Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Eric Knight authored 'Lassie Come Home.' The story was first published in the December 17, 1938 issue of The Saturday Evening Post, and was registered in the U.S. Copyright Office that year. Knight later developed the story into a novel, which was published and registered in the U.S. Copyright Office in 1940. Knight granted the rights to make the popular Lassie television series to P. Knight died in 1943 before the renewal rights had vested. Under section 24 of the 1909 Copyright Act, the interest in the renewal term of the copyrights reverted to Knight's wife, Ruth, and their three daughters, Jennie Knight Moore, Betty Knight Myers, and D. Each heir timely filed a renewal of copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office in each of the works between 1965 and 1967. P had an agreement only with Knight's widow as to the television series. It became necessary to secure agreements from the three daughters for the renewal term of the motion picture, television, and radio rights. P approached D and her sisters to obtain the necessary rights. On July 14, 1976, D assigned her 25 percent share of the motion picture, television, and radio rights in the Lassie Works for $11,000. It was not until March 1978 that P was able to obtain similar assignments from the remaining two sisters. On March 17, 1978, and March 22, 1978, the two sisters respectively, assigned their motion picture, television, and radio rights to P, as well as ancillary rights such as merchandising, dramatic, recording, and certain publishing rights. They each received $ 3,000 in exchange. To confirm the grant of rights among the sisters, on March 16, 1978, D signed a second agreement. In exchange, P paid D $3,000. On April 12, 1996, D served a notice of termination within the five-year period required by § 304(c). P was very upset. On May 27, 2005, P filed a declaratory relief action seeking a declaration that D has no interest in the Lassie film or in any of the rights she previously assigned to P in the 1978 Assignment, and that the Termination Notice was ineffective. D counterclaimed seeking a declaration that she had recaptured some of her previously assigned rights and requesting an accounting of P's profits as of May 1, 1998. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. The district court found that the parties intended that the 1978 Assignment 'gave away' all of D's additional rights not transferred in 1976, which included her newly acquired § 304(c) right to terminate the 1976 Assignment. D appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co