Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20020823_0000281.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 21:58:39
Document Index: 221147600

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 7', '§ 401', '§ 10', '§ 405', '§ 410', '§ 410']

| MARTHA GRAHAM SCHOOL v. MARTHA GRAHAM CENTER
THE MARTHA GRAHAM SCHOOL AND DANCE FOUNDATION, INC. AND RONALD A. PROTAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARTHA GRAHAM TRUST PLAINTIFFS,V.MARTHA GRAHAM CENTER OF CONTEMPORARY DANCE, INC. AND MARTHA GRAHAM SCHOOL OF CONTEMPORARY DANCE, INC. DEFENDANTS, ELIOT SPITZER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INTERVENOR-DEFENDANT.
What property did Martha Graham, the great dancer, choreographer, and
teacher, own at the time of her death in 1991? That is the central
question in the second phase of this lawsuit. The main dispute is with
respect to ownership of copyright in the dances she created. That is a
federal question. Subsidiary disputes with respect to ownership of the
costumes and sets for the dances and fiduciary duties owed by the
plaintiff to the defendants are
state law issues that arise from the same
nucleus of contested facts.
Between 1956 and her death in 1991, Martha Graham was employed by
defendants Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance Inc. ("the Center")
and Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance Inc. ("the School"), two
not-for-profit corporations that operated as a combined entity. During
that 35-year period, Graham created many dances with the members of the
Martha Graham Dance Company ("the Dance Company") and the students and
teachers at the School, all of whom were employed by the defendants.
Prior to 1956, Graham had been the individual proprietor of a dance
The parties agree that during her lifetime, Graham created 70 dances
that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression from which they can be
reproduced.*fn1 Thirty-four of those 70 dances were created after 1956
("the post-1956 dances"), during Graham's employment by the defendants,
and 36 were created prior to 1956 ("the pre-1956 dances"). Ronald
Protas, as legatee under Graham's will, and as trustee of the Martha
Graham Trust ("the Trust"), a revocable trust of which he is the
creator, trustee, and sole beneficiary, seeks a declaration that he owns
copyright in all of the 70 dances. Defendants counterclaim for a
declaration that the Center and the School are the true owners of all
rights in Graham's choreographic works and related sets, costumes, and
Based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, for the reasons that
follow, Protas has proved copyright ownership for the renewal term of one
dance. Defendants have proved ownership of copyright in 45 of the
dances. Ten dances, of which two were commissioned by third parties, are
in the public domain. With respect to five dances (two published and
three unpublished) which were commissioned, neither side has borne its
burden of proving that the commissioning party intended the copyright to
be reserved to Graham. Finally, neither side has proved that the
remaining nine dances, which were published, were published with the
required statutory copyright notice.
Protas also seeks replevin and a declaration of ownership of all
Noguchi sets created for the dances at issue and certain items of
tangible property.*fn2 Defendants counterclaim for breach of fiduciary
duty by Protas, and seek a constructive trust to recover the proceeds of
his licensing of the ballets, sets, and costumes to third parties and of
his sale of defendants' property to the Library of Congress. In
addition, defendants seek disgorgement of ten years of Protas' salary and
of payments made to Protas by defendants under a 1999 license agreement.
Defendants also seek the same recovery as damages for counterclaims of
fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Finally, defendants counterclaim
for replevin of various items of property that Protas currently possesses
and assert that Protas owes them money improperly borrowed.
During a bench trial held between April 22 and April 29, eighteen
witnesses testified in the courtroom and designations from the deposition
of one witness were
submitted. This trial was an effort to recapture a
history that partially predated the knowledge and memory of the living
witnesses. Accordingly, the few ancient documents that were produced
became very important guideposts.
Plaintiff called the following witnesses: (1) Francis Mason, who, in
1973 or 1974, became a member and Chairman of the Center's board of
directors. After two or three years, he became Chairman Emeritus of the
board. In 2001, Mason again became Chairman of the board; (2) Marvin
Preston, IV, who has considerable experience in the financial management
of companies, and who became Executive Director of the Center in March of
2000; (3) Kevin Rover who was, from 1984 to 1989, an attorney with the
firm of Morrison, Cohen, Singer, & Weinstein, counsel to the Martha
Graham Center. He joined the Center's board of directors in the late
1980s; (4) Linda Hodes, who first met Graham in 1940 when she went to
Graham's studio for a dance lesson, and who was a principal dancer with
the Dance Company from the early 1950s until 1964. In 1977, Hodes became
Director of the School and Rehearsal Director of the Dance Company.
Between the late 1980s and 1992, Hodes was a member of the Center's board
of directors. She also had the title of Associate Artistic Director; (5)
James McGarry, the attorney who drew Graham's last will in 1989; (6) Lee
Traub, who studied with Graham in 1942, was a member of the Center's
board of directors from 1974 to 1994 and Chairman of the board for ten
years; (7) Jeannette Roosevelt, who served as a member of the Center's
board of directors between 1965 or 1966 and 1973, and became President of
the Center in 1968; (8) Judith Schlosser, who has been a member of the
Center's board of directors since 1974 or 1975; (9) Ronald Protas, the
plaintiff, who met Graham in 1967, and who became an employee of the
defendants in 1972. By the mid-1970s, Protas had become Executive
Director and a board member of the Center and the School. In
approximately 1980, he was given the title of Co-Associate Artistic
Director; (10) Cynthia Parker-Kaback, who, in 1973, was hired as manager
of the Dance Company by Protas and served until 1982; (11) Petek Gunay,
an associate in the law office of plaintiff's counsel, who was assigned
by counsel to go to the New York Public Library and view videotapes
listed in one of defendants' exhibits.
