133865

16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Alex Merkin & Maurice A. Reichman

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT

AugustTerm,2014

(Argued:September3,2014

Decided:June29,2015)

DocketNo.133865

5
6

7
8

16CasaDuse,LLC,
PlaintiffCounterDefendantAppellee,

v.

10

AlexMerkin,
DefendantCounterClaimantAppellant,
MauriceA.Reichman,Esq.,
Appellant,
A.MerkinEntertainment,LLC,
Defendant.*

11
12
13
14
15

16
17

Before:

KATZMANN,Chief Judge,SACKandLYNCH,Circuit Judges.

ThedefendantappealsfromaSeptember27,2013,judgmentoftheUnited

18
19

StatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(RichardJ.Sullivan,

20

Judge)grantingsummaryjudgmenttotheplaintiffonitscopyrightandstatelaw

21

claimsrelatedtoafilmentitledHeads Up,dismissingthedefendants

22

counterclaims,andawardingtheplaintiffcostsandattorneysfees.Becausewe

23

agreethattheplaintiffownstherelevantcopyrightinterests,weconcludethat

24

thedistrictcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheplaintiffonits

TheClerkofCourtisrespectfullydirectedtoamendtheofficialcaptioninthiscasetoconform
withthecaptionabove.

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

copyrightclaimsandproperlyenjoinedthedefendantfrominterferingwiththe

plaintiffsuseoftheworkinquestion.Weconclude,though,thatthedefendant,

nottheplaintiff,wasentitledtosummaryjudgmentontheplaintiffsclaimfor

tortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsunderNewYorklaw.Thejudgment

ofthedistrictcourtistherefore:
AFFIRMEDinpart,REVERSEDinpart,andREMANDED.

ELEANORM.LACKMAN(JoshuaS.
Wolkoff,on the brief),Cowan,DeBaets,
Abrahams&SheppardLLP,NewYork,NY
for PlaintiffCounterDefendantAppellee.

7
8
9
10
11

MAURICEA.REICHMAN,NewYork,NY,
for DefendantCounterClaimantAppellant &
Appellant.

12
13
14
15

SACK,Circuit Judge:
ThisisanappealfromajudgmentoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor

16
17

theSouthernDistrictofNewYork(RichardJ.Sullivan,Judge) grantingsummary

18

judgmenttotheplaintiffonitscopyrightandstatelawclaims,dismissingthe

19

defendantscopyrightcounterclaims,andawardingtheplaintiffcostsand

20

attorneysfees.Becauseweagreewiththedistrictcourtthattheplaintiffowns

21

thecopyrighttoallversionsoftheworkinquestion,afilmentitledHeads Up,

22

andthatcopyrightdoesnotsubsistinindividualcontributionstothatfilm,we

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

concludethatthedistrictcourtproperlygrantedsummaryjudgmenttothe

plaintiffonitscopyrightclaimsanddidnotabuseitsdiscretioninenjoiningthe

defendantfrominterferingwiththeplaintiffsuseofthefilm.Wealsoconclude,

however,thatthedefendant,nottheplaintiff,wasentitledtosummaryjudgment

ontheplaintiffsclaimfortortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsunder

NewYorklaw.Wethereforeaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremandthecase

tothedistrictcourtwithinstructionsforittograntthedefendantsmotionfor

summaryjudgmentonthetortiousinterferenceclaimandforsuchfurther

proceedingsasarewarranted.
BACKGROUND

10

Appellee16CasaDuse,LLC,(CasaDuse)isafilmproductioncompany

11
12

basedinBrooklyn,NewYork.ThecompanyisownedandoperatedbyRobert

13

Krakovski.AppellantAlexMerkinisafilmdirector,producer,andeditor.

14

AppellantMauriceReichmanisanattorneywhorepresentedMerkininsomeof

15

hisdealingswithCasaDuse.
InSeptember2010,Krakovski,actingatallrelevanttimesastheprincipal

16
17

ofCasaDuse,purchasedtherightstoascreenplayentitledHeads Upfromthe

18

worksauthor,BenCarlin.Krakovski,whoplannedtofinanceandproducea
3

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

shortfilmbasedonthescreenplay,askedMerkinwhetherhewouldbewillingto

directthefilm.Merkinagreed,andthetwosettledinformallyonafeeof$1,500

forMerkinsservices.
Intheensuingmonths,Krakovskiassembledacastandcrewforthefilm,

4
5

alsoentitledHeads Up.Hehiredadditionalproducers,ascriptsupervisor,a

photographydirector,cameraoperators,variousdesignersandtechnicians,and

actors,creatinganensembleofaboutthirtymembers.AlthoughMerkin

recommendedthatKrakovskiemploysomepersonsascrewmembers,

Krakovskimadetheultimatehiringdecisions.Inthemeantime,Krakovski,

10

Merkin,andothersinvolvedwiththeprojectplannedvariousaspectsofthe

11

production,includingprops,locations,andscheduling.
EachcastandcrewmemberotherthanMerkinenteredintoan

12
13

IndependentContractor[]AgreementwithCasaDuse.Theagreements

14

containedstatementsthatCasaDusewouldengagetheservices[ofthecastor

15

crewmember]asworkforhireofanindependentcontractor,J.A.485,andset

16

outtermsforcompensation,performancestandards,andothermatters.The

17

workforhireagreementsalsostatedthatCasaDusewouldretaincomplete

18

controlofthefilmsproductionandownalloftheresultsandproceedsof[the
4

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

castandcrews]servicesinconnectionwiththe[film]...including,butnot

limitedto,allrightsthroughouttheworldof...copyright....J.A.487.
InFebruary2011,KrakovskisentMerkinadraftworkforhireagreement

3
4

entitledDirectorEmploymentAgreement.Itstermsweresimilartothosein

theagreementssignedbyothercastandcrew.Itprovided,inter alia,thatCasa

Dusewouldownallrightsinthefilm.Merkinacknowledgedhisreceiptofthe

draftbyemail,notingthathewouldaskhislawyertoreviewit.
Sometwoandahalfmonthslater,onMay9,2011,KrakovskisentMerkin

8
9

anemailremindinghimtoexecutetheagreement.Merkindidnotrespond.
KrakovskicontactedMerkinagainonMay16,aweekbeforeproduction

10
11

wasscheduledtostart,remindinghimagainoftheimportanceofcompletingthe

12

agreementbeforeworkonthefilmbegan.Merkinagainfailedtoreply.OnMay

13

18,Krakovskiemailedagainaskingforacompletedagreement,tonoavail.

14

Despitethelackofacompletedagreement,productionbeganlaterthat

15

month.Duringproduction,whichincludedthreedaysoffilming,Merkin

16

performedhisroleasdirectorbyadvisingandinstructingthefilmscastand

17

crewonmattersrangingfromcameraanglesandlightingtowardrobeand

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

makeuptotheactorsdialogueandmovement.Merkincompletedhisdirection

ofthefilmbytheendofMay.
InJune2011,KrakovskigaveMerkinaharddrivecontainingtherawfilm

3
4

footageinthehopethatMerkinwouldbeabletoeditthefootage.Intheabsence

ofaworkforhireagreement,thepartiesenteredintoaMediaAgreement

underwhichMerkinwouldeditbutnotlicense,sell,orcopythefootageforany

purposewithoutthepermissionofCasaDuse.
OnJune16,KrakovskisentanemailtoMerkinproposingchangestothe

8
9

MediaAgreementinordertoclarify,first,thatCasaDuseandnotMerkin

10

ownedthefootageandharddrive,and,second,thatCasaDusesentryintothe

11

MediaAgreementhadnotrelinquishedanydirectorial/editorialterms[or]

12

rightsthatwouldbefinallyallocatedbyaworkforhireagreement.J.A.580.

