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

Heading: thomson's alleged copyright interests

Text: 53 The Copyright Act declares that [c]opyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). Each author's rights in a joint work are non-exclusive, see id., whereas a sole author retains exclusive rights in his or her own work, see id. § 106. 27 54 In this respect, the instant case presents somewhat of a conundrum. [M]ost dramaturgs work on play scripts as employees of the producing theater company, and even absent an employment agreement waiving ownership of copyrights, in the ordinary course they would not have any copyright interests, under the work-for-hire doctrine. 28 Brief for Amici Curiae The National Writers Union and Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, Inc. at 4-5. Thomson, however, independently contracted with the NYTW. (It is unclear whether the NYTW was Larson's agent, but this, seemingly, is of no significance.) Accordingly, there was no written agreement between Thomson and Larson. 29 It is also undisputed that Larson never asked Thomson to state that her contribution would be work for hire, or that she would own no copyrights or transfer them to anyone. 55 Thomson argues that, if she is not deemed to be a joint author of Rent, then she must have all of the rights of a sole author with respect to her own contribution. Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant at 17. On appeal, she asserts for the first time that the only alternative to finding co-authorship is to split a co-created work into its components--i.e., she must be entitled to withdraw her purported contributions. The National Writers Union, a trade union of freelance writers, and Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, Inc., a professional association, as amici curiae in support of Thomson, further suggest that Thomson has grounds to file an infringement suit relating to the same material on which her co-authorship claim is premised. Brief for Amici Curiae The National Writers Union and Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, Inc. at 13 n.1. 56 The Larson Heirs contend that [u]nder Childress, copyrightable contributions by an editor or other person retained to assist an author belong to the author, absent mutual co-authorship intent. Brief for Defendants-Appellees at 46. They conclude that [b]ecause she is not a joint author, Thomson has no rights. Id. at 47. In the alternative, the Larson Heirs claim that even if, despite Childress, the sole author is not the copyright owner of the materials contributed by others, the suggestions proffered by Thomson were impliedly or expressly licensed to Larson for use in Rent. Id. In a similar vein, The Dramatists Guild, Inc., a professional association of playwrights, librettists, composers, and lyricists, posits that [g]iven the collaborative nature of theater, any 'contribution' of copyrightable material should be understood as conveying with it to the playwright a non-exclusive license to use the collaborator's material in the work, absent some other arrangement in writing. Brief for Amicus Curiae The Dramatists Guild, Inc. at 30. 57 Our circuit has not decided whether a person who makes a non-de minimis copyrightable contribution but cannot meet the mutual intent requirement of co-authorship, retains, in the absence of a work-for-hire agreement or of any explicit contractual assignment of the copyright, any rights and interests in his or her own contribution. 30 This issue, however, was not presented to the district court by the parties. The only ground for relief asserted by Thomson was her purported co-authorship of Rent. Thomson's assertion that, if she is not deemed a co-author, she has exclusive rights with respect to the material that she contributed to Rent, is raised for the first time on appeal: 58 [I]f it were to be affirmed that Rent is not a statutory joint work, [Thomson] then would be awarded rights which she never imagined, much less sought, and which she would be loathe to enforce. Under Section 106, she would have the right to enjoin any use of her contributions in any stage production, book, cast album, or motion picture. 59 Brief for Appellant at 44. In other words, she contends that other than an argument of joint authorship between Thomson and Larson, there would be no defense to an infringement suit brought by Thomson. Brief for Amici Curiae The National Writers Union and Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas, Inc. at 13 n.1. 60 But Thomson has not brought such an infringement suit. Nor has she yet attempted to restrain any use of her allegedly copyrighted material. Accordingly, the district court had no occasion to rule on: (1) whether Thomson, if not deemed a co-author, nevertheless had copyright interests in the material that she contributed to Rent or, alternatively, (2) whether Thomson granted Larson a license to use the material that she purportedly contributed to Rent, and if so on what terms. Because these issues were not raised below and therefore are not properly before us, we express no opinion on them.