Defendants called the following witnesses: (1) William McHenry, who was
a member of the Center's board of directors from 1967 to 1973; (2) Edmund
Pease, a certified financial analyst, who was a member of the Center's
board of directors between 1974 and 1979. He also served as Treasurer and
Vice-President; (3) Christopher Herrmann, who was assistant to the
General Director (Protas) in 1987, then Director of Special Events and
Projects until 1989, when he left the Center. In 1990, Herrmann returned
to the Center as Director of Film Projects; (4) Stuart Hodes, who was a
principal dancer with the Dance Company between 1947 and 1958, after which
he taught at the School and worked to help the School gain
accreditation; (5) Marvin Preston, see supra (6) Terese Capucilli, who
was a principal dancer with the Dance Company between 1979 and 1997,
Co-Associate Artistic Director from 1997 to 2000, and currently principal
dancer, Artistic Coordinator, and teacher at the School; (7) Christine
Dakin, a dancer with the Dance Company between 1976 and 2000, who is
currently a member of the dance faculty of the defendants; (8) Janet
Eilber, who became a principal dancer with the Dance Company in 1972 and
danced with the Company throughout the 1970s. She also was a teacher at
School. In 1998, she was invited to become Artistic Director for the
After observing the witnesses, evaluating their credibility and
weighing all of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact. I
incorporate in this opinion the findings of fact stated in my earlier
opinion, The Martha Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham
Ctr. of Contemporary Dance, Inc., 153 F. Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2001),
aff'd, No. 01-9055 (2d Cir. Jul. 2, 2002). Familiarity with the facts
detailed in that opinion is assumed. I will only repeat facts that are of
special significance to the claims at issue in this part of the case.
After listening to his evasive and inconsistent testimony and observing
his demeanor, I again find Protas not to be a credible witness.
Between 1930 and 1956, Graham operated a dance school as a sole
proprietorship. Prior to 1956, she created 36 of the dances at issue. She
was commissioned by a number of renowned musical and cultural
organizations to create seven dances, which were first performed between
1944 and 1953: Appalachian Spring, Herodiade, Dark Meadow, Cave of the
Heart, Night Journey, Judith (created in 1950)*fn3, and Canticle for
Innocent Comedians. In 1948, Graham was one of the incorporators of the
Martha Graham Foundation for Contemporary Dance ("the Foundation"), a
not-for-profit corporation that was renamed the Martha Graham Center of
Contemporary Dance in 1968.
In December of 1956, Graham sold the dance school she had been running
as a sole proprietorship to the then newly incorporated not-for-profit,
Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance, Inc. The purposes of the
School, as stated in its certificate of incorporation were to, inter
alia, "teach the science and art of the dance," and "in conjunction with
the conduct of such school, . . . to compose, perform and demonstrate,
and to commission the composition, performance and demonstration of
dances, ballets, dramas and music . . . ."
The Center operated as an umbrella organization, encompassing the
teaching, choreographing, and performing of dances by the School and the
Dance Company. The defendants — the Center and the School —
operated as one entity. They were located on the same premises; for many
years, they had identical boards of directors which held joint meetings;
funds from the Center were used to pay the School's expenses for sets and
costumes; and the accounts of the School and Center were combined for
In December of 1956, when Graham sold her sole proprietorship to the
School, she entered into a ten-year employment agreement with the School
to serve as "Program Director." Graham's job title later changed to
"Artistic Director." There was uniform credible testimony that Graham was
an employee of the defendants until her death in 1991. Protas conceded in
his testimony that Graham was an employee of the Center. In January
1958, the School submitted a tax protest ("the protest") to Internal
Revenue in defense of its previous request for exemption from federal
income tax. The protest stated that Graham had "full charge and
responsibility for the educational program of the corporation."
Minutes of a combined annual meeting of the School's members and board
of directors in June of 1966 show that Graham's employment agreement was
for another ten years. As Artistic Director, it was her
responsibility to create new dances, to maintain the repertory of
dances, to rehearse the company, and to supervise the School. Francis
Mason, Judith Schlosser, and Lee Traub, members of the Center's board of
directors, testified credibly that Graham's responsibilities during her
employment included the creation of dances. During the entire period of
her employment, the defendants paid her a salary from which they withheld
taxes. They paid social security tax for her and also paid for her
personal, travel, and medical expenses and other employee benefits.
In January 1957, in the course of developing the School as the center
of her "theatre," Graham gave all of her theatrical properties to the
School. In this transfer, Graham included 16 complete theatrical sets,
most of which had been created by the renowned artist, Isamu Noguchi, the
entire costume wardrobe used with the sixteen works, and all her
electrical and basic stage equipment. In 1969, Graham donated to the
Center a collection of books and various biographical materials which a
professional appraiser valued at $2,500.
In 1968, LeRoy Leatherman, Executive Administrator of the Center,
denied a request by the director of the Netherlands School to perform the
dances created by Graham. In his letter denying the request, Leatherman
stated that Graham had assigned all performing rights to the Center. In
1971, Leatherman wrote a letter on behalf of Graham to Linda Hodes,
responding to Hodes' request to perform the dances during her time at the
Netherlands Dance Theater. He stated in that letter that Graham had
"assigned all rights to all of her works to the Martha Graham Center,
Inc." LeRoy Leatherman was the principal managerial employee of the
defendants and a member of the board of directors of the School from its
founding in 1956 to 1972. In January of 1958, as Secretary and Treasurer
of the School, he signed the tax protest submitted to Internal Revenue by
the School and stated that the information contained in the protest was
true to his knowledge, information, and belief. Jeanette Roosevelt, who
served as a member of the Center's board of directors from 1965 or 1966
until the end of 1972, and as President of the Center and of the School
from 1968, testified credibly that Leatherman was very loyal to Graham
and was concerned that her wishes be met. Roosevelt also testified
credibly that during the period in which she served on the board, it was
the board's understanding that Graham "gave" her works to the Center and
that "whenever dances were created, they would become works that the
board was responsible for."