13

Merkinreplied,sayingthattheproposedchangesseemedacceptablebutalso

14

clarify[ing],forhispart,thathewasnotgivingupanycreativeorartistic

15

rightshehadintheprojectandallof[his]creativework...isstill[his]work

16

andnotthepropertyof16CasaDuse,LLC.J.A.581.Krakovskiresponded,

17

assertingthathehadneverintendedthefilmtobeaJointVentureandinstead

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

hadintendedtoobtainMerkinsservicespursuanttoaworkforhireagreement.

J.A.521.

FromJulytoOctober2011,KrakovskiandMerkincontinuedtonegotiate

thetermsoftheMediaAgreementandaworkforhireagreement.Theparties

communicateddirectlyviaemailandthroughtheirattorneys.Fromtimeto

time,theyappearedtoreachagreementonsomekeyterms,includingCasa

Dusesownershipofthefilm,Merkinsauthoritytomakeadirectorscut,and

Merkinsabilitytoremovehisnamefromthefinalproductifhesodesired,but

negotiationsultimatelycollapsed.Krakovskidemandedthereturnofthehard

10

drivecontainingtherawfilmfootage.MerkinrefusedandwarnedKrakovski

11

that,withoutanagreementinplace,CasaDusecouldnot,inhisview,releasethe

12

film.

13

InNovember2011,MerkinsentKrakovskialetterputting[Krakovski]on

14

noticethat[Merkin]forb[ade]anyusewhatsoeveroftherawfootage.J.A.400.

15

TheletterconcededthatKrakovskiownedthescreenplaybutinsistedthat

16

Merkinownedtherawfootage.Id. InDecember2011,Krakovskiresponded

17

throughcounsel,who,byemail,proposedthatCasaDusepayMerkinthe

18

agreedupon$1,500forhisdirectorialservices,allowhimtocompletehisdesired
7

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

directorscut,andensurehisopportunitytoremovehisnamefromthefinished

productifhewished.Inexchange,Merkinwouldagreetodeemhisdirectorial

servicesaworkforhireforCasaDuse.TheemailalsoadvisedthatCasaDuse

had,bythen,retainedadifferenteditor.Merkinrespondedandreiteratedhis

positionthatCasaDusewasnotpermittedtouse[his]workinanyeditwithout

[his]involvement.J.A.403.Merkinthreatenedtocontactfilmfestivalsto

informthemthatCasaDuselackedrightstothefilmintheeventKrakovskidid

notassent.KrakovskisattorneyrespondedbysendinganemailtoMerkins

attorney,disputingMerkinspositionandwarningthatanyinterferencewith

10

screeningofthefilmwouldpotentiallysubjectMerkintoliability.
InJanuary2012,asthedisputecontinuedtosimmer,Merkinregistereda

11
12

copyrightinthefilmwiththeUnitedStatesCopyrightOffice.Thetitleofthe

13

registrationwasRawfootageforfilmHeadsUpDisks14,reflectingthefact

14

thatMerkinhadcopiedthefootagefromtheharddriveontofourDVDs.J.A.71.

15

TheregistrationlistedthetypeofworkasMotionPictureandassertedthat

16

Merkinwasitssoleauthor.MerkindidnotobtainCasaDusespermissionto

17

registerthecopyright,andKrakovskiwasunawareoftheregistration.

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

InMarch2012,KrakovskibegansubmittingHeads Uptofilmfestivalsand

makingplanstopublicizethefilm.Tothatend,hescheduledaninvitationonly

screeningforapproximatelyseventypersonsattheNewYorkFilmAcademy

(NYFA)onApril18,2012.Krakovskialsoorganizedareceptiontofollowata

nearbyrestaurant,CityCrab,forwhichhepaidanonrefundabledepositof

$1,956.58.
Onthedateoftheevent,theNYFAchairpersoncontactedKrakovskitotell

7
8

himthatMerkinsattorney(Reichman)hadthreatenedtheNYFAwithacease

anddesistordertopreventthescreeningfromproceeding.Accordingto

10

Reichman,itwasMerkinnotReichmanwhocontactedtheNYFAand

11

mentionedaceaseanddesistnotice,notanorder,atwhichpointtheNYFA

12

contactedReichman.Inanyevent,theNYFAcancelledthescreeninginresponse

13

tothesethreats,andCasaDuselostitsrestaurantdeposit.CasaDuse

14

subsequentlymissedatleastfourfilmfestivalsubmissiondeadlinesasaresultof

15

thedispute.Merkindidnotreturntheharddrive,theDVDs,ortherawfootage

16

inanyform.
CasaDusebroughtsuitagainstMerkinandhislimitedliabilitycompany,

17
18

A.MerkinEntertainment,LLC,(AME)inMay2012seeking,inter alia,a
9

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

temporaryrestrainingorderandinjunctionenjoiningMerkinfrominterfering

withitsuseofthefilm.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthetemporaryrestraining

orderandissuedanordertoshowcausewhyapreliminaryinjunctionshould

notissue.Afterbriefing,onMay18,2012,thecourtissuedthepreliminary

injunctionthatCasaDusesought.

Sometwomonthslater,inJuly2012,CasaDusefiledanamended

complaintrequestingajudgmentdeclaringthat(1)CasaDusewasnotliableto

MerkinorAMEforcopyrightinfringement;(2)NeitherMerkinnorAMEowned

acopyrightinterestinthefilm;and(3)Merkinscopyrightregistrationwas

10

invalid.CasaDusealsoassertedclaimsforbreachofcontract,tortious

11

interferencewithbusinessrelations,andconversion.Itsoughtreliefintheform

12

ofcompensatorydamages;anorderrequiringMerkintowithdrawhiscopyright

13

registration,returnallformsofthefootage,andrefrainfrominterferingwith

14

CasaDusesuseofthefilm;andcostsandattorneysfeesasasanctionunder28

15

U.S.C.1927andpursuanttotheCopyrightActsfeesprovision,17U.S.C.505.
ThedefendantsfiledanAmendedAnswerandcounterclaimsinAugust

16
17

2012,requestingajudgmentdeclaringthat(1)AMotionPictureDirectorIsAn

18

Author,(2)17U.S.C.HasNoProvisionOf,OrFor,AMergedWork,(3)
10

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

ThereCanBeNoWorkForHireOrAssignmentWithoutAnExpressWriting,

(4)Merkinscopyrightregistrationwasvalid,(5)attorneysfeespursuantto17

U.S.C.505wereunavailableintheabsenceofacopyrightinfringementclaim,

and(6)itwasimproperforCasaDusescomplainttoincludearequestfor

sanctionspursuantto28U.S.C.1927.J.A.31823.Merkinalsoassertedaclaim

forbreachofcontractbasedonCasaDusesfailuretopayhimforhisservices.
CasaDusemovedforsummaryjudgmentonitsclaimsanditsrequestsfor

7
8

feesandsanctions.Merkincrossmovedforsummaryjudgmentonallofhis

claimsandmostofCasaDusesclaims,includingitsclaimfortortious

10

interferencewithbusinessrelations.Merkinalsorequestedthatthecourtvacate

11

thepreliminaryinjunctionandstrikethefeesandsanctionsrequest.AME

12

movedtodismissthecomplaintastoAMEinitsentirety.
Thedistrictcourtdeclinedtovacatetheinjunction.Itgrantedsummary

13
14

judgmenttoCasaDuseonallclaims,alongwithfeesagainstMerkinand

15

sanctionsagainstReichman.16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin,No.12CIV.3492RJS,

16

2013WL5510770,at*2021,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*6364(S.D.N.Y.

