Opinion ID: 604801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Video Rights and the RRL.

Text: 63 Although the question is extremely close, under the interpretive methodology outlined above we conclude that the RRL's grant of rights to the 104 film episodes for television viewing did not encompass the right to distribute the Curious George films in videocassette form. 64 First, unlike the contracts in Rooney and Lucasfilm, the RRL contained no general grant of rights in technologies yet to be developed, and no explicit reference to future methods of exhibition. Compare Lucasfilm, 566 F.Supp. at 227; Rooney, 538 F.Supp. at 228. Rather, the RRL appears to contemplate a comparatively limited and particular grant of rights, encompassing only the 104 film episodes and leaving future uses of Curious George to later negotiation in the ancillary products agreement. Although the RRL conversely contains no specific limiting language, compare Cohen, 845 F.2d at 853, we believe such limitation is reasonably inferable from the situation of the parties and the general tenor of the section in which the television viewing rights were granted. 65 Second, as properly noted in Cohen, television viewing and videocassette viewing are not coextensive terms. Even though videocassettes may be, and often are, viewed by means of VCRs on home television screens, see, e.g., Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429, 104 S.Ct. 774, 782, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (noting prevalent use of videocassette recorders for time-shifting of commercial television programming); Rooney, 538 F.Supp. at 228 (whether the exhibition apparatus is a home videocassette player or a television station's broadcast transmitter, the films are 'exhibited' as images on home television screens), still, as the Ninth Circuit pointed out, a standard television set capable of receiving television signals is not strictly required for videocassette viewing. Cohen, 845 F.2d at 854. [I]t is only necessary to have a monitor capable of displaying the material on the magnetized tape. Id. Indeed, a number of non-television monitors recently marketed in the United States permit videocassette viewing on computer screens, flat-panel displays, and the like. 8 Thus, we find insufficient reliable indicia of a contrary mutual intent on the part of Rey and LHP to warrant disturbing the district court's implicit determination that the language of the RRL is not broad enough to cover the new use. Bartsch, 391 F.2d at 155. 66 Finally, any lingering concerns about the correctness of the district court's interpretation are dispelled by the evidence that the RRL (including its television viewing clause) was drafted and proposed by LHP, a professional investment firm accustomed to licensing agreements. Rey, an elderly woman, does not appear to have participated in its drafting, and, indeed, does not appear to have been represented by counsel during the larger part of the transaction. Under these circumstances, as noted supra p. 1388, ambiguities in the drafting instrument are traditionally construed against the licensor and the drafter. See also Nimmer at 10-71 (ambiguities [in licensing agreements] will generally be resolved against the party preparing the instrument of transfer); U.S. Naval Institute v. Charter Communications, Inc., 875 F.2d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir.1989) (interpreting ambiguous copyright assignment against sophisticated drafting party); see generally, e.g., Merrimack Valley Nat'l Bank v. Baird, 372 Mass. 721, 724, 363 N.E.2d 688, 690 (1977) (as a general rule, a writing is construed against the author of the doubtful language ... if the circumstances surrounding its use and the ordinary meaning of the words do not indicate the intended meaning of the language). 67 Accordingly, as the Sony videocassette sales were not encompassed by the RRL, but governed exclusively by the APA, we find no conflict between the terms of the documents, and we affirm the award of royalties to Rey under the APA. 68