery,particularlyduringthethreedaysoffilming.Butinthecontextofthe2

projectasawhole,CasaDuseexercisedfarmoredecisionmakingauthority.Cf. 3

id.at198n.10(putativecoauthorsclaimtohavedeveloped[aplays]plotand4

theme,contributedextensivelytothestory,createdmanycharacterelements,5

[andwritten]asignificantportionofthedialogueandsonglyricsdidnotrender6

herajoint,letalonedominant,authorofplay).CasaDuseinitiatedtheproject;7

acquiredtherightstothescreenplay;selectedthecast,crewanddirector;8

controlledtheproductionschedule;andcoordinated(orattemptedto9

coordinate)thefilmspublicityandrelease. Cf. Aalmuhammed v. Lee,202F.3d10

1227,1234(9thCir.2000)([A]nauthorsuperintend[s]theworkbyexercising11

control.Thiswilllikelybe...theinventiveormastermindwhocreates,orgives12

effecttotheidea.(secondalterationinoriginal)(footnotesandinternal13

quotationmarksomitted)). 14

Thesecondfactoristhewayinwhichthepartiesbillorcredit15

themselves,whichprovidesevidenceofintentofauthorship.Thomson,147F.3d16

at203.AlthoughMerkinevidentlysoughttoretaintherighttoremovehisname17

fromthefinishedfilm,bothpartiesinitiallyintendedtotakesomecreditforthe18


30

finalproduct.Thebillinginquiryastotherawfootage,then,appearstoustobe1

essentiallyneutral,asweunderstandwilloftenbethecaseinthecontextofa2

motionpicture.SeeDougherty,supraat264(explainingthatthisfactorisless3

helpfulinevidencingthecontributorsintentforworkssuchasmotionpictures).4

Thethirdfactor,thepartiesagreementswithoutsiders,Thomson,1475

F.3dat204,pointsdecisivelyinCasaDusesfavor.CasaDuseobtainedwritten6

workforhireagreementsfromeverycastandcrewmemberotherthanMerkin.7

Merkindidnot,sofarastherecordshows,enterintoanythirdpartyagreements.8

Indeed,nothingintherecordsuggestshehadanyintentiontodoso.CasaDuse9

alsoenteredintoanagreementwiththescreenwriter,authorizingthevery10

creationofthefilmasaderivativework.See17U.S.C.101(Aderivativework11

isaworkbasedupononeormorepreexistingworks....).ThusCasaDuse12

executedalloftherelevantthirdpartyagreements.13

Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatinthiscase,CasaDusewasthe14

dominantauthorofthefilm.Therecorddoesnotreflectanydevelopmentsthat15

occurredbetweenthecreationoftherawfilmfootageandCasaDusesattempts16

tocreateafinishedproductthatwouldalterthisanalysisastotherawfootage.17


31

WethusconcludethatCasaDuse,notMerkin,ownsthecopyrightinthefinished1

filmanditspriorversions,includingthedisputedrawfilmfootage.2

IV. TortiousInterferencewithBusinessRelations3Merkindoesnotchallengethedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment4

toCasaDuseontwoofitsthreestatelawclaims.8Heargues,however,thatthe5

courterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitsclaimfortortious6

interferencewithbusinessrelations.ThecourtconcludedthatMerkins7

interferencewithCasaDusesplannedscreeningandpostscreeningreception,8

whichresultedinthecancellationoftheeventsandthelossofCasaDuses9

restaurantdeposit,constitutedtortiousinterferenceunderNewYorklaw.We10

disagreeandconcludethattheundisputedmaterialfactsrequirejudgmentasa11

matteroflawinMerkinsfavor.See Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a). 12

Toprevailonaclaimfortortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsalso13

knownastortiousinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage,see Catskill 14

Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entmt Corp.,547F.3d115,132(2dCir.2008)under158ThedistrictcourtconcludedthatCasaDusesclaimsforbreachofcontractand

conversion,bothofwhichrelatedtoCasaDusesrequestthatMerkinreturntheharddrivecontainingtherawfilmfootage,wereproperlyanalyzedasasingleclaimforreplevinunderNewYorklaw.16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*12,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958at*35.MerkindoesnotchallengethedistrictcourtsorderrequiringthathereturntheharddriveandDVDstoCasaDuse.


