Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.
1989 WL 1866, 866 F.2d 278 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hotel that rents videodiscs to guests for viewing on hotel-provided equipment within their private rooms does not engage in a "public performance" under the Copyright Act. A private hotel room is not a "place open to the public," and providing the equipment for in-room viewing does not constitute a "transmission" of the work.
Facts:
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. and Kenneth Irwin operated the La Mancha hotel resort in Palm Springs, California.
- La Mancha's lobby gift shop rented movie videodiscs to hotel guests for a daily fee.
- Each guest room at the hotel was equipped with a videodisc player and a large screen projection television.
- Hotel employees were available to assist guests with operating the in-room equipment.
- Guests viewed the rented movies exclusively within the privacy of their individual hotel rooms.
Procedural Posture:
- Columbia Pictures, Inc. and other motion picture studios sued Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. and Kenneth Irwin (operators of La Mancha) in U.S. District Court for copyright infringement.
- La Mancha filed a counterclaim alleging unfair competition and antitrust violations.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Mancha, concluding that the in-room viewings were not public performances.
- Columbia Pictures (appellant) appealed the district court's decision 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 hotel's practice of renting videodiscs to its guests for viewing on equipment provided in their private hotel rooms constitute a "public performance" that infringes on the copyright owner's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Scannlain, Circuit Judge
No, the hotel's practice does not constitute a public performance. The court analyzed the two clauses defining a 'public performance' in the Copyright Act. First, under the 'public place' clause, the court held that while a hotel is generally open to the public, a guest's rented room is a private space, not a 'place open to the public.' The court distinguished this from cases like Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne, where video store viewing booths were deemed public because the nature of the entire establishment was public exhibition, unlike a hotel whose primary purpose is lodging. Second, under the 'transmit' clause, the court found that the hotel did not 'transmit or otherwise communicate' the performance. 'Transmit' is defined as sending images or sounds 'beyond the place from which they are sent.' The court reasoned that 'otherwise communicate' must refer to a similar process. Since the videodisc, player, and television were all contained within the single private room, no transmission to a separate location occurred.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the public performance right in the context of lodging, establishing that facilitating private performances in individual, private spaces does not constitute infringement. It distinguishes between businesses whose 'nature' is public exhibition (like a movie theater or video arcade) and those providing private accommodations where such viewings may incidentally occur. The ruling underscores the principle that copyright law, as written, does not control performances within private spheres, placing the onus on Congress to expand protections to cover new technological methods of distribution if it so chooses.
