Konigsberg Intl. Inc. The Sanitsky Company v. Anne Rice, (Two Cases)

Good Law
16 F.3d 355·94 Daily Journal DAR 1853·1994 WL 37771·29 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1789·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 2157
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 11, 199492-55425, 93-55122California1,689 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kozinski, J.

Inside many a practicing lawyer there’s a novelist struggling to be born. The converse is also true: Novelists sometimes yearn to be lawyers. All things considered, it’s best if all concerned stick with their own callings.

I

In 1987, after a lunch meeting with movie producers Frank Konigsberg and Larry San-itsky, author Anne Rice allegedly entered into an oral agreement to sketch out a romantic melodrama involving a love triangle between a resurrected mummy, an English heiress and Queen Cleopatra. Based on this simple premise, Rice would create a “bible” — a detailed story which could form the basis for derivative works in various entertainment media. Rice would then write the novel, and Konigsberg’s and Sanitsky’s companies (K & S) would have two years from the date a television network officially notified them of a decision regarding a teleplay of THE MUMMY to exploit the television and movie rights, with an option to extend. K & S drafted a contract along these lines, but the parties didn’t settle on final terms or sign any agreement. Rice simply delivered the bible, and the producers forked over $50,000.

In the next two years, Rice went on to write and copyright a novel…

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.