Gracen v. The Bradford Exchange

698 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

MGM produced and copyrighted the movie 'The Wizard of Oz.' The copyright was renewed by MGM in 1966. In 1976 MGM licensed Bradford Exchange to use characters and scenes from the movie in a series of collectors' plates. Bradford invited artists to submit paintings of Dorothy as played by Judy Garland, with the understanding that the artist who submitted the best painting would be offered a contract for the entire series. Bradford supplied each artist with photographs from the movie and with instructions for the painting that included the following: 'We do want your interpretation of these images, but your interpretation must evoke all the warm feelings the people have for the film and its actors. So, your Judy/Dorothy must be very recognizable as everybody's Judy/Dorothy.' P, an employee in Bradford's order-processing department, was permitted to join the competition. From photographs and her recollections, P made a painting of Dorothy as played by Judy Garland. All the paintings from the different artists were exhibited and people liked P's the best. Bradford pronounced her the winner and offered her a contract to do the series, as well as paying her, as apparently, it paid each of the other contestants, $200. P refused to sign. Bradford hired James Auckland, who had not been one of the original contestants. He signed a contract to do the series. Bradford gave him P's painting to help him in doing his painting of Dorothy. P's counsel describes Auckland's painting as a 'piratical copy' of P's painting. P’s original painting apparently can’t be found. P also made five drawings of other characters in the movie. Auckland completed the series, and P obtained copyright registrations on her painting and drawings. P sued Ds for copyright infringement. MGM and Bradford counterclaimed, alleging that P had infringed the copyright on the movie by showing her drawings and a photograph of her painting to people whom she was soliciting for artistic commissions. The district court granted summary judgment for Ds. P and Ds appealed.