Aalmuhammed v. Lee
202 F.3d 1227, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 940, 2000 Daily Journal DAR 1397 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be considered an author of a "joint work" under the Copyright Act, a contributor must do more than provide substantial, independently copyrightable material. The contributor must also be a "master mind" of the work, meaning they exercise control over its creation and there is an objective manifestation of shared intent among all parties to be co-authors.
Facts:
- In 1991, Warner Brothers contracted with Spike Lee 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 made extensive contributions to the film, including suggesting script revisions for historical and religious accuracy, directing actors, creating at least two scenes, and translating Arabic for subtitles.
- Many of Aalmuhammed's script revisions were included in the final version of the film.
- Aalmuhammed never had a written contract with Warner Brothers, Spike Lee, or Lee's production companies for his contributions.
- Before the film's release, Aalmuhammed's request for a co-writer credit was denied.
- When the film was released, Aalmuhammed was credited only as an 'Islamic Technical Consultant'.
- Aalmuhammed received a $25,000 check from Lee's company, which he cashed, and a $100,000 check from Denzel Washington, which he did not cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Jefri Aalmuhammed filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Spike Lee, Warner Brothers, and others.
- The complaint sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Aalmuhammed was a co-author of 'Malcolm X' under the Copyright Act.
- The district court dismissed some of Aalmuhammed's claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The district court then granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Aalmuhammed's remaining claims, including the copyright claim.
- Aalmuhammed, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 copyrightable contributions to a film qualify as an 'author' of a 'joint work' under the Copyright Act if they lack control over the work and the parties do not objectively manifest an intent to be co-authors?
Opinions:
Majority - Kleinfeld, Circuit Judge
No, a person who makes substantial and copyrightable contributions does not qualify as an author of a joint work if they lack control and there is no mutual intent to be co-authors. The Copyright Act defines a 'joint work' as a work prepared by two or more 'authors.' While Aalmuhammed made valuable, and likely copyrightable, contributions, he was not an 'author' of the film as a whole. Citing 'Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,' the court defined an author as the 'master mind' to whom the work owes its origin—the person who superintends and exercises control over the work. Here, Spike Lee and Warner Brothers maintained ultimate control, not Aalmuhammed. Furthermore, there were no objective manifestations of a shared intent to be co-authors; in fact, Warner Brothers' 'work for hire' agreement with Lee demonstrated an intent to consolidate, not share, authorship. Although the court rejected the copyright claim, it reversed the district court's dismissal of Aalmuhammed's quantum meruit claim, finding that New York's longer statute of limitations should apply, and also reversed the dismissal of his unfair competition claims.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the test for joint authorship in the Ninth Circuit, particularly for complex collaborative works like films. The decision establishes that merely contributing copyrightable material is insufficient; a party must also demonstrate control over the work and a mutual intent to be co-authors. This raises the bar for co-authorship claims and protects primary creators from 'claim-jumping' by consultants, editors, or other assistants. By emphasizing control and objective intent, the ruling provides greater certainty for producers and directors and encourages all parties in creative collaborations to define their roles and ownership rights through written contracts.
