Source: https://casetext.com/case/billy-bob-teeth-inc-v-novelty-inc
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 18:37:12
Document Index: 370176621

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 201', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204', '§ 204']

Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 329 F.3d 586 | Casetext Search + Citator
Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.
Drew Homes, 29 F.3d at 1530-31. At this point, Rottlund could register the Original Villa copyright. E.g.,…
TACORI ENTERPRISES v. REGO MANUFACTURING
First, because there is no dispute that Karounian orally assigned the rights to the HT 2229 Design to Tacori…
Full title:BILLY-BOB TEETH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. NOVELTY…
329 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2003)
holding that a third-party infringer lacked "standing" to contest the validity of an oral assignment that was later confirmed in writing
Nos. 01-3668, 01-3735, 02-2956 and 02-3005.
Daniel J. Lueders (argued), Kurt N. Jones, Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton, Moriarty McNett, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee.
Jonah White saw the teeth when he went to a football game where, through a mutual friend, he met Bailey, who showed him a set. White testified that Bailey was "just making them as a joke. And I'm kind of a jokester. . . ." White asked for a pair of the teeth and Bailey gave him one. White began to wear the teeth, and "every time I wore them people wanted to buy them from me. . . . They looked so real, and practical jokesters wanted them. . . ." White decided to call Bailey to suggest that the two go into business. White said, "[I]f he would show me how to make these I would make them and we would become partners 50/50. . . ." They did, and White ran the business they called "Billy-Bob Teeth" while Bailey continued with dental school.
We review a grant of judgment as a matter of law de novo, viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in Billy-Bob's favor. We review a grant of a new trial for an abuse of discretion. A new trial may be granted only when the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Mathur v. Board of Tr. of S. Ill. Univ., 207 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2000).
A copyright "vests initially in the author or authors of the work." 17 U.S.C. § 201. Under the "work made for hire" provisions in 17 U.S.C. § 101, employers are considered authors. A "work made for hire" is a work prepared by an "employee within the scope of his or her employment" or a "work specially ordered or commissioned" within nine specified categories. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 738, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989). When a work falls within the nine categories, it can be a work made for hire if "the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." § 101. For an item to be a commissioned work, then, the parties must agree in advance that that is what it will be. Schiller Schmidt, Inc. v. Nordisco Corp., 969 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992).
An error on the registration is not fatal to Billy-Bob's case, however. As the court in Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1997), incisively stated, the "case law is overwhelming that inadvertent mistakes on registration certificates do not . . . bar infringement actions, unless the alleged infringer has relied to its detriment on the mistake, or the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office by making the misstatement." See also, Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994); Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie's Costume Co., 891 F.2d 452 (2nd Cir. 1989).
So Jonah White is the author of the teeth in question and, in this case, Billy-Bob, Inc. claims ownership of the copyright by assignment from White. Copyrights, like other property rights, can be transferred from an owner to another entity. 17 U.S.C. § 201; Schiller Schmidt. Section 204 set out the requirements of a transfer:
As the statute indicates, an oral assignment may be confirmed later in writing. In Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Drew Homes, Inc., 29 F.3d 1529, 1532 (11th Cir. 1994), the court recognized that "17 U.S.C. § 204(a) can be satisfied by an oral assignment later ratified or confirmed by a written memorandum of the transfer." Similarly, in Imperial Residential Design, Inc. v. Palms Development Group, Inc., 70 F.3d 96, 99 (11th Cir. 1995), the court agreed that "a copyright owner's later execution of a writing which confirms an earlier oral agreement validates the transfer ab initio."
As we have noted, White, as the "author" of the teeth in question, executed a nunc pro tunc document in 2001 memorializing that as of May 31, 1996, he assigned his copyrights to Billy-Bob, Inc.:
Even if all this were not true, Novelty, nevertheless, would lose on this point. It simply does not having standing under § 204. The statute is in the nature of a statute of frauds and is designed to resolve disputes among copyright owners and transferees. As the court said in Imperial Residential Design, "the chief purpose of section 204(a), (like the Statute of Frauds), is to resolve disputes between copyright owners and transferees and to protect copyright holders from persons mistakenly or fraudulently claiming oral licenses or copyright ownership." The court went on to say that, where there is no dispute between the copyright owner and the transferee about the status of the copyright, "it would be unusual and unwarranted to permit a third-party infringer to invoke section 204(a) to avoid suit for copyright infringement." 70 F.3d at 99. See also Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2nd Cir. 1982).