In 1974, Edmund Pease, Treasurer and member of the Center's board of
directors, with the aid of Lutz and Carr, an accounting firm, undertook
"a thorough study" of the commingling of the assets belonging to the
Center and to Graham with the purpose of determining what belonged to
whom. According to Pease, his examination of documents dating back to
1948 revealed that dance royalties had been paid to the Foundation/Center
and that the Center had borne the expense of creating the sets and
costumes. The study's final report concluded that the Center's assets
included the dances, sets, and costumes, and recommended that these items
be carried on the Center's balance sheet as assets at nominal value.
Pease personally submitted this report to Graham. She did not express any
disagreement with the report's findings. Pease thereafter presented the
report to the Center's board of directors while Graham was present.
Francis Mason, member and Chairman of the Center's board of directors at
that time, testified that the board approved
Pease's report. The report
and the board minutes pertaining to this period have been lost or
destroyed. Pease was a forthcoming and credible witness at trial.
Ronald Protas first became acquainted with Graham in approximately
1967, when he was a 26-year-old freelance photographer. The two developed
a close friendship. Over the years, under Graham's auspices, Protas
became an increasingly important figure at the Center. His arrival in
1972 as a Center employee was followed shortly by resignations, requested
by Graham, of longstanding members of the board who had personal
knowledge of the Center's history. Protas was copied on some of the
resignation letters that were received in response to Graham's request.
Although he was not a dancer, by the mid-1970s, Protas had become
Executive Director of the Center and a board member of the Center and the
School. In approximately 1980, he was given the title of Co-Associate
Protas maintained control over the Center's board minutes and
book-keeping by hiring as Center employees individuals who regarded him
as the "boss," reported to him, and "accepted his word." In 1973, Protas
hired Cynthia Parker-Kaback to serve as a manager for the Dance Company.
She remained a Center employee until 1982. Parker-Kaback frequently
attended the Center's board meetings and typed the minutes of those
meetings. At the first trial, she testified credibly that she gave Protas
the minutes for his approval before disseminating them. In addition,
Judith Schlosser, a member of the Center's board of directors, testified
credibly that the minutes were "usually edited by Mr. Protas."
In 1973, Protas also hired Michele Etienne, who served as the Center's
business manager until 1998. On cross-examination at the first trial,
Etienne testified that during her employment at the Center, no royalty
payments were made to Martha Graham. Although I did not believe much of
Etienne's testimony, I do credit her statement that no royalties were
paid to Graham by defendants. In spite of that admission, Etienne
testified at the first trial that on April 14, 1989, she prepared a
memorandum for Protas stating that "[i]n accordance with the Board of
Trustees resolution of 1987 Ms. Graham is being paid a royalty of $40,000
per annum for the use of her ballets, her costumes and her Noguchi sets."
Protas had easy access to the Center's funds, and he supervised the
Center employees who kept the books. In 1992, Protas "took" $10,000 as a
bonus for himself from the Center's funds and later informed Michele
Etienne that he had done so. He also borrowed $7,000 and $2,500 on
separate occasions from the Center. In addition, in November of 1985,
Lutz and Carr, accountants for the Center and School, notified Lee
Traub, Chairman of the Center's board of directors, that Protas owed the
Center money and that he had "refuse[d] to acknowledge his debt to the
Martha Graham Center and School." In December of 1985, Protas wrote to
Traub giving examples of what he had spent some of the money on. In
explaining that he had spent some of the money on film, video cassettes,
and camera equipment, he stated that the "camera equipment . . . reamins
[sic] the property of the [C]enter," and that "I donate my photographs
for the use of the [C]enter."
As Graham's physical abilities waned in the final years of her life,
Protas became her spokesperson. Judith Schlosser testified credibly at
the first trial that Graham did not attend board meetings regularly
between 1987 and 1991 and that the board would learn of her views through
"Ron Protas would say, Martha wants, or Martha said, or Martha
Although he was a fiduciary of the defendants, Protas was aware of his
personal interest and the potentiality of conflict. In June of 1988,
Protas wrote to Alex Racolin, a member of the Center's board of
directors. In that letter, Protas stated that he "ultimately . . .
want[ed]" Rick Burke, a board member, "off the board and friends on,
right now the board is tilting in a direction I do not understand and it
scares me." In the same letter, Protas wrote: "[f]or now I want to do
everything possible to strengthen my position, in terms of [M]artha's
will, board people and the sets." Lee Traub, a member of the Center's
board of directors, testified credibly that Protas had the "final say" on
who could or could not be a board member: "He put them on and took them
In June of 1988, Peter Morrison, a member of the Center's board of
directors, commenced an investigation into the ownership of Noguchi
sets. A mysterious document, entitled "Addendum to the Minutes of the
Board of Trustees" for June 23, 1988, a separate page that was not
incorporated into the board minutes for that day, states that "[t]he
Board unanimously confirmed that all of the sets of Isamu Noguchi were
given to Martha Graham, and that if some were credited to the [C]enter's
assets, that this was incorrect and would be changed. It was only asked
that it be formally implemented through Peter Morrison." It is hard to
understand why such a freestanding addendum to the board minutes was
necessary. All drafts of minutes, however, were edited by Protas before
they were circulated.
