Opinion ID: 457915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the ASCAP License

Text: 12 Paragraph one of the ASCAP license gives MGM Grand the right to perform publicly non-dramatic renditions of the separate musical compositions in the ASCAP repertory. 1 Paragraph three excludes from the license dramatico-musical works, or songs [accompanied by] visual representation of the work from which the music is taken.... 2 The district court addressed both of these clauses and concluded that Act IV of Hallelujah Hollywood was nondramatic but contained visual representations of plaintiffs' play. The court therefore held that Act IV exceeded the scope of the ASCAP license. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of the agreement because the court interpreted the agreement from the face of the document and as a matter of law. In re Financial Securities Litigation, 729 F.2d 628, 631-32 (9th Cir.1984). We apply the clearly erroneous standard to its findings as to the sufficiency of the visual representations. 13 We agree with the result reached by the district court, but not with its approach. We agree that Act IV Kismet was accompanied by visual representation of plaintiffs' play. Accordingly, defendants' use was excluded from the ASCAP license by the express terms of paragraph three. We conclude, however, that there is no reason to consider, as the district court did, whether Act IV was non-dramatic. 14 The district court found the following visual representations: plaintiffs' songs were performed in Hallelujah Hollywood by singers identified as characters from plaintiffs' Kismet, dressed in costumes designed to recreate Kismet, and the performance made use of locale, settings, scenery, props, and dance style music of the type used in plaintiffs' work. 15 The defendants do not challenge the finding that their production contained these visual representations. They argue, instead, that the district court failed to give sufficient consideration to whether the visual representations in Act IV were of the work from which the music is taken, i.e., plaintiffs' Kismet. Defendants suggest that this distinction is important because plaintiffs' Kismet is a derivative work. They argue that many of the visual representations, (e.g., street scenes in ancient Baghdad, swarming bazaars, and an oriental palace), could be said to be derived from Edward Knoblock's 1911 dramatic version of Kismet rather than from plaintiffs' Kismet. Since Knoblock's play is in the public domain, defendants contend these visual representations are not protectable by plaintiffs' copyright. Defendants further argue that other elements of the visual representations, such as choreography style and character names, also are not protectable by copyright. 16 We find defendant's arguments unpersuasive for two reasons. First, their suggestion that they might have derived portions of Act IV from Knoblock's 1911 play is directly contradicted in the record. Arden created Act IV as a tribute to the MGM musical Kismet, which was derived from plaintiffs' play. While preparing Act IV, he obtained the Broadway score of plaintiffs' play and screened the MGM motion picture. The record does not show that any of Act IV was based on Knoblock's 1911 dramatic version of Kismet. 17 More important, defendants' argument is unpersuasive because it is simply irrelevant. The question we face is not whether the visual representations are copyrightable, but whether the use of a copyrighted work exceeds the scope of an ASCAP license because visual representations accompanied the songs. The license agreement does not refer to copyrightable visual representations. The district court was not clearly erroneous in finding that Act IV Kismet was accompanied by sufficient 3 visual representations derived from plaintiffs' play to place the songs' use beyond the scope of the ASCAP license. 18 The district court properly concluded that defendants infringed plaintiffs' copyrights in Kismet.