Marascalco v. Fantasy, Inc.
953 F.2d 469 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under § 304(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, an author's prior assignment of a copyright renewal interest is contingent and does not vest in the assignee unless the author survives until the commencement of the renewal term.
Facts:
- In 1956, John Marascalco and Robert Blackwell co-authored the song 'Good Golly Miss Molly'.
- On July 23, 1956, Marascalco and Blackwell assigned all their ownership rights in the song, including the copyright and the right of renewal, to Venice Music, Inc.
- Venice Music copyrighted the song on January 22, 1957, establishing an original 28-year copyright term set to expire at the end of 1985.
- Through a series of assignments over several years, Fantasy, Inc. eventually acquired the rights originally held by Venice Music.
- On January 18, 1985, during the final year of the original copyright term, Marascalco filed a timely renewal registration for the song on behalf of himself and Blackwell.
- On March 9, 1985, Robert Blackwell died, after the renewal was registered but before the original copyright term expired.
- Blackwell's daughters, as his statutory successors under copyright law, inherited his potential renewal interest.
- On March 15, 1986, after the renewal term had begun, Blackwell’s daughters assigned their interest in the song to Marascalco.
Procedural Posture:
- Marascalco notified Fantasy that he claimed the renewal interest traceable to Blackwell, which Fantasy rejected.
- Marascalco filed a lawsuit against Fantasy in U.S. District Court, seeking a declaration of his rights to Blackwell's share of the renewal copyright.
- The district court (trial court) granted judgment in favor of Marascalco, holding that the renewal right failed to vest in Fantasy because Blackwell died before the renewal term commenced.
- Fantasy, Inc., as the 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 an author's assignment of a copyright renewal interest vest in the assignee upon timely registration of the renewal, even if the author dies before the original copyright term expires and the renewal term begins?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, Circuit Judge
No. An author's assignment of a copyright renewal interest does not vest in the assignee unless the author survives until the start of the renewal term. The court's reasoning rested on statutory interpretation, legislative history, case law, and public policy. The court found the language of § 304(a) ('shall be entitled...when application...shall have been made') to be ambiguous, suggesting that timely registration is a necessary but not sufficient condition for vesting. Tracing copyright law back to the 1790 and 1831 Acts, the court concluded that Congress intended to perpetuate the historical requirement that an author must survive to the beginning of the renewal term, even though this language was dropped in the 1870 Act. Citing Supreme Court precedent like Stewart v. Abend, the court emphasized the core policy of the renewal provision: to provide authors and their statutory successors a 'second chance' to benefit from a successful work, an opportunity that would be lost if the renewal right vested in an assignee before the author's death.
Dissenting - Thompson, Circuit Judge
Yes. An author's assignment of a copyright renewal interest should vest upon the timely filing of a renewal application. The dissent argued that the plain language of § 304(a) is clear: an author is 'entitled to a [renewal term] when application for such renewal and extension shall have been made.' The majority's reliance on legislative history was misplaced, particularly because the most significant legislative action was Congress's deliberate deletion of the explicit survival requirement in the 1870 Act, a change that was never reversed. The dissent contended that in the absence of clear legislative history to the contrary, the court should abide by the statute's plain meaning. Furthermore, the majority of legal commentators who have directly addressed the issue conclude that vesting occurs upon registration.
Analysis:
This decision resolved a significant ambiguity in copyright law by establishing a bright-line rule for the vesting of assigned renewal interests. It strongly favors the statutory policy of protecting authors and their heirs over the policy of promoting commercial certainty for assignees like publishers. By holding that an assigned renewal interest is merely an expectancy that is extinguished if the author dies before the renewal term begins, the court ensures that the author's family receives the 'second chance' Congress intended. This precedent significantly impacts the valuation and transfer of renewal rights for pre-1978 works, making such assignments from living authors inherently contingent and less secure for purchasers.