When Morrison fell ill, Kevin Rover, a member of the Center's board,
took over the investigation. Rover testified credibly that he was not
shown numerous documents pertaining to the ownership of the sets and
costumes, including, in particular, documents referring to Graham's 1957
transfer of all theatrical properties to the School. Evidence admitted at
the first trial shows that Protas wrote Rover a letter stating that:
As we discussed last evening I feel the best way to
go forward immediately is to accept Martha's offer to
allow the use of the Herodiade set to be used as a
loan at Sotheby. The ballet was done in 1944, long
before the School or Company [w]as incorporated; so
there should be no Rick Burke problem.
Protas then attached the letter addressed to Rover to another letter
that he sent to Michael Stout, an attorney, in connection with using some
pieces from the Noguchi sets as collateral for a loan from Sotheby's. In
the letter to Stout, Protas stated that: "I sent the attached note to
Kevin Rover who said there was no problem stating Martha owned her sets
prior to 1949. If we could go forward on this with Sotheby's it would be a
Also admitted at the previous trial was a letter to Protas from Rick
Burke, President of the Center and a member of the board of directors.
As far as the art is concerned, it concerned me that
last year you attempted to move the art from the
Center back to Martha and the Board delay [sic] a
decision until we had legal advice which we never
acted on. I did talk to Peter who stated flately [sic]
that all the art was owned by the Center to protect
them from inheretance [sic] taxes and give the Center
the necessary assets to finance the company. Your
action without talking to me, concerned me and other
members of the Board. No one disputes you run the show
and deserve what ever Martha wants to give you.
Based on his limited information, on July 18, 1989, Rover announced to
the board of directors that in his opinion, "the financial records
indicated no grounds for ownership by the Center, and that Ron had acted
within the scope of his authority as General Director of the Martha
Graham Center." The board then adopted resolutions "recognizing Martha
Graham as owner of the Noguchi sets and jewelry" and "ratif[ying] actions
undertaken by Protas to secure loans from Sotheby's" while using six
Noguchi sculptures as collateral. On June 21, 1989, Protas wrote to
Sotheby's to confirm that the Center consented to Sotheby's loan on April
26, 1989 of $200,000 to Graham and that the Center also consented to an
additional loan of $475,000 by Sotheby's to Graham.
In June of 1990, the board authorized the Center to accept six Noguchi
sculptures (3 Herodiade sculptures, Lyre, Cave of the Heart and Wood
Sculpture of a Horse) as a gift from Graham, subject to her right to
purchase these sculptures within the five-year period immediately
following the date of her gift. The board also resolved that the Center
would sell these sculptures to the J.M. Kaplan Fund for $600,000, subject
to the Center's right to purchase the sculptures during the subsequent
five years. In June 1990, Sotheby's released its security interest in the
six sculptures, and the Center assigned all of its rights in the
sculptures to the J.M. Kaplan Fund subject to an option to purchase the
sculptures within five years.
Martha Graham died in April of 1991. Her last will, executed on January
19, 1989, named Protas as sole executor and legatee, but did not specify
what she owned at the time of her death. James McGarry, the attorney who
drew that will, testified credibly at the first trial that he prepared it
in "no more than an hour, a will of that type." He also testified that he
was not asked to conduct an investigation as to what intellectual
property, costumes, and sets Graham owned at that time, and that he did
not conduct such an investigation. The will contains the following
The residue . . . of all my property, real and
personal, of every kind and description and wherever
situated, including all property over which I may have
power of appointment at the time of my death . . . and
including all property not otherwise effectively
disposed of hereunder . . . I give, devise and
bequeath to my said friend, Ron Protas, if he shall
survive me, or, if he shall not survive me, to the
In connection with any rights or interests in any
dance works, musical scores, scenery sets, my personal
papers and the use of my name, which may pass to my
said friend Ron Protas . . . I request, but do not
enjoin, that he consult with my friends, Linda Hodes,
Diane Gray, Halston, Ted Michaelson, Alex Racolin and
Lee Traub, regarding the use of such rights or
After Graham's death, Protas succeeded her as Artistic Director of the
Center and the School, and continued to serve as a member of the Center's
board of directors. In 1992, attorneys who represented Protas as executor
of Graham's estate recommended to him that "an investigation be made as
to what rights the Estate actually owns and the status of copyright
registrations, if any . . . ." Protas made no such investigation. I did
not credit Protas' testimony at the first trial that he told Alex
Racolin, a member of the Center's board of directors who is now
deceased, of his attorneys' recommendations, and that he was "almost a
100 percent sure that [Racolin] mentioned it at a board meeting to the
other board members." There are no
board minutes which show that such a
Protas represented to the directors of the Center that he "owned
everything" including the Noguchi sets and the copyrights in all the
dances. The board members accepted Protas' representations because, as
Francis Mason, the current chairman of the Center's board of directors,
and a very credible witness, testified, "[w]e trusted Mr. Protas." The
only evidence of a communication from Protas to Racolin after Graham's
death is a letter that Protas wrote dated 29th August, 1991 that made it
appear that Graham, and not the Center, owned the ballets, sets,
costumes, and dance films.
I spoke with Chris about the information of the
use of the ballets, costumes and sets for the
Center. Since Michele is on holiday, I have asked
her assistant, Adrienne, to look for all relevant
I have a clear recollection that at a board meeting
there was a resolution that for the use of the
ballets, costumes and sets for performances of the
Martha Graham Dance Company, the Center would pay
Martha a royalty of $100,000 beyond her ordinary
To my knowledge, there was never an actual agreement
or signed contract and past history always had the
Center paying Martha a separate royalty for the use of
the ballets in a film. I was concerned about this
myself and somewhere, if I can ever find it, is a
letter from Martha stating, or clarifying, that the
films or the use of the Noguchi's [sic] had to be a
In regard to the Noguchi castings, it was left to
Martha and I to decide what, if anything, we would
give to the Center and everyone was very grateful when
Kevin Rover and I worked out a contract giving the
Center 40% of the income. I don't know if I want to
keep this arrangement in all instances. I would like
to keep that option open. I know in the two films made
for PBS over 15 years ago, Martha was paid a separate
royalty by PBS. It could have been higher but she
chose to have most of the funds for the films go to
the Center, at that time.