17

Sept.27,2013).ThecourtgrantedAMEsmotiontodismiss.Id.,2013WL

11

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

5510770,at*20,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*64.1Thecourtalsodismissedall

ofMerkinscounterclaimsexceptforhisclaimforbreachofcontract.Id. The

courtsubsequentlygrantedMerkinsmotion,agreedtobyCasaDuse,to

voluntarilydismisshisbreachofcontractclaimwithoutprejudice.After

acceptingadditionalsubmissionsfromthepartiesastotheproperamountof

costsandfees,thecourtentereditsfinaljudgmentonDecember19,2013,

awardingCasaDuse(1)$1,956.58indamagesresultingfromMerkins

interferencewiththescreeningevent;and(2)$185,579.65inattorneysfeesand

costs,ofwhichMerkinandReichmanwouldbejointlyandseverallyliablefor

10

$175,634andReichmanwouldbesolelyliablefortheremaining$9,945.65.
MerkinandReichmanappealed.

11

CasaDusedoesnotchallengethisdismissal.
12

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

DISCUSSION

1
2

Circuit:Mayacontributortoacreativeworkwhosecontributionsare

inseparablefrom,andintegratedinto,theworkmaintainacopyrightinterestin

hisorhercontributionsalone?Weconcludethat,atleastonthefactsofthe

presentcase,heorshemaynot.
I.

StandardofReview

Wereviewadistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentdenovo.Blanch

8
9

Thiscaserequiresustoansweraquestionoffirstimpressioninthis

v. Koons,467F.3d244,249(2dCir.2006).Summaryjudgmentisappropriate

10

whenthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactand...themovingparty

11

isentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Id.at250(alterationinoriginal)

12

(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.56).
WereviewtheDistrictCourtsentryofapermanentinjunctionforabuse

13
14

ofdiscretion,whichmaybefoundwheretheCourt,inissuingtheinjunction,

15

reliedonclearlyerroneousfindingsoffactoranerroroflaw.Knox v. Salinas,

16

193F.3d123,12829(2dCir.1999)(percuriam).
Wereviewadistrictcourtsawardofcostsandattorneysfeesunder17

17
18

U.S.C.505anditsimpositionofsanctionsunder28U.S.C.1927forabuseof

13

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

discretion.See Medforms, Inc. v. Healthcare Mgmt. Solutions, Inc.,290F.3d98,117

(2dCir.2002)(17U.S.C.505);In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3d109,115

(2dCir.2000)(28U.S.C.1927).
II.

Jurisdiction

Wemustdetermine,asathresholdmatter,whetherwehavetheauthority

5
6

tohearthemeritsofthiscaseonappeal.Wegenerallylackjurisdiction,under28

U.S.C.1291,2overappealsfromnonfinalordersofthedistrictcourts.This

finaljudgmentrulepromotesjudicialeconomybyforbiddingpiecemeal

dispositiononappealofwhatforpracticalpurposesisasinglecontroversy.

10

Cobbledick v. United States,309U.S.323,325(1940).Accordingly,immediate

11

appealisunavailabletoaplaintiffwhoseeksreviewofanadversedecisionon

12

someofitsclaimsbyvoluntarilydismissingtheotherswithout prejudice.Rabbi

13

Jacob Joseph Sch. v. Province of Mendoza,425F.3d207,210(2dCir.2005)(emphasis

14

inoriginal).Weretheruleotherwise,suchaplaintiffwouldeffectivelyhave

15

securedanotherwiseunavailableinterlocutoryappeal.Id.(quotingChappelle v.

16

Beacon Commcns Corp.,84F.3d652,654(2dCir.1996)).

Section1291providesinpertinentpart:Thecourtsofappeals...shallhave
jurisdictionofappealsfromallfinaldecisionsofthedistrictcourtsoftheUnited
States....
2

14

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

Inthecasebeforeus,thedistrictcourtenteredjudgmentafterdismissing

1
2

Merkinsbreachofcontractclaimwithoutprejudiceatthepartiesrequest.The

courtsjudgmentwouldthusordinarilybenonfinal,deprivingusofjurisdiction

overthemerits.
Atargumentbeforeus,however,Merkinagreedtoadismissalofhis

5
6

remainingclaim,forbreachofcontract,withprejudice.Apartywholosesona

dispositiveissuethataffectsonlyaportionofhisclaimsmayelecttoabandon

theunaffectedclaims,inviteafinaljudgment,andtherebysecurereviewofthe

adverseruling.Atlanta Shipping Corp. v. Chemical Bank,818F.2d240,246(2dCir.

10

1987).Wemaythereforetreatthedistrictcourtsorderasfinal.See Rabbi Jacob

11

Joseph Sch.,425F.3dat211(refusingtotreatorderasfinalwhenthe[plaintiff]

12

expresslydeclinedtoabandon[its]claimwithprejudiceatoralargument);see

13

alsoJTC Petroleum Co. v. Piasa Motor Fuels, Inc.,190F.3d775,77677(7thCir.1999)

14

([A]targument,theplaintiffslawyerquicklyagreedthatwecouldtreatthe

15

dismissalofthetwoclaims[whichthedistrictcourthaddismissedwithout

16

prejudice]ashavingbeenwithprejudice,thuswindingupthelitigationand

17

eliminatingthebartoourjurisdiction.).Wethereforeproceedtothemerits.

15

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

III.

CopyrightClaims

Merkinarguesthatthedistrictcourterredinconcluding,first,thatMerkin

2
3

couldnotcopyrighthiscreativecontributionstothefilm,and,second,thathe

lackscopyrightownershipoftherawfilmfootage.CasaDuserespondsthat

individualcontributionstoafilm,suchasdirection,arenotthemselvessubjectto

copyrightprotectionandthatCasaDuseretainssolecopyrightownershipofthe

filmandtherawfootage,totheextentthetwoaredistinguishableforcopyright

purposes.
Twopointsmeritmentionattheoutset.

First,thepartiesagreethatMerkinisnotajointauthororcoauthorof

10
11

thefilmunderthe1976CopyrightAct.See 17U.S.C.101(Ajointworkisa

12

workpreparedbytwoormoreauthorswiththeintentionthattheircontributions

13

bemergedintoinseparableorinterdependentpartsofaunitarywhole.).Ifhe

14

were,thatfactwouldlikelyprohibithisinterferencewithCasaDusesuseand

15

displayofthefilm,because[o]nejointownercannotbeliableforcopyright

16

infringementtoanotherjointowner.1MelvilleB.Nimmer&DavidNimmer,

17

Nimmer on Copyright6.10[A](2015). AcoauthorshipclaimantinourCircuit

18

generallymustshowthateachoftheputativecoauthors(1)made

16

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

independentlycopyrightablecontributionstothework;and(2)fullyintendedto

becoauthors.Thomson v. Larson,147F.3d195,200(2dCir.1998)(citing

Childress v. Taylor,945F.2d500,50708(2dCir.1991)).Evenassumingthefirst

prong3ismethere,weagreewiththedistrictcourtthattherecorduniformly

establishesthat[CasaDuse],throughitsprincipal,Krakovski,neverintendedto

shareauthorshipofthefilmwithMerkinoranyoneelse,and[t]hereisalso

considerableevidencethatMerkinneverintendedtobe[CasaDuses]coauthor.

