Opinion ID: 755387
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Larson's Intent20

Text: 34
35 An important indicator of authorship is a contributor's decisionmaking authority over what changes are made and what is included in a work. See, e.g., Erickson, 13 F.3d at 1071-72 (an actor's suggestion of text does not support a claim of co-authorship where the sole author determined whether and where such contributions were included in the work); see also Maurel, 271 F. at 214-15 (claimant had a contractual right to control the contents of the opera). 36 The district court determined that Larson retained and intended to retain at all times sole decision-making authority as to what went into [Rent ]. In support of its conclusion, the court relied upon Thomson's statement that she was flattered that [Larson] was asking [her] to contribute actual language to the text and found that this statement demonstrated that even Thomson understood that the question whether any contribution she might make would go into the script was within Mr. Larson's sole and complete discretion. 21 Moreover, as the court recognized, the November agreement between Larson and the NYTW expressly stated that Larson had final approval over all changes to Rent and that all such changes would become Larson's property. 22 37
38 In discerning how parties viewed themselves in relation to a work, Childress also deemed the way in which the parties bill or credit themselves to be significant. See 945 F.2d at 508 (Though 'billing' or 'credit' is not decisive in all cases ... consideration of the topic helpfully serves to focus the fact-finder's attention on how the parties implicitly regarded their undertaking.). As the district court noted, billing or credit is ... a window on the mind of the party who is responsible for giving the billing or the credit. And a writer's attribution of the work to herself alone is persuasive proof ... that she intended this particular piece to represent her own individual authorship and is prima facie proof that [the] work was not intended to be joint. Weissmann, 868 F.2d at 1320. 39 Thomson claims that Larson's decision to credit her as dramaturg on the final page of Rent scripts reflected some co-authorship intent. 23 Thomson concedes that she never sought equal billing with Larson, but argues that she did not need to do so in order to be deemed a statutory co-author. 40 The district court found, instead, that the billing was unequivocal: Every script brought to [the court's] attention says Rent, by Jonathan Larson. 24 In addition, Larson described himself in the biography he submitted for the playbill in January 1996, nine days before he died, as the author/composer, and listed Ms. Thomson on the same document as dramaturg. And while, as Ms. Thomson argues, it may indeed have been highly unusual for an author/composer to credit his dramaturg with a byline, we fail to see how Larson's decision to style her as dramaturg on the final page in Rent scripts reflects a co-authorship intent on the part of Larson. The district court properly concluded that the manner in which [Larson] listed credits on the scripts strongly supports the view that he regarded himself as the sole author. 41
42 Just as the parties' written agreements with each other can constitute evidence of whether the parties considered themselves to be co-authors, see Gilliam v. American Broad. Cos., 538 F.2d 14, 22 (2d Cir.1976) (written screenwriters' agreement between the parties indicate that they did not consider themselves joint authors of a single work); Erickson, 13 F.3d at 1072 (licensing agreement evidences lack of co-authorship intent); see also Maurel v. Smith, 271 F. at 214-15 (contracts evidence co-authorship relationship), so the parties' agreements with outsiders also can provide insight into co-authorship intent, albeit to a somewhat more attenuated degree. 43 The district court found that Larson listed himself or treated himself as the author in the November 1995 revisions contract that he entered into with the NYTW, which in turn incorporated the earlier draft author's agreement that had not been signed. That agreement identifies Larson as Rent's Author and does not mention Thomson. It also incorporates the terms of a September 1995 draft agreement (termed Author's Agreement) that states that Larson shall receive billing as sole author. 25 The district court commented, moreover, that [t]he fact that [Larson] felt free to enter into the November 1995 contract on his own, without the consent of and without any reference to Ms. Thomson quite apart from whatever the terms of the agreements are, indicates that his intention was to be the sole author. 26 44
45 Beside relying on evidence that Larson retained decisionmaking authority over the final work, that he was billed as sole author, and that he entered into written agreements with third parties as sole author, the district court found much other evidence that indicated a lack of intent on Larson's part to make Thomson a co-author. 46 Thus, at various times during the development of Rent (once shortly before Thomson was hired as dramaturg in the summer of 1995), Artistic Director Nicola suggested to Larson that he work with a bookwriter to assist him in the refinement of the script. Larson, however, absolutely, vehemently and totally rejected the idea of a bookwriter and was steadfast in his determination to make Rent entirely his own project. The district court found that Larson's rejection of a book writer ... speaks to Mr. Larson's intent[ ] ... [and] is part of a broader pattern that persuades me that Mr. Larson never intended the joint authorship relationship. 47 Moreover, the evidence before the district court established that Larson not only understood the concept of co-authorship, but that he had used the term co-author on two separate copyright applications for different versions of a screenplay he wrote in 1991 and 1992. Larson had also used the term coauthor in the November 1993 written agreement with Billy Aronson, which provided that Aronson would not ... be considered an active collaborator or co-author of RENT. On the basis of this evidence, the district court found that, while Larson understood that the phrase 'co-author' was one freighted with legal significance[ ] ... there is absolutely no evidence whatever ... that [Larson] ever regarded himself as a co-author with Ms. Thomson of Rent. 48 Finally, the court relies on an explicit discussion on the topic of co-authorship that Thomson claims she and Larson had. Brief for Appellant at 9. According to Thomson's written trial testimony, the conversation was as follows: 49 I told him I was flattered that he was asking me to contribute actual language to the text. He responded by saying Of course I want you to do that! ... He then told me the following: I'll always acknowledge your contribution, and I would never say that I wrote what you did. 50 The district court found that the alleged conversation was entirely consistent with Mr. Larson's view that he was the sole author and that Ms. Thomson ... was the dramaturg, which he conceived to be a different role. 51