In regard to the NHK Japanese Film and the Danish
Film, it was my understanding that Martha allowed
the use of the choreography only for the Danish
American Showing, and only for the showing of the
Japanese Film in Japan. Everything else was left
for a separate arrangement which was agreeable to
I realize now I should have been clear about all of
this. There is some background correspondence but I
will have to do an all out search for it if it is
really necessary. My feeling is that no one on the
Board would object to an equitable arrangement. Of
course one man's equity is another man's etc. . . .
I know that at the time of the resolution it was
understood that it was only for the Company to
perform the ballets live, and tour with them.
Film deals, cassettes and all the rest were never
considered part of the agreement. . . .
P.S. I am not delaying this fax any longer. I had
hoped Adrienne would find the relevant materials,
There is no evidence of any "background correspondence" that
corroborated any of what Protas stated in his letter to Racolin. Indeed,
as he noted in his letter, Etienne's assistant could not find "the
relevant materials." Many of Protas' statements to Racolin in
were inaccurate or misleading. His statements regarding the payment of
royalties by the Center to Graham were inaccurate. As noted above,
Michele Etienne testified credibly that during her employment at the
Center, no royalty payments were made to Martha Graham. At the time that
Protas wrote the letter to Racolin, he had been the principal managerial
employee of the defendants for nearly two decades. It is surprising that
he was unaware that no royalties had been paid to Graham by the Center.
Protas' statements to Racolin implying that the defendants had no
rights in the films and that "it was only for the Company to perform the
ballets live" were misleading. In 1973, Protas himself negotiated a
contract pertaining to dance films, retaining "all rights" for the
Center, and wrote a letter to Arnold Weissberger stating that:
I am making arrangements to have a work film made of
"Clytemnestra" and "Secular Games", "Myth of a Voyage"
and "Mendicants of the Evening". I would be grateful
if we could draw up a contract between the Center and
the photographer, Mr. Nathaniel Tripp, stating that we
retain all rights to these films and that he has no
authority to make duplicates of them.
Furthermore, Protas had personal knowledge that it was the Center, and
not Graham, that received royalties from PBS for at least one film.
Minutes of the Center's board of directors' meeting for October 18, 1984
Ron Protas then detailed to the Board the
extraordinary filming deal Jim Nomikos had made in
Denmark. The Center nows [sic] owns the 90 minute film
of the three ballets — "Cave of the Heart",
"Errand into the Maze", and "Acts of Light" —
which it will sell to PBS for $100,000 and possibly to
various European countries. . . . Ron thanked the
Board saying that without their support the deal could
Lee Traub asked how much money had been received from
the PBS film; Jim said that it was $100,000. Jim
Nomikos also said that because the Center now owned
the film and all the rights, it could now sell the
broadcast rights and also, possibly, videocassettes
around the world. The film could, therefore, generate
several hundred thousand dollars income for the
Center. The deal was significantly different than all
previous film deals the Center had been involved in
where it received a fixed fee and no percentage of
film sales/broadcast rights.
Ron Protas added the . . . most extraordinary thing
about the deal was that Jim Nomikos had sensed that
the original NVC deal (where the Center would receive
only a fee) was not best for the Center . . . .
The other PBS film that was produced prior to 1984 was "3 by Martha
Graham." That film was published in 1969 with notice of the Center's
copyright, and the credits at the end of the film list Protas' name for
"still photographs." A preponderance of the credible evidence shows that
the Center owned all the rights in this film and in the works contained
therein and received royalties from licensing this film. William
McHenry, a member of the Center's board of directors, testified credibly
that in 1969 or 1970, he had negotiated on behalf of the Center the
licensing of this film to "N.E.T.," now known as PBS. In a 1969 letter
addressed to N.E.T. and copied to Leatherman, McHenry stated that "[i]n
the United States we reserve film rights for all uses; outside the United
are to have all rights." In 1970, Leatherman, on behalf of the
Center, executed a license agreement that assured to the Center 25
percent of all gross proceeds in connection with the sale and/or
disposition of prints of the film.
With respect to the NHK film, Protas stated to Racolin that "it is my
understanding that Martha allowed the use of the choreography only for
the Danish American Showing, and only for the showing of the Japanese
Film in Japan." Contrary to Protas' "understanding," in September of
1990, the Center entered into an agreement with NHK with respect to two
taped dance performances. Protas, as General Director, represented the
Center in that agreement. The agreement stated that the Center retained
"all broadcast rights outside of Japan," and "the rights to perform" the
two dance programs.
In November of 1993, Protas assigned to the Center forty percent of his
interest in the Isamu Noguchi sculpture entitled "Herodiade." The ballet
Herodiade was created by Graham in 1944. The sets for Herodiade were
donated to the School by Graham in 1957 along with other Noguchi sets and
In April of 1998, on behalf of his personal Trust, Protas entered into
an agreement with the Library of Congress for the sale of a collection of
various items for the price of $500,000 to be paid in five annual
installments. This collection contained scrapbooks, photographs, films,
videos, files, letters, programs and notebooks.*fn4 The Center's
business and student records were among the items sold. Protas testified
that at the time that he entered into the agreement with the Library of
Congress, he did not know that Graham had donated many of her books and
biographical materials to the Center in 1969.