16 Casa Duse, LLC,2013WL5510770,at*89,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958,at*23

25.4
Second,thepartiesalsoagreethatMerkinseffortscannotbedeemeda

10
11

workmadeforhire.See 17U.S.C.201(b)([T]he...personforwhomthe

12

work[forhire]waspreparedisconsideredtheauthor...and,unlesstheparties

13

haveexpresslyagreedotherwiseinawritteninstrumentsignedbythem,owns

Itseemslikelythat[b]ycopyrightable[theChildress court]meantonlytosaythat
thecoauthorscontributionmustbetheproductofauthorship,i.e.,expression.[The
court]didnotmeanthatinordertobeacoauthoronemustbeabletoobtaina
copyrightonhisorherseparatecontribution,2Patry on Copyright5:15,oreventhat
suchwouldbepossible.
3

WenotedinThomsonthatthetestofcoauthorshipintentwillvarydependingonthe
specificfactualcircumstances.Thomson,147F.3dat201n.16.Weneednotdetermine
thewaysinwhichthetestmightvaryinthecircumstancespresentedbythiscase,
becausethepartiesdisclaimjointauthorship.
4

17

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

alloftherightscomprisedinthecopyright.).Aworkforhirearrangement

requires:
(1)aworkpreparedbyanemployeewithinthescopeofhisorher
employment;or(2)aworkspeciallyorderedorcommissionedfor
useasacontributiontoacollectivework,asapartofamotion
picture[,orforotherspecifiedpurposes]...ifthepartiesexpressly
agreeinawritteninstrumentsignedbythemthattheworkshallbe
consideredaworkmadeforhire.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Id.101.MerkinwasnotCasaDusesemployee,seeCmty. for Creative Non

10

Violence v. Reid,490U.S.730,74041(1989)([T]hetermemployee[insection

11

101]shouldbeunderstoodinlightofthegeneralcommonlawofagency.), and

12

thepartiesfailedtoexecuteawrittenagreement.

13

A.

Copyright in Creative Contributions to a Work

14

Copyrightprotectionsubsists...inoriginalworksofauthorshipfixedin

15

anytangiblemediumofexpression,nowknownorlaterdeveloped,fromwhich

16

theycanbeperceived,reproduced,orotherwisecommunicated,eitherdirectly

17

orwiththeaidofamachineordevice.17U.S.C.102(a).Wehavenever

18

decidedwhetheranindividualsnonde minimis creativecontributionstoawork

19

inwhichcopyrightprotectionsubsists,suchasafilm,fallwithinthesubject

20

matterofcopyright,whenthecontributionsareinseparablefromtheworkand

21

theindividualisneitherthesolenorajointauthoroftheworkandisnotaparty
18

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

toaworkforhirearrangement.See Thomson,147F.3dat206(acknowledging

openquestionandresolvingcaseonalternativegrounds).Weanswerthat

questioninthenegativeonthefactsofthepresentcase,findingthatthe

CopyrightActsterms,structure,andhistorysupporttheconclusionthat

Merkinscontributionstothefilmdonotthemselvesconstituteaworkof

authorshipamenabletocopyrightprotection.
TheCopyrightActdoesnotdefinethetermworksofauthorship.Section

7
8

102oftheAct,however,listsexamplesofcategoriesofworksofauthorship,

includingliteraryworks,17U.S.C.102(a)(1),musicalworks,id.102(a)(2),

10

andmostrelevantheremotionpicturesandotheraudiovisualworks,id.

11

102(a)(6).Thislistisnotexhaustive,butaswehavepreviouslyobserved,

12

categoriesofcreativeeffortsthatarenotsimilar[]oranalogoustoanyofthe

13

listedcategoriesareunlikelytofallwithinthesubjectmatteroffederal

14

copyrightprotection.Natl Basketball Assn v. Motorola, Inc.,105F.3d841,846(2d

15

Cir.1997)(concludingthatbasketballgamesdonotfallwithinthesubjectmatter

16

offederalcopyrightprotectionbecausetheydonotconstituteoriginalworksof

17

authorshipunder17U.S.C.102(a).).Motionpictures,likepantomimes,17

18

U.S.C.102(a)(4),anddramaticworks,id.102(a)(3),areworksthatmaybe

19

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

expectedtocontaincontributionsfrommultipleindividuals.See Richlin v. Metro

GoldwynMayer Pictures, Inc.,531F.3d962,975(9thCir.2008)(Amotionpicture

isaworktowhichmanycontribute;however,thosecontributionsultimately

mergetocreateaunitarywhole.).ButtheActlistsnoneoftheconstituentparts

ofanyofthesekindsofworksasworksofauthorship.Thisuniformabsenceof

explicitprotectionsuggeststhatnonfreestandingcontributionstoworksof

authorshiparenotordinarilythemselvesworksofauthorship.
OtherprovisionsoftheActsupportthisconclusion.TheActsdefinition

8
9

ofjointwork,aworkpreparedbymultipleauthorswiththeintentionthat

10

theircontributionsbemergedintoinseparableorinterdependentpartsofa

11

unitarywhole,17U.S.C.101(emphasisadded),suggeststhatsuchinseparable

12

contributionsarenotthemselvesworksofauthorship.Copyrightmaysubsist

13

incontributionstoacollectivework,see id. 201(c)(Copyrightineachseparate

14

contributiontoacollectiveworkisdistinctfromcopyrightinthecollectivework

15

asawhole.),butonlywhensuchcontributionsconstituteseparateand

16

independentworks.Id.101(Acollectiveworkisawork,suchasaperiodical

17

issue,anthology,orencyclopedia,inwhichanumberofcontributions,

18

constitutingseparate and independent worksinthemselves,areassembledintoa

20

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

collectivewhole.(emphasisadded)).Therequirementthatcontributionsbe

separateandindependentinordertoobtaintheirowncopyrightprotection

alsoindicatesthatinseparablecontributionsintegratedintoasingleworkcannot

separatelyobtainsuchprotection.
ThelegislativehistoryoftheCopyrightActfurthersupportsthisreading.

5
6

AccordingtotheHouseReportonthe1976Act:
[A]motionpicturewouldnormallybeajointratherthanacollective
workwithrespecttothoseauthorswhoactuallyworkonthefilm,
althoughtheirusualstatusasemployeesforhirewouldkeepthe
questionofcoownershipfromcomingup.Ontheotherhand,
althoughanovelist,playwright,orsongwritermaywriteawork
withthehopeorexpectationthatitwillbeusedinamotionpicture,
thisisclearlyacaseofseparateorindependentauthorshiprather
thanonewherethebasicintentionbehindthewritingofthework
wasformotionpictureuse.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

H.R.Rep.No.941476,at120(1976),reprinted in 1976U.S.C.C.A.N.5659,5736.

