Paula Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

On remand from the Supreme Court, the defendants argue that even though the plaintiffs claim for copyright infringement is not barred by laches, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in their favor should nevertheless be affirmed on alternative grounds. We vacate the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs copyright claim and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

1. Because the plaintiff, Paula Pe-trella, failed to timely renew the copyright term for the book and the 1973 screenplay, her copyright claim must rest on the 1963 screenplay. See 17 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(4)(A). We reject the defendants’ argument that Petrella’s failure to renew the other two works makes baseless her claim for copyright infringement of the 1963 screenplay. First, the scope of the defendants’ license to use the content of the book under 17 U.S.C. § 304 (a)(4)(A) turns on the scope of copyright protection in the book. In turn, the scope of copyright protection in the book depends on whether the 1963 screenplay was based on the book or vice versa: if the book was original and the 1963 screenplay was a derivative work based on it, then all of the book is entitled…