32

NewYorklaw,aplaintiffmustshowthat(1)theplaintiffhadbusinessrelations1

withathirdparty;(2)thedefendantinterferedwiththosebusinessrelations;(3)2

thedefendantactedforawrongfulpurposeoruseddishonest,unfair,or3

impropermeans;and(4)thedefendantsactsinjuredtherelationship.Id.4

MerkindoesnotcontestthattotheextentCasaDusehadbusiness5

relationshipswiththeNYFAandCityCrabRestaurant,hisactionsinterfered6

withthoserelationshipsinawaythatinjuredCasaDuse.Itisundisputedthat7

Merkinsclaimedcopyrightinterest,whethercommunicatedbyMerkinor8

Reichman,resultedinthecancellationofthescreeningandthereception.16 Casa 9

Duse,2013WL5510770at*13n.5,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958at*4041n.5.10

Thusthesecondandfourthrequirementsforacauseofactionweremet.Merkin11

argues,however,thatCasaDusehasfailedtoestablishthefirstandthird12

elementsoftheclaim.13

Astothefirst,MerkinarguesthatCasaDusehasfailedtodemonstratethe14

businessrelationscomponentofitsclaimbecauseaonenightrentalisnota15

businessrelationship.AppellantsBr.at36.Merkincitesnoauthorityforthis16

proposition.NewYorkcourtshaveplacedsomelimitsonwhatconstitutes17

businessrelationsbyrejecting,forexample,aclaimcontainingonlyageneral18


33

allegationofinterferencewithcustomerswithoutanysufficientlyparticular1

allegationofinterferencewithaspecificcontractorbusinessrelationship,McGill 2

v. Parker,179A.D.2d98,105,582N.Y.S.2d91,95(1stDept1992),butCasaDuse3

hasraisedmorethansuchageneralallegationbypointingtoitsbusiness4

relationshipswiththeNYFAandtherestaurant.5

Astothethirdelement,MerkinarguesthatCasaDusehasfailedtoshow6

thatheactedforawrongfulpurposeoruseddishonest,unfair,orimproper7

means.Catskill Dev.,547F.3dat132.Weagree.Merkincorrectlynotesthatthe8

wrongfulmeanselementsetsahighbar.Unlikeaclaimfortortious9

interferencewithcontract,whichrequiresaplaintifftoshownomorethanthat10

thedefendantintentionallyandwithoutjustificationprocuredabreachofavalid11

contractofwhichhewasaware,see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.,8812

N.Y.2d413,424,668N.E.2d1370,1375(1996),aclaimfortortiousinterference13

withbusinessrelationsrequiresaplaintifftoshow,asageneralrule,thatthe14

defendantsconduct...amount[ed]toacrimeoranindependenttort,Carvel 15

Corp. v. Noonan,3N.Y.3d182,190,818N.E.2d1100,1103(2004).NewYork16

courtshaverecognizedanexceptiontothisrulewhereadefendantengagesin17

conductforthesolepurposeofinflictingintentionalharmonplaintiffs.Id.18


34

(quotingNBT Bancorp, Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Grp., Inc.,215A.D.2d990,990,6281

N.Y.S.2d408(3dDept1995),affd,87N.Y.2d614,664N.E.2d492(1996)).Butthis2

exceptionisnarrow:Whenadefendanthasactedwithapermissiblepurpose,3

suchasnormaleconomicselfinterest,wrongfulmeanshavenotbeenshown,4

evenifthedefendantwasindifferenttothe[plaintiffs]fate.Id. TheNewYork5

CourtofAppealshasnotyetidentifiedanyotherexceptionstothegeneralrule.6

See id., 3N.Y.3dat19091,818N.E.2dat110304.7

MerkinsinteractionwiththeNYFAdirectorwasnotcriminal,andCasa8

Dusedoesnotarguethathisconductwasindependentlytortious.Nordoes9

CasaDuseallegethatMerkinactedforthesolepurposeofharmingthe10

company.CasaDuseinsteadurgesustofindthatMerkinsinsistentassertionof11

hiscopyrightinterestinthefilmconstitutedwrongfulmeans,becausehe12

demonstratedawillful[]blind[ness]tothefactualandlegalrealitiesof[his]13

position.16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*13,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958at14