17

Whileissuesofcoownershipofacopyrightmayariseinthemotionpicture

18

context,thequestionofseparatecontributionsmeritingseparatecopyrightsas

19

worksordinarilywouldnot,unlessthemotionpictureincorporatesseparate,

20

freestandingpiecesthatindependentlyconstituteworksofauthorship.Ina

21

jointwork,theseparateelements[comprisingthework]mergeintoaunified

22

whole,whereasinacollectivework,individualscontributionsremain

21

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

unintegratedanddisparate.Id.,H.R.Rep.No.941476,at122,1976

U.S.C.C.A.N.,at5738.
AsCasaDuseobserves,theCopyrightOfficehas,inanunrelatedcase,

3
4

suggestedasimilarinterpretationoftheAct.TheOfficehasstatedthatan

individualwholacksaworkforhireagreementbutwhointend[s]her

contributionorperformancetobemergedintoinseparableorinterdependent

partsofaunitarywhole[,]17U.S.C.101[,]...mayassertaclaiminjoint

authorshipinthemotionpicture,butnotsoleauthorshipofherperformanceina

portionofthework.LetterfromRobertJ.Kasunic,Assoc.Registerof

10

CopyrightsandDir.ofRegistrationPolicyandPractices,U.S.CopyrightOffice,

11

toM.CrisArmenta,TheArmentaLawFirm(Mar.6,2014)(attachedasappendix

12

toBriefinResponsetoSuggestionofRehearingEnBanc[Dkt.54]atADD47,

13

Garcia v. Google,No.1257302(9thCir.Mar.12,2014)).Weneednotdefertothe

14

CopyrightOfficesinterpretationasageneralmatter,seeCarol Barnhart Inc. v.

15

Econ. Cover Corp.,773F.2d411,414(2dCir.1985),orunderthefactuallydistinct

16

circumstancesofthepresentcase.Wefinditsanalysispersuasivenonetheless.
Therewas,untilrecently,someauthorityapparentlytothecontrary.The

17
18

majorityofathreejudgepaneloftheNinthCircuitconcludedthatcopyright
22

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

protectionmaysubsistinanactorsperformanceinamotionpicture.See Garcia

v. Google, Inc.,766F.3d929,93336(9thCir.),revden banc,F.3d,No.12

57302,2015WL2343586,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105(9thCir.May18,2015)

(Garcia(en banc)).InGarcia,asinthepresentcase,anindividualwhomadea

contributiontoafinishedfilminthatcase,anactorclaimedownershipofa

copyrightinterestinhercontribution.Thecourtreasonedthattheactors

performanceexhibitedatleastaminimaldegreeofcreativitysuchthatthe

actorhadprobablyengagedinanoriginalactofauthorship.Id.at934(quoting

Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,499U.S.340,345(1991)).Andthe

10

performancewas,inthecourtsview,fixedinatangiblemediumaspartofthe

11

finishedfilm.Id.

12

Anen bancpanelreversed,however,adheringtotheCopyrightOffices

13

viewand,basedthereon,concludingthattheactorstheoryofcopyrightlaw

14

wouldresultin[a]legalmorass[,]...[making]Swisscheeseofcopyrights.

15

Garcia(en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*6,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,

16

at*23(internalquotationmarksomitted).Weagree.Filmmakingisa

17

collaborativeprocesstypicallyinvolvingartisticcontributionsfromlarge

18

numbersofpeople,includinginadditiontoproducers,directors,and

23

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

screenwritersactors,designers,cinematographers,cameraoperators,anda

hostofskilledtechnicalcontributors.Ifcopyrightsubsistedseparatelyineachof

theircontributionstothecompletedfilm,thecopyrightinthefilmitself,whichis

recognizedbystatuteasaworkofauthorship,couldbeunderminedbyany

numberofindividualclaims.Thesevariouscontributorsmaymakeoriginal

artisticexpressions,whicharearguablyfixedinthemediumoffilmfootage.But

whileoriginalityandfixationarenecessaryprerequisitestoobtainingcopyright

protection,see 17U.S.C.102(a),theyarenotalonesufficient:Authorsarenot

entitledtocopyrightprotectionexceptfortheworksofauthorshiptheycreate

10

andfix.See id.;see alsoGarcia,766F.3dat941(N.R.Smith,J.,dissenting).

Ourconclusioninthepresentcasedoesnotsuggestthatmotionpicture

11
12

directorssuchasMerkinmayneverachievecopyrightprotectionfortheir

13

creativeefforts.Thedirectorofafilmmay,ofcourse,bethesoleorjointauthor

14

ofthatfilm,suchthatsheorhecansecurecopyrightprotectionforthework.See

15

Cmty. for Creative NonViolence,490U.S.at737(Asageneralrule,theauthoris

16

thepartywhoactuallycreatesthework,thatis,thepersonwhotranslatesan

17

ideaintoafixed,tangibleexpressionentitledtocopyrightprotection.);see also F.

18

JayDougherty,Not A Spike Lee Joint? Issues in the Authorship of Motion Pictures

24

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

Under U.S. Copyright Law, 49UCLAL.Rev.225,312(2001)([T]hedirectorofthe

filmiscertainlypotentiallyoneofitsmostimportantauthors.).Andauthorsof

freestandingworksthatareincorporatedintoafilm,suchasdanceperformances

orsongs,maycopyrighttheseseparateandindependentwork[s].17U.S.C.

101(definingcollectivework).Butadirectorscontributiontoanintegrated

workofauthorshipsuchasafilmisnotitselfaworkofauthorshipsubjectto

itsowncopyrightprotection.
Afinalobservation:Aconclusionotherthantheoneweadoptwould

8
9

grantcontributorslikeMerkingreaterrightsthanjointauthors,who,aswehave

10

noted,havenorighttointerferewithacoauthorsuseofthecopyrightedwork.

11

See Childress,945F.2dat508(Jointauthorshipentitlesthecoauthorstoequal

12

undividedinterestsinthework.).WedoubtthatCongressintendedfor

13

contributorswhoarenotjointauthorstohavegreaterrightsenablingthemto

14

hamstringauthorsuseofcopyrightedworks,asapparentlyoccurredinthecase

15

atbar.Weagreewiththeen bancNinthCircuit,then,thatthecreationof

16

thousandsofstandalonecopyrightsinagivenworkwaslikelynotintended.

17

Garcia (en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*7,2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,

18

at*26.

25

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

WeconcludethatMerkindidnotobtainanddoesnotpossessacopyright

1
2

inhisdirectorialcontributionstothefinishedfilm.5

B.

Copyright in Raw Film Footage

MerkinalsocontendsthatheandnotCasaDuseownsallcopyright

4
5

interestsintherawfilmfootagewhichwascontainedontheharddriveand

DVDsandfromwhichthefinalfilmHeads Upwasorwillbeproduced.
UnlikeMerkinscreativecontributionstothefilm,thefilmfootageis

7
8

subjecttocopyrightprotection.Anoriginalmotionpictureissurelyaworkof

authorshipinwhichcopyrightprotectionsubsistsundertheCopyrightAct.

