(1963) Tags: United Artists
Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.
United Artists Corp. v. Ford Motor Co.
Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc.
Inspector Jacques Clouseau, famously unable to crack the simplest of murder cases, would most certainly be confounded by the case we face. While Inspector Clouseau searched for the answer to the question, “Who did it?”, we must search for the answer to the question, “Who owns it?” In 1962, Maurice Richlin coauthored a story treatment involving the bumbling inspector. Later that year, before publication, Richlin assigned all rights in the Treatment — including copyright and the right to renew that copyright — to a corporation that used it to create the smash-hit film, The Pink Panther.
The Richlin heirs now claim federal statutory renewal rights in the Treatment and derivative works, including the Motion Picture. They assert that Richlin’s coauthorship of the Treatment makes him a coauthor of the Motion Picture. Alternatively, they contend that, because the Motion Picture secured statutory protection for the portions of the Treatment incorporated into the Motion Picture, and because the copyright in the Motion Picture was renewed for a second term, they are co-owners of the Motion Picture’s renewal copyright and all derivative works thereof. Although the Richlin heirs have developed several theories that could supply the answer to the question, “Who owns it?”, unlike Inspector Clouseau, they have not quite stumbled upon a theory that favors them.
Judgment: The Richlin heirs have no interest in the copyright to the Motion Picture.
United Artists Corp. v. Ford Motor Co.
The principal issue to be resolved in this case, tried to the Court on the issue of liability only, is whether the use in defendants’ television commercials of an animated humanoid feline character infringes on any proprietary rights of the plaintiffs who are the owners or assignees of copyrights in the motion pictures entitled “The Pink Panther” and “The Return of the Pink Panther”.