Lexplug logoLexplug

Aalmuhammed v. Lee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
202 F.3d 1227 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To be considered a co-author of a joint work under the Copyright Act, a contributor must be an "author," which requires more than making a valuable, copyrightable contribution; it requires that the person be a "master mind" who superintends or exercises control over the creation of the work.


Facts:

  • Warner Brothers contracted with Spike Lee and his production companies to produce the film 'Malcolm X'.
  • The film's star, Denzel Washington, asked Jefri Aalmuhammed, an expert on Malcolm X and Islam, to assist him in preparing for the role.
  • Aalmuhammed's role expanded significantly; he reviewed the script, suggested extensive revisions that were incorporated, directed actors on set, created new scenes, and provided translations.
  • Aalmuhammed's contributions were primarily to ensure the historical and religious accuracy of the film, particularly scenes depicting Malcolm X's conversion to Islam and pilgrimage to Mecca.
  • Aalmuhammed never had a written employment or co-authorship contract with Warner Brothers, Spike Lee, or Lee's production companies, though he expected to be compensated.
  • Aalmuhammed received a payment of $25,000 from Lee and was offered $100,000 by Washington for his work.
  • Prior to the film's release, Aalmuhammed requested a co-writer credit but was refused.
  • When the film was released, the credits listed Aalmuhammed only as an 'Islamic Technical Consultant'.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jefri Aalmuhammed filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Spike Lee, various production companies, and Warner Brothers.
  • The complaint sought a declaratory judgment of co-authorship under the Copyright Act, an accounting of profits, and alleged claims for breach of implied contract, quantum meruit, and unfair competition.
  • The district court dismissed the implied contract and quantum meruit claims under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling they were barred by the statute of limitations.
  • The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Aalmuhammed's copyright claims.
  • Aalmuhammed (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal and summary judgment orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a person who makes substantial and independently copyrightable contributions to a film qualify as a co-author of the film as a 'joint work' under the Copyright Act if they do not exercise control over the work or are not considered a 'master mind' of the project?


Opinions:

Majority - Kleinfeld, J.

No. A person does not become a co-author of a joint work merely by making substantial and copyrightable contributions; they must also qualify as an 'author' of the entire work, which requires being the 'master mind' with superintendence and control over the project. The Copyright Act's definition of a 'joint work' requires 'two or more authors,' and the court distinguished being the author of a contribution from being an author of the collective work. Citing the Supreme Court's definition in Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, an author is the 'originator' to whom the work 'owes its origin' and who acts as the 'inventive or master mind.' A mere creative contribution is insufficient, as many people creatively contribute to a film without being considered authors. The court determined that Aalmuhammed, while making valuable contributions, lacked any control over the work. Spike Lee and Warner Brothers retained ultimate authority to accept or reject his suggestions. Furthermore, there were no objective manifestations of a shared intent to be co-authors; to the contrary, Warner Brothers' 'work for hire' agreement with Lee demonstrated an intent to consolidate, not share, authorship. Granting authorship status based on contribution alone would retard the arts by discouraging primary authors from collaborating for fear of losing sole ownership.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the standard for joint authorship in the Ninth Circuit, especially for complex collaborative works like motion pictures. It establishes that control over the work is a critical, and often determinative, factor, raising the bar for co-authorship claims beyond merely providing copyrightable material. The ruling protects principal creators, like directors and producers, from ownership claims by consultants, assistants, or other contributors who provide valuable but subordinate input. By aligning with the Second Circuit's approach, this case solidifies a judicial trend toward requiring both copyrightable contribution and evidence of shared authorial intent and control.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Aalmuhammed v. Lee (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"