The remaining issue is whether the evidence regarding Billy-Bob's lost deal with Gregory O'Dell was properly excluded. This ruling is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See Cummins v. Lyle Indus., 93 F.3d 362, 367 (7th Cir. 1996). Although, as our case law makes clear, the abuse of discretion standard is not without teeth, it does remind us that we are not making our call on a clean slate. See Cunningham v. Waters Tan Co., 65 F.3d 1351, 1360 (7th Cir. 1995). We must give deference to the view of the district court.
The issue was considered at least twice in the district court. A hearing was held on March 15, 2001, on a motion to exclude Billy-Bob's expert witness on damages. As relevant here, Novelty claimed that Billy-Bob did not provide underlying documentation of the $500,000 lost licensing opportunity or other relevant documentation. The district judge did not exclude the expert's report in its entirety but did exclude evidence of the lost $500,000 licensing fee "because it admittedly seems to come right out of the blue." The second time the issue was considered was at trial. Billy-Bob presented testimony from O'Dell and White as an offer of proof as to the existence of the possibility of a $500,000 licensing fee which was lost because of Novelty's infringing products. Again, the district judge excluded the evidence on the basis of the "failure to timely disclose this information to the defendant. . . ."
holding that, although a corporation could not show an ownership interest in a valid copyright as a "work made for hire" because the corporation did not exist at the time of the authorship, its error in the registration did not foreclose it from arguing that the author had subsequently assigned his rights to the corporation
Summary of this case from Art of Design, Inc. v. Pontoon Boat, LLC
holding if there is "no dispute between the copyright owner and the transferee about the status of the copyright," it is "unwarranted to permit a third-party infringer to invoke section 204 to avoid suit for copyright infringement"
holding that a corporation's registration was valid where there was an oral transfer of the copyright to the corporation in 1996, the corporation registered the copyright in 1999 inaccurately as a "work made for hire," and the actual author executed a nunc pro tunc written assignment during the trial in 2001
Summary of this case from TACORI ENTERPRISES v. REGO MANUFACTURING
holding that a nunc pro tunc document executed by a copyright author during trial in 2001 memorializing that he assigned the copyright as of 1996 was sufficient
finding that plaintiff corporation could not claim a copyrighted work was made for hire because the plaintiff corporation did not exist at the time the work was created.
Summary of this case from Charbonnet v. Malveaux
reversing district court's conclusion that plaintiff did not have an ownership interest in the copyright by holding in the alternative that the defendant, an alleged third-party infringer, "simply [did] not have standing" to challenge the validity of an oral assignment under 17 U.S.C. § 204 where there was no dispute between the copyright owners and the plaintiff transferee
stating that § 204 provides that an "oral assignment may be confirmed later in writing"
In Billy-Bob Teeth, the plaintiff mistakenly registered his copyright as a "work for hire" to a corporation that did not exist when the work was created.
explaining "17 U.S.C. § 204 can be satisfied by an oral assignment later ratified or confirmed by a written memorandum of the transfer" and when the creator of a product formed a company and orally assigned his copyright to the company, his testimony was sufficient evidence from which a jury could find an oral assignment occurred
In Billy-Bob, the oral assignment was allegedly made on May 31, 1996, the complaint was filed on December 23, 1999, and the "nunc pro tunc" document was executed in 2001.
Summary of this case from Niemi v. American Axle Manufacturing Holding Inc.
explaining oral transfer to corporation in May 1996, registration of copyright by corporation in 1999, and nunc pro tunc written assignment during trial in 2001
Summary of this case from Rottlund Company, Inc. v. Pinnacle Corporation