(1950) Tags: Warner Bros.
RICHARD FEINER AND COMPANY, INC. v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION
Feiner is a domestic corporation that is engaged in the production and licensing of feature-length motion pictures. By agreement dated September 17, 1986, Feiner sold and transferred its interest in 17 movies, including ‘Three Secrets’ to Republic Pictures for $2,475,000.
Republic was subsequently acquired by Spelling Entertainment, which was, in turn, acquired by Viacom/Paramount in the late 1990’s. Viacom’s corporate structure was later transformed, most notably with the 2005 split of Viacom and CBS into two separately traded public companies. In connection with the split, Paramount’s affiliated company, Melange Pictures LLC, came to own the copyrights to the films, and continues to license to Paramount the exclusive right to exploit the copyrights to the movies.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Feiner is entitled to license fees when the Pictures air in the following U.S. cities: Altoona, Atlanta, Binghamton, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, Fresno, Hartford-New Haven, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Lebanon (PA), Toledo and Washington D.C.
Feiner alleges that, on or before January 1, 2001, it discovered that some of the Pictures were being broadcast on various television stations across the country without its consent. Feiner further alleges that, despite its belief that it possessed ownership of those rights in perpetuity in the Markets, Paramount failed to pay it a licensing fee for said broadcasts, in willful violation of the Agreement. As a result, Feiner commenced this lawsuit asserting two causes of action for breach of contract. Feiner is seeking an award of damages, together with consequential damages. Feiner also seeks an accounting regarding the dates, hours, and broadcasts of the Pictures within the Markets.
Paramount argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because: (1) Feiner’s contention that it has a retained right to exploit the Pictures within the Markets contradicts the clear and unambiguous language of the Agreement; (2) nothing in the Agreement provides that the seller retains exploitation rights in the Markets, whether during the term of the licenses or upon expiration or termination of them; (3) Feiner’s interpretation of the disputed language in the Agreement would void several of its provisions, thereby rendering others meaningless, or in the alternative; and (4) Feiner retained the rights in and to the licenses and the proceeds therefrom, and to date there have been no such proceeds, and thus no resultant breach.
Judgment: The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing the complaint.