In the late 1990s, relations between Protas and other members of the
defendants' board of directors deteriorated. On July 15, 1999, with the
principal motive of persuading Protas to resign as Artistic Director, the
Center and the School entered into a ten-year license agreement with the
Martha Graham Trust. The license agreement purported to license the
ballets, sets, and costumes to the defendants. It contained the following
The Trust grants the Center a non-exclusive live
performance license to the Martha Graham Ballets (MG
Works) specified on the Applicable Works Addendum
(Works Addendum). MG works listed within the section
of the Works Addendum titled "Company Works" are
licensed for performance by the Martha Graham Dance
Company ("Company."). MG Works listed within the
section of the Works Addendum titled "Ensemble Works"
are licensed for performance by the Ensemble of the
("Ensemble") . . . .
The Trust grants the Center a non-exclusive use
license to the Martha Graham Scenic, Costume and
Properties Collection ("Collection") for
performances, by the Company, Ensemble and School of
MG Works licensed herein. . . .
To the extent that any rights to any . . . MG Work
is deemed hereafter to accrue to the Center, the
School, Company or Ensemble, the Center assigns
any or all such rights at such time as they may be
deemed to accrue . . . to the Trust. . . .
The "Works Addendum," which was supposed to contain a list of dances
for which the Center was granted a non-exclusive live performance
license, was never completed or signed.
In 2000, Marvin Preston, the current Executive Director of the Center
who has considerable experience in the financial management of
companies, undertook a financial assessment of the defendants based on
several years of audited financial statements, payroll records, general
ledgers, budgets, and other operational documents. He testified credibly
that the defendants' profit and loss accounts revealed expenses related
to the sets and costumes from which it could be inferred that the sets
and costumes were the assets of the defendants.
On May 25, 2000, Protas sent a letter to Francis Mason, the Acting
Chairman of the Center's board of directors, terminating the license
agreement "effective 12:01 AM EDT on May 26, 2000." On June 22, 2000, the
Center's board voted to remove Protas from the board of directors. In
July of 2000, Protas began to apply to register copyright in 40 of
Graham's choreographic works as unpublished works and obtained
certificates of copyright registration for 30 of the works at issue.
The Center began to apply for copyright registration of 15 dances in
January 2001. It obtained certificates of copyright registration for 12
dances and certificates of copyright renewal for three dances, Seraphic
Dialogue, Cortege of Eagles, and Acrobats of God, as published in the
film "3 by Martha Graham." The parties have competing certificates of
copyright registration for eight works, three of which are unpublished.
Five reliable documents show that films of 26 dances, 16 of which were
created by Graham prior to 1956 and ten of which were created after
1956, have been distributed to the public for money, i.e., published
within the meaning of both the 1909 and the 1976 Copyright Acts. The 16
pre-1956 published dances and their years of first publication are: Flute
of Krishna (1923), Heretic (1930), Lamentation (1930), Celebration
(1934), Frontier (1935), Panorama (1935), Chronicle/Steps in the Street
(1936), American Document (1938), El Penitente (1991), Herodiade (1991),
Appalachian Spring (1959), Cave of the Heart (1976), Errand into the Maze
(1984), Night Journey (1960), Diversion of Angels (1976), and Seraphic
Dialogue (1969). The ten post-1956 published dances and their years of
first publication are: Clytemnestra (1979), Acrobats of God (1969), Circe
(published before 1993), Cortege of Eagles (1969), Adorations (1976), Acts
of Light (1984), The Rite of Spring (published before 1993), Temptations
of the Moon (published before 1993), Night Chant (published before
1993), and Maple Leaf Rag (1991).
The five documents contain overlapping lists of published dances. While
the first two documents described below suffice to show that 26 dances
have been published, publication of many of the films contained in those
two documents is confirmed by three additional documents. The first
document, admitted into evidence "in its entirety," i.e., for all
purposes, is a list prepared by Christina Duda, Protas' assistant, of 21
ballets that have been "filmed and sold." In February of 1993, after his
attorney sought information on publication with a view to applying to the
Copyright Office for registration of copyright in choreography,
was specifically informed by his Duda that the following 21 dances had
been "filmed and sold": Frontier, Panorama, Chronicle/Steps in the
Street, American Document, El Penitente, Herodiade, Appalachian Spring,
Cave of the Heart, Errand into the Maze, Night Journey, Diversion of
Angels, Seraphic Dialogue, Clytemnestra, Acrobats of God, Circe, Cortege
of Eagles, Acts of Light, The Rite of Spring, Temptations of the Moon,
Night Chant, and Maple Leaf Rag. Christopher Herrmann, Director of Film
Projects at the Center, testified credibly that films of those 21 dances
were "made available to the public for money." He also testified that the
School ran a boutique that sold videotapes of Graham's dances. Despite
his knowledge that these 21 films had been published, beginning in July
of 2000, Protas applied to register 19 of the 21 dances as unpublished
works and obtained certificates of copyright registration for 15 of
Another document prepared by Christopher Herrmann in 1990 contains a
list of 19 "commercially produced" films. These 19 films and their dates
of publication are: Flute of Krishna (1923), Heretic (1930), Lamentation
(1930, 1943, and 1976), Celebration (1934), Frontier (1935 and 1976),
Panorama (1935), Chronicle/Steps in the Street (1936), American Document
(1938), Appalachian Spring (1959 and 1976), Cave of the Heart (1976 and
1984), Errand into the Maze (1984), Night Journey (1960), Diversion of
Angels (1976), Seraphic Dialogue (1969), Clytemnestra (1979), Acrobats of
God (1969), Cortege of Eagles (1969), Adorations (1976), and Acts of
Light (1984).*fn5 Most of the dances in the list of commercially
produced films are also contained in the list of dances that were filmed
Among the commercially produced films, Seraphic Dialogue, Acrobats of
God, and Cortege of Eagles are listed together as works distributed in
1969 and available from "Pyramid Films." A "Pyramid Home Video"
videocassette of "3 by Martha Graham" was received in evidence. This
videocassette carries a 1969 notice of copyright in the Center's name on
its cover and at the end of the film. Furthermore, in a June 1, 2001
letter, the Copyright Office told Protas' attorney that "`3 by Martha
Graham' was . . . first published in 1969 or 1970 and was subsequently
released by Pyramid Home Video. The videotape is now widely available
. . . ." New York Public Library records also show that "3 by Martha
Graham" was produced by the Center in 1969 and released in 1970, and that
this film's distributor was "Pyramid Film & Video." In addition,
Francis Mason testified credibly that this film was available for sale.
