Home » Copyright Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Copyright Law Summary
Ninth Circuit: MGM Pictures, and Not the Creator of Pink Panther, Owns the Copyright to “The Pink Panther” Motion Picture
Bradley Richlin, et al. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., et al.
No. 06-55307, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 06/19/2008
Companies Mentioned: Geoffrey Productions, Inc., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.
Holding
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., and not the heirs of the creator of Pink Panther, owns the copyright to the Pink Panther motion picture (“Motion Picture”). In affirming the decision of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that circumstances of the case, including an Assignment and Employment Agreement entered into by the creator, Maurice Richlin (“Richlin”), and the film company, as well as the absence of supervisory powers of Richlin over the motion picture, demonstrated that Richlin was not a co-author of the motion picture. Although Richlin was the co-author of the “Treatment” that was a critical component of the film, the motion picture’s certificate of registration issued in 1963 and its renewal in 1991 identified the company as its sole claimant and author. Further, Richlin failed to secure a separate federal statutory copyright protection for the "Treatment." The Ninth Circuit found that because Richlin neither co-owned nor coauthored the Pink Panther motion picture, neither he nor his heirs have any interest in its copyright.
Detailed Summary
In April 1962, Richlin and Blake Edwards (“Edwards”) coauthored a fourteen-page Treatment initially entitled “The Pink Rajah,” but later renamed “The Pink Panther.” The Treatment served as the basis for the well-known motion picture, “The Pink Panther,” and numerous derivative works. Richlin and Edwards entered into an employment agreement dated May 14, 1962 (the “Employment Agreement”) with the Mirisch Corporation of Delaware (“Mirisch”) to write the screenplay for the Motion Picture. They agreed to create the screenplay as a “work made for hire.” Under this contract, Richlin and Edwards received a combined $150,000 for their work on the Treatment and the screenplay.
Later that month, on May 24, 1962, Richlin and Edwards executed a literary assignment agreement (the “Assignment”), whereby they transferred and assigned “forever . . . that certain story (which term shall cover all literary material written by (Richlin and Edwards) in connection therewith including any adaptations, treatments, scenarios, dialogue, scripts and/or screenplays) entitled: ‘Pink Rajah’ also entitled or known as ‘Pink Panther’” in exchange for $1 “and other good and valuable consideration in hand” paid by Mirisch. Opinion, pp. 5, citing Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 220 (1990) and Miller Music Corp. v. Charles N. Daniels, Inc., 362 U.S. 373, 377 (1960).
Mirisch also received “the right to use (Richlin’s and Edwards’s) name(s) as the author of the literary composition upon which said adaptations, or any of them, are based.” The Assignment further provided that if Mirisch copyrighted the Treatment, Mirisch “shall enjoy its rights hereunder for the full duration of such copyright or copyrights, including any and all renewals thereof.” Id.
In 1963, “The Pink Panther” was released and distributed in theaters to great acclaim. It was followed by nine movie sequels, many of which gave screen credit to Richlin and Edwards for creating the characters. The original Motion Picture bears a copyright notice of 1963 in the name of Mirisch and G&E Productions. In 1964, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a certificate of registration for the “motion picture” entitled “The Pink Panther” under the Copyright Act of 1909 (“1909 Act”). The Certificate of Registration identifies the claimant and author as “Mirisch-G&E Productions.” Opinion, p. 6. The certificate lists the date of publication as March 18, 1964, but notes that the copyright notice on the Motion Picture bears a date of 1963.
Richlin died on November 13, 1990. The original term of copyright in the Motion Picture - twenty-eight years from the first date of publication -was set to expire in 1991, but it was renewed that year by the successors-in-interest to Mirisch-G&E Productions, MGM-Pathe Communications Co./Geoffrey Productions Inc. (collectively, “MGM”). A Renewal Certificate issued, which identified MGM as the claimant and “proprietor of copyright in a work made for hire” and the author and original claimant as Mirisch-G&E Productions. Of note, none of the Richlin heirs attempted to secure a renewal interest in the Treatment or screenplay, and there was no separate renewal certificate for either.
Plaintiff-appellant Richlin heirs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking declaratory relief and an accounting. They claimed a 50% renewal interest in the Treatment and all derivative works. They argued that they have a copyright interest in the Motion Picture as coauthors based on Richlin’s co-authorship of the Treatment, which was incorporated into the Motion Picture. The District Court awarded summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee MGM. The Richlin heirs appealed.
In this appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the Richlin heirs contended that because Richlin and Edwards jointly authored the Treatment, and the Treatment became a critical component of the Motion Picture, Richlin was a co-author of the Motion Picture, and was therefore a co-owner on whose heirs’ behalf MGM secured a renewal interest in the Motion Picture’s copyright in 1991. Alternatively, the Richlin heirs asserted that publication of the Treatment with the Motion Picture secured a statutory copyright for the Treatment, which was renewed on their behalf by MGM when it renewed the Motion Picture’s copyright.
In agreeing with the District Court that Richlin and Edwards were not coauthors of the Motion Picture, the Ninth Circuit first noted that Richlin and Edwards wrote the Treatment in 1962, and the Motion Picture was copyrighted when published with notice in 1963. The Ninth Circuit cited Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000) as a guide in determining whether a work is jointly authored under Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In Aalmuhammed, the Ninth Circuit first determined whether the “putative coauthors ma(de) objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors.” Id. The Ninth Circuit held that a contract evidencing intent to be or not to be coauthors is dispositive. Opinion, p. 13 (citations omitted). Second, the Ninth Circuit determined whether the alleged author superintended the work by exercising control. Id. Third, the Ninth Circuit analyzed whether “the audience appeal of the work” can be attributed to both authors, and whether “the share of each in its success cannot be appraised.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit applied these factors, finding that the first factor weighed against plaintiffs-appellants. Specifically, the Assignment, the Employment Agreement, and the surrounding circumstances indicated no “objective manifestations of a shared intent to be coauthors.” Opinion, p. 16, citing Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234. The Assignment conveyed to Mirisch all present and future rights in the Treatment and derivative works, including the common law “copyright.” Neither the Assignment nor the Employment Agreement said anything about Richlin becoming a coauthor of the Motion Picture.
The second factor, whether Richlin supervised the Motion Picture by exercising control, favored MGM as well. In particular, Richlin did not exercise any supervisory powers over the Motion Picture, a factor that Aalmuhammed indicated will often be the most important. Opinion, p. 17, citing Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the third factor, whether “the audience appeal of the work” can be attributed to both authors, and whether “the share of each in its success cannot be appraised,” favored the Richlin heirs, in light of the summary judgment standard. Opinion, p. 18, citing Aalmuhammed, 202 F.3d at 1234. As the District Court noted, it is nearly impossible to determine how much of the Motion Picture’s audience appeal and success can be attributed to the Treatment. Id. The District Court reasoned that although the characters that Richlin helped to create formed the basis for the Motion Picture’s success, perhaps it was Peter Sellers’s legendary comedic performance, Henry Mancini’s memorable score, or Blake Edwards’s award-winning direction – none of which can be attributed to Richlin - that was the main draw. Id., p. 19.
Given that two out of the three Aalmuhammed factors weighed in favor of defendants-appellees, the Ninth Circuit held that Richlin was not a coauthor of the Motion Picture. Therefore, there was no renewal interest in the Motion Picture that might conceivably have vested in the Richlin heirs under a theory of co-authorship.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of MGM.
View a PDF of the judicial opinion.Law Commentary
Read the related Law commentary: Richlin v. MGM: Coauthor of Movie Treatment Does Not Automatically Own Movie Copyrights, by Kendall T. Jones, Esq.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