*42. 15

NewYorkcourtshaveleftopenthepossibilitythatadefendantwhohas16

harass[ed]aplaintiffwithmeritlesslitigationmayhaveutilizedwrongful17

means.See Carvel Corp.,3N.Y.3dat192,818N.E.2dat1104.Butalthoughwe18


35

haveconcludedthatMerkinscopyrightclaimsultimatelymustfail,wemustalso1

conclude,inlightoftheconclusionofatleastoneappellatepanel,seeGarcia,7662

F.3d929,thattheywerenotfrivolous,objectivelyunreasonable,orpatently3

meritless.Garcia isnotonallfourswiththecasebeforeus,butitiscloseenough4

forthatpurpose.ThereisalsonoindicationintherecordthatMerkinutterly5

lackedbeliefinthemeritofhiscopyrightclaimorthatheintendedonlytoharass6

CasaDuse.Weconcludethathisinsistence,howevermisguided,onhis7

copyrightinterestdidnotamounttothesortofegregiouswrongdoingthat8

mightsupportatortiousinterferenceclaimintheabsenceof[]anindependently9

unlawfulactorevilmotive.Carvel Corp., 3N.Y.3dat189,818N.E.2dat110203.10

V. FeesandSanctions11MerkinandReichmanarguethatthedistrictcourtmadelegalerrorsin12

awardingfeesandcoststoCasaDuseundertheCopyrightAct,17U.S.C.505,13

andimposingsanctionsagainstReichmanintheformoffeesandcostsunder2814

U.S.C.1927.Wedisagree.15

ThedistrictcourtdidnoterringrantingCasaDusesmotionforattorneys16

feeseventhoughthemotionwasfiledpriortotheentryofjudgment.Amotion17

forattorneysfeesmustbefiledno later than14daysaftertheentryof18


36

judgment.Fed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(2)(B)(i)(emphasisadded).Promptfiling...1

enablesthecourtinappropriatecircumstancestomakeitsrulingonafeerequest2

intimeforanyappellatereviewofadisputeoverfeestoproceedatthesame3

timeasreviewonthemeritsofthecase.Weyant v. Okst,198F.3d311,314(2d4

Cir.1999)(ellipsisinoriginal)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.54AdvisoryCommittee5

Note(1993)).Butalthoughthe14dayfilinglimitrunsfromtheentryofafinal6

judgment,see id.,MerkinandReichmanhavenotexplainedwhythedistrict7

courtcouldnotgrantamotionthatwasfiledpriortoafinaljudgment.8

NordidthecourterrinconcludingthattheCopyrightActallowsaparty9

thathasnotregisteredacopyrighttorecovercostsandfeesunderspecified10

circumstances.UndertheAct,acourtmay,initsdiscretion,allowtherecovery11

offullcostsbyoragainstanypartyotherthantheUnitedStatesoranofficer12

thereofinanycivilactionunder[theCopyrightAct]andawardareasonable13

attorneysfeetotheprevailingpartyaspartofthecosts.17U.S.C.505.14

AnothersectionoftheAct,entitledRegistrationasprerequisitetocertain15

remediesforinfringement,limitsrecoveryininfringementactions,barring16

recoveryforinfringementthatoccurredpriortoregistration:17

Inanyactionunderthistitle,[withexceptionsnotrelevanthere],no18awardofstatutorydamagesorofattorneysfees,asprovidedby...19


37

[section]505,shallbemadefor(1)anyinfringementofcopyrightin1anunpublishedworkcommencedbeforetheeffectivedateofits2registration;or(2)anyinfringementofcopyrightcommencedafter3firstpublicationoftheworkandbeforetheeffectivedateofits4registration,unlesssuchregistrationismadewithinthreemonths5afterthefirstpublicationofthework.6

