Horror Inc. v. Miller
[Citation Not Provided in Case Text] (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The determination of whether a creator is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of the Copyright Act's 'work made for hire' doctrine is governed by the common law of agency, as articulated in the multi-factor test from Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, not by the creator's union membership or their status under labor law.
Facts:
- Victor Miller, a professional screenwriter, has been a member of the Writers Guild of America, East (WGA) since 1974.
- In 1979, Sean S. Cunningham, through his production company Manny Company, contacted Miller to write a screenplay for a horror film.
- Manny, a signatory to the WGA's collective bargaining agreement, and Miller executed a standard WGA 'Writer's Flat Deal Contract' for the screenplay that would become 'Friday the 13th'.
- The contract stipulated that Miller would be paid $9,282 in two lump sums upon delivery of the first and final drafts.
- Miller wrote the screenplay at his home, on his own typewriter, and largely determined his own work hours, though he collaborated closely with Cunningham on ideas.
- Despite Cunningham's input and final authority, Miller consistently received sole 'written by' credit for the screenplay.
- Manny did not provide Miller with traditional employee benefits, such as health insurance or paid vacation, nor did it withhold taxes from his compensation.
- In 1980, Manny assigned its rights in the screenplay to Georgetown Productions, which registered the copyright for the film as a 'work made for hire'.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2016, Victor Miller served Notices of Termination on Horror Inc. and Manny Company to reclaim his copyright in the screenplay for 'Friday the 13th'.
- Horror Inc. and Manny Company (Plaintiffs) sued Miller in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking a declaration that the screenplay was a 'work for hire' and Miller's termination notices were invalid.
- Miller (Defendant) filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that he was the author and the termination was valid.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Miller.
- Horror Inc. and Manny Company, as Appellants, appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Miller was 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:
Is a screenwriter who is a member of a writers' union and works under a collective bargaining agreement an 'employee' for purposes of the Copyright Act's 'work made for hire' doctrine, thereby making the production company the author of the screenplay and barring the screenwriter from exercising statutory termination rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Carney
No. A screenwriter's membership in a union does not automatically make them an employee for copyright purposes; their status must be determined by the common law of agency. The court rejected the argument that labor law principles or WGA membership should control the 'work for hire' analysis, reasoning that the Copyright Act and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) serve fundamentally different purposes. The controlling standard is the multi-factor test established in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, which assesses the nature of the relationship based on principles of agency law. Applying the Reid factors, the court found they weighed decisively in favor of Miller being an independent contractor. Factors strongly supporting this conclusion included the high level of skill required for screenwriting, Manny's failure to provide employee benefits, Manny's failure to treat Miller as an employee for tax purposes, the project-based nature of the work with no right to assign additional projects, and the lump-sum payment method. Although Manny exercised some creative control, this was insufficient to overcome the numerous factors pointing to an independent contractor relationship. Therefore, the screenplay was not a 'work made for hire,' Miller is the legal author, and his copyright termination notice is valid.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of the Reid agency test in 'work made for hire' disputes, clarifying that it applies even within highly unionized industries like film production. The court's refusal to equate 'employee' status under labor law with 'employee' status under copyright law provides significant protection for creators. It affirms that artists and writers do not forfeit their statutory authorship and termination rights simply by joining a union or working under a collective bargaining agreement, which could impact how future entertainment industry contracts are drafted and litigated concerning copyright ownership.
