American Vitagraph, Inc. A Corporation, Lloyd v. Friedgen, Jr., and William J. Gleason v. Ronald R. Levy, M.D. And Cinamco, Inc., a Corporation
Opinion
Opinion
Ely, J.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment action, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 , 2202, involving copyright questions under the 1909 Copyright Act, as amended, 17 U.S.C. §§ 10 , 26. Jurisdiction rests under 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (a), giving federal courts original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under an Act of Congress relating to copyrights.
This appeal raises important questions concerning what constitutes “publication” of a motion picture under the 1909 Act. Plaintiff-appellee Vitagraph successfully contended below that copyright protection to the film “Hooray for Hollywood” had been destroyed by acts of divestive publication prior to the film’s general release in 1976. We reverse, holding that the alleged divestive acts were not publications and that the film never lost its common law copyright until its publication by general release in 1976. At that time statutory copyright was obtained by publication in compliance with the requisite notice formalities. Accordingly, the film never lost copyright protection, and Vitagraph’s contractual claim for damages based on a loss of its security interest is without merit.
FACTS
1. The Sale-Purchase Agreement