17U.S.C.412.MerkinarguesthatthissectionofthelawprohibitsCasaDuse,7

whichdidnotregisteracopyrightinthefilm,fromcollectingfeesandcosts.But8

CasaDusehasnotbroughtaninfringementaction.Itseeksinsteada9

declaratoryjudgmentthatithasnotinfringedonMerkinsputativecopyright.10

[T]hereisnothinginthestatutethatprohibitsfeeawardsincases,likethisone,11

ofnoninfringement.Latin Am. Music Co. v. Am. Socy Of Composers, Authors & 12

Publishers (ASCAP),642F.3d87,90(1stCir.2011)(emphasisinoriginal)13

(concludingthatadefendantinaninfringementactionmayobtainfeesandcosts14

undersection505despitenothavingregisteredacopyright).15

Reichmanalsoarguesthatthedistrictcourterredbyfindinghimjointly16

andseverallyliablewithMerkinforcostsandfees,becausetheCopyrightAct17

allowsfortheimpositionofcostsandfeesonlyagainstaparty,notagainsta18

partysattorney.17U.S.C.505.ButthecourtawardedcostsandfeestoCasa19

DuseunderboththeCopyrightActand28U.S.C.1927.Thelatterstatute20

allowsacourttorequireanattorneytosatisfypersonallycostsandfees.2821


38

U.S.C.1927.Thedistrictcourtsallocationofcostsandfeeswasnotcontraryto1

law. 2

MerkinandReichmanfinallyarguethateveniffeesandcostswere3

availableunderthesestatutes,thedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretioninawarding4

themtoCasaDuseunder17U.S.C.505and28U.S.C.1927.Astotheformer,5

adistrictcourtdeterminingwhethertoexerciseitsdiscretiontoawardfeesunder6

theCopyrightActmayconsidersuchfactorsas(1)thefrivolousnessofthenon7

prevailingpartysclaimsordefenses;(2)thepartysmotivation;(3)whetherthe8

claimsordefenseswereobjectivelyunreasonable;and(4)compensationand9

deterrence.Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc.,603F.3d135,144(2dCir.2010).As10

tothelatter,[s]anctionsmaybeimposed...onlywhenthereisafindingof11

conductconstitutingorakintobadfaith....[A]nawardunder1927isproper12

whentheattorneysactionsaresocompletelywithoutmeritastorequirethe13

conclusionthattheymusthavebeenundertakenforsomeimproperpurpose14

suchasdelay.In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3dat115(internalquotation15

marksomitted).16

MerkinandReichmanarguethattheircopyrighttheorywasnot17

objectivelyunreasonable,see Bryant,603F.3dat144(notingthatthisfactor18


39

shouldbeaccordedsubstantialweight),letalonesocompletelywithoutmerit1

astorequiretheconclusionthattheymusthavebeenundertakenforsome2

improperpurposesuchasdelay,In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3dat1153

(internalquotationmarksomitted),becauseitwasbasedontheirreadingofthe4

CopyrightOfficeswebsite.Wehaveconcluded,inthecontextofCasaDuses5

tortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsclaim,thattheappellantswerenot6

evidentlymotivatedsolelybythedesiretoharmCasaDuse.Wehavealso7

concludedthatthedefendantscopyrightclaimsarewithoutmerit.Givenour8

remandtothedistrictcourt,whichmayreconsideritsgrantofcostsandfeesand9

itsimpositionofsanctionsinlightofourreversalofthetortiousinterference10

judgment,weneednotdeterminewhetherMerkinsandReichmansrelianceon11

theCopyrightOfficewebsitewasobjectivelyunreasonable,norwhetherother12

factorsweighinfavorofgrantingfeestoCasaDuseundertheCopyrightAct,13

norwhetherReichmansconductwasakintobadfaithsufficienttosustainthe14

sanctionsenteredagainsthim.Id.Thedistrictcourtmayconsiderthese15

contentionsonremandifandwhenitisrequiredtocalculatecostsandfeeswith16

respecttothecopyrightclaimsonly,withoutreferencetothetortious17

interferenceclaim,whichweconcludeiswithoutmerit.18


40

CONCLUSION1

Fortheforegoingreasons,weAFFIRMthedistrictcourtsgrantof2

summaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitscopyrightclaimsandthusthecourts3

entryofapermanentinjunctionagainstMerkin,REVERSEthedistrictcourts4

grantofsummaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitstortiousinterferencewith5

businessrelationsclaim,andREMANDtothedistrictcourtwithinstructionsto6

entersummaryjudgmentinfavorofMerkinonthatclaim,basedthereonto7

reexamineitsawardofcostsandattorneysfees,andforsuchotherproceedings8

asarewarranted.9

16 casa duse v. merkin copyright film authorship decision.pdf

Documents