Paramount Pictures Corp. vs Leslie Rubinowitz, et al USDC E.D.NY (6-26-1981) ¤ 217 USPQ 48
Rubinowitz’s company All-Star Video Corp. sold unauthorized videocassettes of Star Trek episodes. Rubinowitz argued that Paramount “published the Star Trek episodes without notice of copyright.” Since its original run on NBC, the episodes were “rerun by more than 140 stations in the United States”, which seemed to constitute publication, which in turn would necessitate a copyright notice in order for copyright to be enforcebale. “All-Star contend[ed] that Paramount’s syndication of the ‘Star Trek’ series to television stations throughout the country without a copyright notice dedicated the work to the public domain. Paramount argued that the leasing of the episodes solely for exhibition or broadcasting did not impair its common law copyright, and therefore, it presently holds a valid copyright.”
All-Star cited noted copyright expert Nimmer, who (writing about the 1976 Act) wrote: “Under the current Act the distribution of copies of a motion picture to television stations for broadcast purposes constitutes an act of publication.” (M. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, §4.11[B], 4.55 (1978)) The Court said that the Nimmer citation applied to instances where prints went to regional offices as part of distribution, thus subjecting the copyright owner to loss of control. Here, the licenses that Paramount signed specified that stations had to return the prints, not allow copying, not part with prints during lease, and limit their broadcast to only nonpaying audiences. “Paramount’s explicit and exhaustive reservation of rights cannot be interpreted as a general publication which would have placed the series in the public domain.”
(EDITOR’S NOTE: My understanding is that just the first season was without notice.)
I suspect a challenge to this lawsuit today might go the other direction - the claim hinged on the idea that they hadn't "published" the first season, but only "leased" it. (Although that might be irrelevant today, with copyright starting at the moment something is placed in a fixed form, instead of being "published.")
I haven't found a copy of the actual ruling, but I don't have access to Lexis or other law archives.
(no subject)
Date: 2016-04-03 06:48 pm (UTC)Paramount Pictures Corp. vs Leslie Rubinowitz, et al
USDC E.D.NY (6-26-1981) ¤ 217 USPQ 48 I suspect a challenge to this lawsuit today might go the other direction - the claim hinged on the idea that they hadn't "published" the first season, but only "leased" it. (Although that might be irrelevant today, with copyright starting at the moment something is placed in a fixed form, instead of being "published.")
I haven't found a copy of the actual ruling, but I don't have access to Lexis or other law archives.