Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Patry Copyright Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: The Patry Copyright Blog

Pink Panther: Oregon No Longer Wacka Wacka Huna Kuna

By Senior Copyright Counsel, Google Inc.

The Pink Panther: Yawn
On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in a dispute over rights to a 1962 story treatment for the movie ?The Pink Panther.? Co-author Maurice Richlin had transferred his rights to the Mirisch Corporation, which made The Pink Panther. (The other co-author was Blake Edwards). Richlin?s heirs asserted he was a co-author of the film (through two routes). The district court rejected the heirs claims and the court of appeals, per Judge Wardlaw affirmed.

One can appreciate the heirs' view that they might have some rights since Richlin and Edwards first entered into a work for hire agreement with Mirisch and then ten days later executed a (broader) assignment to it. The movie came out in 1963 and bore a notice with that year date, but the certificate of registration gave 1964 as the publication date. Richlin died in 1990; the film was renewed in 1991. Richlin heirs did not assert a renewal right at that time.

The court rejected the claim that co-authorship in the treatment vested Richlin (and his heirs) with a co-ownership claim in the movie, noting among other facts, that Richlin (unlike Edwards) did not exercise control over the creation of the movie, and noting the more important fact in my opinion that the treatment was done as a work for hire for the production company.

The opinion also revisits ground thoroughly plowed in Batjac Productions Inc. v. Goodtimes Home Video Corp., 160 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1998), regarding the status of an unpublished screenplay and its publication in the movie based on it.

In light of the work for hire nature of the screenplay, I don?t understand why the opinion is as long as it is, unless I am misconstruing either the work for hire agreement or the subsequent assignment

Oregon: Exciting
Meanwhile in another state within the Ninth Circuit, Oregon, the Legislative Counsel Committee voted unanimously not to assert their alleged copyright claims. Kudos to Carl Malamud and many others who participated in the hearings and in raising the issues. Carl has posted videos of the hearings here, itself a wonderful example of open government.

Full post as published by The Patry Copyright Blog on June 23, 2008 (boomark / email).