WethusneednotreachCasaDusesalternativecontention,whichthedistrictcourt
didnotaddress,thatevenifMerkinmaintainedsomecopyrightinterestinhis
contributions,hegrantedCasaDuseanimpliedlicensetousethosecontributions.See
Graham v. James,144F.3d229,236(2dCir.1998)(Acopyrightownerwhograntsa
nonexclusivelicensetousehiscopyrightedmaterialwaiveshisrighttosuethelicensee
forcopyrightinfringement.).
5

Wenote,however,thatwhileonecommentatorhassuggestedthat[t]hecorrect
approachtoresolvingthesituationwhereanindividual...contributesexpressiontoa
workbutisfoundnottobeajointauthoristofindanimpliedlicense,2Patry on
Copyright5:17,thereareatleastsomecircumstancesinwhichtheimpliedlicense
approachmaynotpermanentlyresolvethedispute.[U]nderfederalandstatelawa
materialbreachofalicensingagreementgivesrisetoarightofrescissionwhichallows
thenonbreachingpartytoterminatetheagreement.Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc.,987F.2d
580,586(9thCir.1993),as amended,Mar.24,1993.If,forexample,CasaDusehad
materiallybreachedanyimpliedlicensingagreementithadwithMerkin(by,for
example,failingtopayhim),Merkinssubsequentrefusaltogiv[e]upanycreativeor
artisticrightsheheld,J.A.581,mayhaveconstitutedjustifiablerescissionofthelicense.
26

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

See 17U.S.C.102(a)(6).Andwhereaworkispreparedoveraperiodoftime,

theportionofitthathasbeenfixedatanyparticulartimeconstitutestheworkas

ofthattime.Id.101.Theuneditedfilmfootageatissueinthiscaseseemsto

ustobeanearlyversionofthefinishedproduct,constitutingthefilmasofthat

time.BecausetheCopyrightAct[]affordsprotectiontoeachworkatthe

momentofitscreation,Weissmann v. Freeman,868F.2d1313,1317(2dCir.1989),

copyrightsubsistseveninsuchanunfinishedwork.6
Withrespecttotheownershipofanysuchcopyright,[c]opyrightina

8
9

workprotectedunderthistitlevestsinitiallyintheauthororauthorsofthe

10

work.17U.S.C.201(a).TheCopyrightActcontemplatesinstancesinwhich

11

multipleauthorsofasingleworkmaymaintainsomeformofcopyright

12

ownershipinthatwork,butthepartiesagreethatHeads Up fitsintononeof

13

thosecategories.7Incasesinwhichnoneofthemultipleauthorscenarios

14

specificallyidentifiedbytheCopyrightActapplies,butmultipleindividualslay

Forthisreason,wedonotsharetheconcernofthedissentingjudgeinGarcia(en banc)
that[i]fGarciassceneisnotawork,theneverytakeofeverysceneof,say,Lord of the
Ringsisnotawork,andthusnotprotectedbycopyright,unlessanduntiltheclips
becomepartofthefinalmovie.Garcia (en banc),F.3dat,2015WL2343586,at*13,
2015U.S.App.LEXIS8105,at*43(Kozinski,J.,dissenting).Copyrightsubsistsina
singleworkatanystageofitscreation,evenatpointsatwhichtheworkisnotyet
complete.
6

Thepartiesagree,forexample,thattheyarenotjointauthors.See 17U.S.C.201(a).
27

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

claimtothecopyrightinasinglework,thedispositiveinquiryiswhichofthe

putativeauthorsisthedominantauthor.See Childress, 945F.2dat508.

Thedistrictcourtconcluded,andweagree,thatCasaDusewasthat

3
4

dominantauthor.See 16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*10,2013U.S.Dist.

LEXIS143958at*29.OurCircuithasnotprofferedrulesfordeterminingwhich

ofmultipleauthorsisdominant.See Childress, 945F.2dat508(discussingjoint

authorshipinquirywhereoneperson[]isindisputablythedominantauthorof

theworkandtheonlyissueiswhetherthatpersonisthesoleauthororsheand

another[]arejointauthors).Wehave,however,identifiedfactualindiciaof

10

ownershipandauthorshiprelevanttothejointauthorinquiry.Thomson,147

11

F.3dat202.Thesefactorsincludingdecisionmakingauthority,billing,and

12

writtenagreementswiththirdparties,see id.at20204arealsorelevanttoour

13

dominantauthorinquiry.
Astodecisionmakingauthority,whichreferstothepartiesrelativecontrol

14
15

overwhatchangesaremadeandwhatisincludedinawork,id.at202,the

16

partiesagreethatMerkinexercisedasignificantdegreeofcontrolovermanyof

17

thecreativedecisionsunderlyingboththerawfilmfootageandthefinished

18

product.Asdirector,Merkinmadeavarietyofcreativedecisionsrelatedto
28

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

camerawork,lighting,blocking,andactorswardrobe,makeup,anddialogue

delivery,particularlyduringthethreedaysoffilming.Butinthecontextofthe

projectasawhole,CasaDuseexercisedfarmoredecisionmakingauthority.Cf.

id.at198n.10(putativecoauthorsclaimtohavedeveloped[aplays]plotand

theme,contributedextensivelytothestory,createdmanycharacterelements,

[andwritten]asignificantportionofthedialogueandsonglyricsdidnotrender

herajoint,letalonedominant,authorofplay).CasaDuseinitiatedtheproject;

acquiredtherightstothescreenplay;selectedthecast,crewanddirector;

controlledtheproductionschedule;andcoordinated(orattemptedto

10

coordinate)thefilmspublicityandrelease. Cf. Aalmuhammed v. Lee,202F.3d

11

1227,1234(9thCir.2000)([A]nauthorsuperintend[s]theworkbyexercising

12

control.Thiswilllikelybe...theinventiveormastermindwhocreates,orgives

13

effecttotheidea.(secondalterationinoriginal)(footnotesandinternal

14

quotationmarksomitted)).
Thesecondfactoristhewayinwhichthepartiesbillorcredit

15
16

themselves,whichprovidesevidenceofintentofauthorship.Thomson,147F.3d

17

at203.AlthoughMerkinevidentlysoughttoretaintherighttoremovehisname

18

fromthefinishedfilm,bothpartiesinitiallyintendedtotakesomecreditforthe

29

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

finalproduct.Thebillinginquiryastotherawfootage,then,appearstoustobe

essentiallyneutral,asweunderstandwilloftenbethecaseinthecontextofa

motionpicture.SeeDougherty,supraat264(explainingthatthisfactorisless

helpfulinevidencingthecontributorsintentforworkssuchasmotionpictures).
Thethirdfactor,thepartiesagreementswithoutsiders,Thomson,147

5
6

F.3dat204,pointsdecisivelyinCasaDusesfavor.CasaDuseobtainedwritten

workforhireagreementsfromeverycastandcrewmemberotherthanMerkin.

Merkindidnot,sofarastherecordshows,enterintoanythirdpartyagreements.

Indeed,nothingintherecordsuggestshehadanyintentiontodoso.CasaDuse

10

alsoenteredintoanagreementwiththescreenwriter,authorizingthevery

11

creationofthefilmasaderivativework.See17U.S.C.101(Aderivativework

12

isaworkbasedupononeormorepreexistingworks....).ThusCasaDuse

13

executedalloftherelevantthirdpartyagreements.