A 1991 letter introduced by Protas for the purpose of showing that
Martha Graham received royalties for "film distribution through Phoenix
Films" establishes that two dances, Appalachian Spring and Night
Journey, which also appear in both of the aforementioned lists, were
being distributed in about 1961.*fn6 Christopher Herrmann testified
credibly that the dance films distributed by "Phoenix Films" were
available in video stores. The fourth document, contained in the catalog
of the New York Public Library, shows that seven of the 26 published
dances were rented or
sold prior to 1975.*fn7 The seven dances are:
Flute of Krishna, Lamentation, Appalachian Spring, Night Journey,
Seraphic Dialogue, Acrobats of God, and Cortege of Eagles.
Fifth, a June 1, 2001 letter from the Copyright Office to Protas'
attorney raised serious questions regarding the publication status of
many of the 26 published dances. It also noted that publication of 11
dances which Protas had previously registered as unpublished works was
"certain or likely": Frontier, Lamentation, El Penitente, Herodiade,
Appalachian Spring, Cave of the Heart, Night Journey, Diversion of
Angels, Acrobats of God, Cortege of Eagles, and Maple Leaf Rag. The
letter listed multiple ways in which many of the works had been
published. In particular, it stated that El Penitente, Maple Leaf Rag, and
Herodiade were certain or likely to have been published in 1991 in "Five
Dances by Martha Graham," a film that was "commercially available from
several on-line sources." The Copyright Office also noted that
publication of Seraphic Dialogue, Adoration, and Chronicle/Steps in the
Street, for which Protas' copyright applications were then pending, was
certain or likely.
The Copyright Office requested comments from Protas regarding the
publication status of each of those 14 works and underscored its request
Please be aware that the question of publication is
extremely important to a copyright registration as it
affects the deposit copy, copyright notice
requirements, and even how a court might view the
facts given on a particular registration. In light of
the seriousness of this subject, we would appreciate
your thorough research in this area concerning both
current claims and those already registered so that
the most accurate claims possible might be put on
In the same letter, based on Protas' attorney's previous response to
its specific query regarding the publication status of Clytemnestra, the
Copyright Office advised that Protas' application for Clytemnestra as an
"unpublished work" would be processed. Clytemnestra is on the list of 21
published works to which Protas was privy in February of 1993.
Protas applied to register copyright in the choreography of Seraphic
Dialogue, Cortege of Eagles and Acrobats of God. As discussed above,
these three dances were published in 1969 in the film "3 by Martha
Graham" with a 1969 notice of copyright in the Center's name. Protas' own
name appeared in the credits of this film as one of the two individuals
responsible for "still photographs." Yet, he represented to the Copyright
Office that these were unpublished works.
In a letter dated February 23, 2001, in response to the Copyright
Office's request for clarification, Protas' attorney stated that "the
deposit copy [for Seraphic Dialogue] is from a `published' videotape made
available in 1992." Had Protas submitted the first published film of
Seraphic Dialogue in accordance with the Copyright Office's deposit
requirements, he could not have concealed the 1969 notice of copyright in
the Center's name. Protas testified that he had seen "some of" this film
with Graham in 1969 or 1970 "when it was first made," but that he did not
see the notice of copyright.
The copyright claims in this case have to be assessed through the prism
changes in the copyright law that took effect in 1978, 1989, and
1992. See Copyright Act of 1909 ("1909 Act"), 17 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
(1976 ed.) (superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976); Copyright Act of
1976 ("1976 Act"), 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. (effective Jan. 1,
1978); The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No.
100-568, 102 Stat. 2853 (1988) (effective March 1, 1989); The Copyright
Renewal Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-307 § 101, 106 Stat. 264 (June
26, 1992) (applying to the renewal of works which secured statutory
copyright between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977). The chronology
of creation, publication, and copyright registration and renewal of the
choreography of each dance is critical to a determination of copyright
Plaintiff takes the position that defendants have no rights in the
ballets since the 1999 license agreement that they signed with the Trust
specifically provided that all licenses granted thereunder reverted to the
Trust upon the contract's termination. Furthermore, plaintiff argues that
the doctrine of licensee estoppel bars defendants from claiming ownership
of the ballets, sets, and costumes.
(Works Addendum) MG works listed within the section of
the Works Addendum titled "Company Works" are licensed
for performance by the Martha Graham Dance Company
("Company"). MG Works listed within the section of the
Works Addendum titled "Ensemble Works" are licensed
for performance by the Ensemble of the Martha Graham
School of Contemporary Dance ("Ensemble").
This agreement is incomplete because no "Applicable Works Addendum" was
ever finalized by Protas. No addendum was ever signed. Accordingly, the
copyright provisions of the license agreement never took effect.
Moreover, a license agreement that never took effect cannot provide the
foundation for plaintiff's claim of licensee estoppel.
There is clear and persuasive evidence that films of 16 of the pre-1956
works and ten of the post-1956 works were "commercially produced" and/or
"filmed and sold." Seven of these 26 works were also "rented or sold,"
and two were distributed by Phoenix Films.
