Valente-Kritzer Video v. Callan Pinckney Callan Productions Corporation

Good Law
881 F.2d 772·1989 WL 86444·11 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1727·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 11479
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 4, 198988-6247California1,962 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sneed, J.

Valente-Kritzer Video (VKV) appeals from the grant of summary judgment in favor of Callan Pinckney and Callan Production Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as Pinckney) on the grounds that VKV’s causes of action were preempted by § 204 and § 301 of the Copyright Act of 1976. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

VKV produces video programming for sale and distribution. Callan Pinckney is the author of a best-selling book entitled Callenetics. In 1985, VKV offered to produce a home video based on Pinckney’s book. VKV alleges that the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby VKV “was given the exclusive right to shop for a home video deal and to negotiate with major home video cassette manufacturer/distributors for the production and distribution of a home video based upon the book.” VKV also asserts that the parties agreed that if VKV secured a producer, Pinckney agreed to transfer the right to co-produce, distribute, and sell the videocassette to VKV. Finally, VKV alleges that the parties agreed to divide the resulting royalties equally.

Pursuant to the agreement, VKV arranged with MCA Home Video, a nationally recognized…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.