14

Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatinthiscase,CasaDusewasthe

15

dominantauthorofthefilm.Therecorddoesnotreflectanydevelopmentsthat

16

occurredbetweenthecreationoftherawfilmfootageandCasaDusesattempts

17

tocreateafinishedproductthatwouldalterthisanalysisastotherawfootage.

30

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

WethusconcludethatCasaDuse,notMerkin,ownsthecopyrightinthefinished

filmanditspriorversions,includingthedisputedrawfilmfootage.
IV.

TortiousInterferencewithBusinessRelations

Merkindoesnotchallengethedistrictcourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment

4
5

toCasaDuseontwoofitsthreestatelawclaims.8Heargues,however,thatthe

courterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitsclaimfortortious

interferencewithbusinessrelations.ThecourtconcludedthatMerkins

interferencewithCasaDusesplannedscreeningandpostscreeningreception,

whichresultedinthecancellationoftheeventsandthelossofCasaDuses

10

restaurantdeposit,constitutedtortiousinterferenceunderNewYorklaw.We

11

disagreeandconcludethattheundisputedmaterialfactsrequirejudgmentasa

12

matteroflawinMerkinsfavor.See Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a).
Toprevailonaclaimfortortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsalso

13
14

knownastortiousinterferencewithprospectiveeconomicadvantage,see Catskill

15

Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entmt Corp.,547F.3d115,132(2dCir.2008)under

ThedistrictcourtconcludedthatCasaDusesclaimsforbreachofcontractand
conversion,bothofwhichrelatedtoCasaDusesrequestthatMerkinreturnthehard
drivecontainingtherawfilmfootage,wereproperlyanalyzedasasingleclaimfor
replevinunderNewYorklaw.16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*12,2013U.S.Dist.
LEXIS143958at*35.Merkindoesnotchallengethedistrictcourtsorderrequiringthat
hereturntheharddriveandDVDstoCasaDuse.
8

31

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

NewYorklaw,aplaintiffmustshowthat(1)theplaintiffhadbusinessrelations

withathirdparty;(2)thedefendantinterferedwiththosebusinessrelations;(3)

thedefendantactedforawrongfulpurposeoruseddishonest,unfair,or

impropermeans;and(4)thedefendantsactsinjuredtherelationship.Id.
MerkindoesnotcontestthattotheextentCasaDusehadbusiness

5
6

relationshipswiththeNYFAandCityCrabRestaurant,hisactionsinterfered

withthoserelationshipsinawaythatinjuredCasaDuse.Itisundisputedthat

Merkinsclaimedcopyrightinterest,whethercommunicatedbyMerkinor

Reichman,resultedinthecancellationofthescreeningandthereception.16 Casa

10

Duse,2013WL5510770at*13n.5,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958at*4041n.5.

11

Thusthesecondandfourthrequirementsforacauseofactionweremet.Merkin

12

argues,however,thatCasaDusehasfailedtoestablishthefirstandthird

13

elementsoftheclaim.
Astothefirst,MerkinarguesthatCasaDusehasfailedtodemonstratethe

14
15

businessrelationscomponentofitsclaimbecauseaonenightrentalisnota

16

businessrelationship.AppellantsBr.at36.Merkincitesnoauthorityforthis

17

proposition.NewYorkcourtshaveplacedsomelimitsonwhatconstitutes

18

businessrelationsbyrejecting,forexample,aclaimcontainingonlyageneral
32

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

allegationofinterferencewithcustomerswithoutanysufficientlyparticular

allegationofinterferencewithaspecificcontractorbusinessrelationship,McGill

v. Parker,179A.D.2d98,105,582N.Y.S.2d91,95(1stDept1992),butCasaDuse

hasraisedmorethansuchageneralallegationbypointingtoitsbusiness

relationshipswiththeNYFAandtherestaurant.
Astothethirdelement,MerkinarguesthatCasaDusehasfailedtoshow

6
7

thatheactedforawrongfulpurposeoruseddishonest,unfair,orimproper

means.Catskill Dev.,547F.3dat132.Weagree.Merkincorrectlynotesthatthe

wrongfulmeanselementsetsahighbar.Unlikeaclaimfortortious

10

interferencewithcontract,whichrequiresaplaintifftoshownomorethanthat

11

thedefendantintentionallyandwithoutjustificationprocuredabreachofavalid

12

contractofwhichhewasaware,see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.,88

13

N.Y.2d413,424,668N.E.2d1370,1375(1996),aclaimfortortiousinterference

14

withbusinessrelationsrequiresaplaintifftoshow,asageneralrule,thatthe

15

defendantsconduct...amount[ed]toacrimeoranindependenttort,Carvel

16

Corp. v. Noonan,3N.Y.3d182,190,818N.E.2d1100,1103(2004).NewYork

17

courtshaverecognizedanexceptiontothisrulewhereadefendantengagesin

18

conductforthesolepurposeofinflictingintentionalharmonplaintiffs.Id.

33

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

(quotingNBT Bancorp, Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Grp., Inc.,215A.D.2d990,990,628

N.Y.S.2d408(3dDept1995),affd,87N.Y.2d614,664N.E.2d492(1996)).Butthis

exceptionisnarrow:Whenadefendanthasactedwithapermissiblepurpose,

suchasnormaleconomicselfinterest,wrongfulmeanshavenotbeenshown,

evenifthedefendantwasindifferenttothe[plaintiffs]fate.Id. TheNewYork

CourtofAppealshasnotyetidentifiedanyotherexceptionstothegeneralrule.

See id., 3N.Y.3dat19091,818N.E.2dat110304.

MerkinsinteractionwiththeNYFAdirectorwasnotcriminal,andCasa

8
9

Dusedoesnotarguethathisconductwasindependentlytortious.Nordoes

10

CasaDuseallegethatMerkinactedforthesolepurposeofharmingthe

11

company.CasaDuseinsteadurgesustofindthatMerkinsinsistentassertionof

12

hiscopyrightinterestinthefilmconstitutedwrongfulmeans,becausehe

13

demonstratedawillful[]blind[ness]tothefactualandlegalrealitiesof[his]

14

position.16 Casa Duse,2013WL5510770at*13,2013U.S.Dist.LEXIS143958at

15

*42.
NewYorkcourtshaveleftopenthepossibilitythatadefendantwhohas

16
17

harass[ed]aplaintiffwithmeritlesslitigationmayhaveutilizedwrongful

18

means.See Carvel Corp.,3N.Y.3dat192,818N.E.2dat1104.Butalthoughwe

34

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

haveconcludedthatMerkinscopyrightclaimsultimatelymustfail,wemustalso

conclude,inlightoftheconclusionofatleastoneappellatepanel,seeGarcia,766

F.3d929,thattheywerenotfrivolous,objectivelyunreasonable,orpatently

meritless.Garcia isnotonallfourswiththecasebeforeus,butitiscloseenough

forthatpurpose.ThereisalsonoindicationintherecordthatMerkinutterly

lackedbeliefinthemeritofhiscopyrightclaimorthatheintendedonlytoharass

CasaDuse.Weconcludethathisinsistence,howevermisguided,onhis

copyrightinterestdidnotamounttothesortofegregiouswrongdoingthat

mightsupportatortiousinterferenceclaimintheabsenceof[]anindependently

10

unlawfulactorevilmotive.Carvel Corp., 3N.Y.3dat189,818N.E.2dat110203.

V.

