Childress v. Taylor
945 F.2d 500 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be considered a joint author of a work under the Copyright Act of 1976, each contributor must provide independently copyrightable expression and all contributors must intend to be regarded as co-authors at the time of creation.
Facts:
- Actress Clarice Taylor, interested in developing a play about comedian "Moms" Mabley, conducted extensive research, including interviews and collecting jokes.
- In 1986, Taylor persuaded playwright Alice Childress to write the play based on this research material, with a tight six-week deadline.
- Taylor provided all her research to Childress and suggested general scenes, characters (such as Mabley's piano player, "Luther"), and jokes.
- Childress wrote the entire play, titled "Moms: A Praise Play for a Black Comedienne," and was responsible for its structure and dialogue.
- Childress registered the copyright for the play solely in her own name.
- After the play's initial production, the parties' agents exchanged correspondence about an agreement, with Taylor's agent proposing equal ownership, but no formal contract was ever finalized.
- Childress explicitly rejected a draft agreement that would have formalized co-ownership.
- After their relationship deteriorated, Taylor hired another writer, Ben Caldwell, and gave him a copy of Childress's script to use in creating a new play about Mabley.
Procedural Posture:
- Alice Childress filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Clarice Taylor and others, alleging copyright infringement and other claims.
- Taylor filed a counterclaim asserting she was a joint author of the play and therefore could not infringe the copyright.
- Childress moved for summary judgment on the issue of authorship.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for Childress, holding she was the sole author of the play.
- Taylor, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with Childress as the appellee.
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 contributor to a dramatic work, who provides research, ideas, and minor suggestions, qualify as a joint author if their contributions are not independently copyrightable and the principal author did not intend to share authorship?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No. A contributor does not qualify as a joint author unless they meet a two-part test requiring both an independently copyrightable contribution and a mutual intent among all parties to be co-authors. The Copyright Act's definition of a 'joint work' requires an inquiry beyond merely the intent to merge contributions into a unitary whole. First, the court held that to be an 'author,' each contributor must supply more than ideas or non-copyrightable facts; they must contribute original expression that is itself copyrightable. Taylor's contributions of research, ideas, and suggestions did not meet this threshold. Second, and more importantly, the court found there must be a mutual intent between the parties to be joint authors. Here, all evidence indicated that Childress never considered Taylor a co-author and consistently acted as the sole creator, as demonstrated by her copyright registration and her rejection of a co-ownership agreement. Taylor's subjective belief that she was a co-author was insufficient without Childress sharing that intent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the test for joint authorship under the Copyright Act of 1976, establishing a high bar for such claims. By requiring both independently copyrightable contributions and mutual intent to be co-authors, the court protects dominant authors from claims by collaborators who provide only ideas, research, or other non-copyrightable assistance. The ruling effectively channels disputes over non-copyrightable contributions away from copyright law and towards contract law, encouraging parties to define their relationships and compensation through formal agreements. This holding has become the standard in most federal circuits for resolving joint authorship disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Childress v. Taylor