The 1909 Act did not define "publication," but the Second Circuit has
defined the term: "[P]ublication occurs when by consent of the copyright
owner, the original or tangible copies of a work are sold, leased,
loaned, given away, or otherwise made available to the general public."
Shoptalk, Ltd. v. Concorde-New Horizons Corp., 168 F.3d 586, 590 (2d
Cir. 1999) (quoting Bartok v. Boosey & Hawkes, Inc., 523 F.2d 941,
945 (2d Cir. 1975)).
"Publication" is the distribution of copies or
phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other
transfer or ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a
group of persons for purposes of further distribution,
public performance, or public display, constitutes
publication. A public performance or display of a work
does not of itself constitute publication.
17 U.S.C. § 101. See Agee v. Paramount Communications Inc.,
59 F.3d 317, 325 (2d Cir. 1995).
Sale, rental, and distribution of films for money all constitute
"publication" under both the 1909 and the 1976 Acts. The term
"commercially produced" means that the films were produced and introduced
into commerce for money, through sale, lease, or rental. Accordingly, 26
of the dances have been published.
Both plaintiff and defendants agree that to establish ownership of
copyright in a published work, a claimant must show that the work was
published with adequate notice of copyright. Proof of authorship may be
sufficient to establish copyright ownership in an unpublished work. With
respect to a published work, however, the claimant has the burden of
showing that the work was published in compliance with statutory
formalities, and in particular, that it carried the requisite copyright
It is well established that "[t]o show ownership of a valid copyright,
[the party claiming copyright ownership] . . . bears the burden of
proving . . . that he has complied with the requisite statutory
formalities." Saenger Org., Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Licensing Assoc.,
Inc., 119 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 1997); see Geoscan, Inc. of Texas v.
Geotrace Tech., Inc. 226 F.3d 387, 393 (5th Cir. 2000); Montgomery v.
Noga, 168 F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 1999). See also Broadcast Music,
Inc. v. Patsal Corp., 1993 WL 464689, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Broadcast
Music, Inc. v. Hearst/ABC Viacom Ent. Servs., 746 F. Supp. 320, 328 n. 7
(S.D.N.Y. 1990).
With respect to published works, the affixation of adequate notice was
the principal "statutory formality" required for copyright protection
prior to March 1, 1989. On March 1, 1989, United States adherence to the
Berne Convention abolished affixation of notice as a statutory
requirement for securing copyright. The Berne Convention Implementation
Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853 § 7 (1988)
(effective March 1, 1989); 17 U.S.C. § 401 (a) ("[A] notice of
copyright may be placed on publicly distributed copies . . . .")
(emphasis added). But works published prior to March 1, 1989 did not
secure statutory copyright protection unless adequate copyright notice
was affixed to the published copies. 17 U.S.C. § 10 (1976 ed.) ("Any
person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by
publication thereof with the notice of copyright . . .");
17 U.S.C. § 405 (a) (stating notice requirements for works published
before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of
Both sides have procured certificates of copyright in dances described
in the applications as unpublished works. Protas has 30*fn8 such
certificates, and defendants 12. Defendants have also obtained
certificates of copyright renewal for three dances described as published
The 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c) provides that:
In any judicial proceedings the certificate of a
registration made before or within five years after
first publication of the work shall constitute prima
facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of
the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary
weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration
made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the
It is undisputed that the Copyright Office has no record of any
copyright registration made prior to 2000 for any of the dances at
issue. In 2000 and 2001, Protas obtained certificates of copyright
registration for 30 dances as unpublished works. Of these 30
certificates, 17 are for pre-1956 works: Flute of Krishna, Tanagra,
Heretic, Lamentation, Primitive Mysteries, Satyric Festival Song,
Frontier, Deep Song, Every Soul is a Circus, El Penitente, Punch and the
Judy, Herodiade, Appalachian Spring, Cave of the Heart, Errand into the
Maze, Night Journey, and Diversion of Angels. The remaining 13
certificates are for post-1956 works: Embattled Garden, Acrobats of God,
Phaedra, Circe, Cortege of Eagles, The Owl and the Pussycat, Judith,
Phaedra's Dream, The Rite of Spring, Tangled Night, Temptations of the
Moon, Night Chant, and Maple Leaf Rag.*fn9
A preponderance of the credible evidence shows that 18 of the 30 dances
registered by Protas as unpublished had been published at least seven
years before the Copyright Office received any applications for copyright
registration from him. Those 18 dances are: Flute of Krishna, Heretic,
Lamentation, Frontier, El Penitente, Appalachian Spring, Herodiade, Cave
of the Heart, Night Journey, Errand into the Maze, Diversion of Angels,
Acrobats of God, Circe, Cortege of Eagles, The Rite of Spring,
Temptations of the Moon, Night Chant, and Maple Leaf Rag. Accordingly,
Protas' certificates of registration for these 18 works do not constitute
prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyrights or of the facts
stated in the certificates. 17 U.S.C. § 410 (c).
Moreover, the evidence is clear and convincing that Protas procured 15
of these certificates by deliberately misrepresenting the publication
status of the dances. Those dances are: Frontier, El Penitente, Errand
into the Maze, Herodiade, Appalachian Spring, Cave of the Heart, Night
Journey, Diversion of Angels, Acrobats of God, Circe, Cortege of Eagles,
The Rite of Spring, Temptations of the Moon, Night Chant, and Maple Leaf
Rag. By February 1993, Protas knew that those 15 dances had been
published. Yet, more than five years later, he applied for and obtained
certificates of copyright registration for the choreography of these
dances as unpublished works. Protas' representations to the ...