11

FeesandSanctions

MerkinandReichmanarguethatthedistrictcourtmadelegalerrorsin

12
13

awardingfeesandcoststoCasaDuseundertheCopyrightAct,17U.S.C.505,

14

andimposingsanctionsagainstReichmanintheformoffeesandcostsunder28

15

U.S.C.1927.Wedisagree.
ThedistrictcourtdidnoterringrantingCasaDusesmotionforattorneys

16
17

feeseventhoughthemotionwasfiledpriortotheentryofjudgment.Amotion

18

forattorneysfeesmustbefiledno later than14daysaftertheentryof

35

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

judgment.Fed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(2)(B)(i)(emphasisadded).Promptfiling...

enablesthecourtinappropriatecircumstancestomakeitsrulingonafeerequest

intimeforanyappellatereviewofadisputeoverfeestoproceedatthesame

timeasreviewonthemeritsofthecase.Weyant v. Okst,198F.3d311,314(2d

Cir.1999)(ellipsisinoriginal)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.54AdvisoryCommittee

Note(1993)).Butalthoughthe14dayfilinglimitrunsfromtheentryofafinal

judgment,see id.,MerkinandReichmanhavenotexplainedwhythedistrict

courtcouldnotgrantamotionthatwasfiledpriortoafinaljudgment.
NordidthecourterrinconcludingthattheCopyrightActallowsaparty

9
10

thathasnotregisteredacopyrighttorecovercostsandfeesunderspecified

11

circumstances.UndertheAct,acourtmay,initsdiscretion,allowtherecovery

12

offullcostsbyoragainstanypartyotherthantheUnitedStatesoranofficer

13

thereofinanycivilactionunder[theCopyrightAct]andawardareasonable

14

attorneysfeetotheprevailingpartyaspartofthecosts.17U.S.C.505.

15

AnothersectionoftheAct,entitledRegistrationasprerequisitetocertain

16

remediesforinfringement,limitsrecoveryininfringementactions,barring

17

recoveryforinfringementthatoccurredpriortoregistration:
Inanyactionunderthistitle,[withexceptionsnotrelevanthere],no
awardofstatutorydamagesorofattorneysfees,asprovidedby...

18
19

36

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

[section]505,shallbemadefor(1)anyinfringementofcopyrightin
anunpublishedworkcommencedbeforetheeffectivedateofits
registration;or(2)anyinfringementofcopyrightcommencedafter
firstpublicationoftheworkandbeforetheeffectivedateofits
registration,unlesssuchregistrationismadewithinthreemonths
afterthefirstpublicationofthework.

17U.S.C.412.MerkinarguesthatthissectionofthelawprohibitsCasaDuse,

whichdidnotregisteracopyrightinthefilm,fromcollectingfeesandcosts.But

CasaDusehasnotbroughtaninfringementaction.Itseeksinsteada

1
2
3
4
5

10

declaratoryjudgmentthatithasnotinfringedonMerkinsputativecopyright.

11

[T]hereisnothinginthestatutethatprohibitsfeeawardsincases,likethisone,

12

ofnoninfringement.Latin Am. Music Co. v. Am. Socy Of Composers, Authors &

13

Publishers (ASCAP),642F.3d87,90(1stCir.2011)(emphasisinoriginal)

14

(concludingthatadefendantinaninfringementactionmayobtainfeesandcosts

15

undersection505despitenothavingregisteredacopyright).

16

17

andseverallyliablewithMerkinforcostsandfees,becausetheCopyrightAct

18

allowsfortheimpositionofcostsandfeesonlyagainstaparty,notagainsta

19

partysattorney.17U.S.C.505.ButthecourtawardedcostsandfeestoCasa

20

DuseunderboththeCopyrightActand28U.S.C.1927.Thelatterstatute

21

allowsacourttorequireanattorneytosatisfypersonallycostsandfees.28

Reichmanalsoarguesthatthedistrictcourterredbyfindinghimjointly

37

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

U.S.C.1927.Thedistrictcourtsallocationofcostsandfeeswasnotcontraryto

law.
MerkinandReichmanfinallyarguethateveniffeesandcostswere

3
4

availableunderthesestatutes,thedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretioninawarding

themtoCasaDuseunder17U.S.C.505and28U.S.C.1927.Astotheformer,

adistrictcourtdeterminingwhethertoexerciseitsdiscretiontoawardfeesunder

theCopyrightActmayconsidersuchfactorsas(1)thefrivolousnessofthenon

prevailingpartysclaimsordefenses;(2)thepartysmotivation;(3)whetherthe

claimsordefenseswereobjectivelyunreasonable;and(4)compensationand

10

deterrence.Bryant v. Media Right Prods., Inc.,603F.3d135,144(2dCir.2010).As

11

tothelatter,[s]anctionsmaybeimposed...onlywhenthereisafindingof

12

conductconstitutingorakintobadfaith....[A]nawardunder1927isproper

13

whentheattorneysactionsaresocompletelywithoutmeritastorequirethe

14

conclusionthattheymusthavebeenundertakenforsomeimproperpurpose

15

suchasdelay.In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3dat115(internalquotation

16

marksomitted).

17

MerkinandReichmanarguethattheircopyrighttheorywasnot

18

objectivelyunreasonable,see Bryant,603F.3dat144(notingthatthisfactor
38

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

shouldbeaccordedsubstantialweight),letalonesocompletelywithoutmerit

astorequiretheconclusionthattheymusthavebeenundertakenforsome

improperpurposesuchasdelay,In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc.,218F.3dat115

(internalquotationmarksomitted),becauseitwasbasedontheirreadingofthe

CopyrightOfficeswebsite.Wehaveconcluded,inthecontextofCasaDuses

tortiousinterferencewithbusinessrelationsclaim,thattheappellantswerenot

evidentlymotivatedsolelybythedesiretoharmCasaDuse.Wehavealso

concludedthatthedefendantscopyrightclaimsarewithoutmerit.Givenour

remandtothedistrictcourt,whichmayreconsideritsgrantofcostsandfeesand

10

itsimpositionofsanctionsinlightofourreversalofthetortiousinterference

11

judgment,weneednotdeterminewhetherMerkinsandReichmansrelianceon

12

theCopyrightOfficewebsitewasobjectivelyunreasonable,norwhetherother

13

factorsweighinfavorofgrantingfeestoCasaDuseundertheCopyrightAct,

14

norwhetherReichmansconductwasakintobadfaithsufficienttosustainthe

15

sanctionsenteredagainsthim.Id.Thedistrictcourtmayconsiderthese

16

contentionsonremandifandwhenitisrequiredtocalculatecostsandfeeswith

17

respecttothecopyrightclaimsonly,withoutreferencetothetortious

18

interferenceclaim,whichweconcludeiswithoutmerit.

39

No.133865
16 Casa Duse v. Alex Merkin & Maurice Reichman

CONCLUSION

Fortheforegoingreasons,weAFFIRMthedistrictcourtsgrantof

summaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitscopyrightclaimsandthusthecourts

entryofapermanentinjunctionagainstMerkin,REVERSEthedistrictcourts

grantofsummaryjudgmenttoCasaDuseonitstortiousinterferencewith

businessrelationsclaim,andREMANDtothedistrictcourtwithinstructionsto

entersummaryjudgmentinfavorofMerkinonthatclaim,basedthereonto

reexamineitsawardofcostsandattorneysfees,andforsuchotherproceedings

asarewarranted.

40