St. Petersburg Times (19/May/1990) - Court rules for artists, against film owners
Details
- article: Court rules for artists, against film owners
- author(s): David G. Savage
- newspaper: St. Petersburg Times (19/May/1990)
- keywords: Alfred Hitchcock, Cornell Woolrich, James Stewart, New York City, New York, Paramount Pictures, Rear Window (1954), Universal Studios
Article
Court rules for artists, against film owners
In a costly defeat for the producers of classic motion pictures, the Supreme Court said recently that authors and songwriters whose original works were incorporated into old movies are entitled to profit from the re-release of those productions.
The 6-3 decision means that the owners of hundreds of old films that have been reissued for use in theaters, television or videocassettes may be forced to share millions in profits with the heirs of the original artists.
The impact can be seen in the case before the court: For $650, Sheldon Abend, a self-described "literary speculator" in New York, bought the copyright in the 1970s for the short story It Had to be Murder. Its author, Cornell Woolrich, had sold that story and several others to a film production company in 1945 for $9,250.
Before Woolrich's 28-year copyright expired, the author himself died, leaving no heirs.
But his work lived on. In 1954, actor Jimmy Stewart and producer Alfred Hitchcock used Woolrich's story to make the movie classic Rear Window at Paramount. Now, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling, Abend, who in effect is the author's heir because he bought the copyright, can lay claim to a share of the $12-million in revenues from the re-release of Rear Window by Universal in 1983.
"For the studios and the public, this could be a very serious situation," said Sheldon Mittleman, house counsel for Universal Pictures. "It could mean that the American public will be deprived of the chance to see classic movies."
The decision does not affect recent movies, television shows, musical recordings or other artistic productions. They are governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, which took effect Jan. 1, 1978.
Works issued before 1978 are governed by the Copyright Act of 1909. Interpreting the history of that law, the court concluded it was intended to give authors and other artists a "second chance" to profit from their original works.
First, they were paid when they sold their works to a producer. In doing so, they signed over a 28-year copyright.
But they are also entitled to a second sale when it comes time to renew the copyright for another 28-year period, the court said. Songs and stories that were once sold for hundreds of dollars may now be worth millions since they have been incorporated into highly successful movies, plays, recordings or television productions.
The ruling could discourage distributors from re-releasing old films, said Louis P. Petrich, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Stewart and Hitchcock's heirs.
The court said that a living author or songwriter cannot sign away his rights for a second, 28-year period. So, Petrich said, film distributors cannot know what an author's heirs might later seek as a share of re-release profits.
"The practical effect of this might be to keep a lot of old works on the shelf," Petrich said.