NOM Music, Inc. v. William Kaslin, a/k/a Bill Chaplin, et al.
343 F.2d 198, 145 U.S.P.Q. 237 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The copyright notice for a derivative work is valid if it contains the name of the proprietor of the new derivative work, even if that proprietor is an assignee of the underlying work and has not yet recorded the assignment in the Copyright Office.
Facts:
- In 1956, Keel Music Publishing Co. (Keel) secured a statutory copyright for the unpublished lyrics and melody of the song 'A Thousand Miles Away'.
- On December 13, 1956, Keel assigned this copyright to Nom Music, Inc. (Nom).
- Nom created a new piano arrangement for 'A Thousand Miles Away'.
- On December 27, 1956, Nom published the song, including its new piano arrangement, with a copyright notice bearing its own name.
- On January 16, 1957, Nom recorded the copyright assignment from Keel with the Copyright Office.
- William Kaslin and other defendants later published a song titled 'Daddy's Home'.
- Nom alleged that 'Daddy's Home' infringed on its copyright for 'A Thousand Miles Away'.
Procedural Posture:
- Nom Music, Inc. sued William Kaslin and others in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement.
- The District Court granted an interlocutory order (a type of preliminary injunction) restraining the defendants from publishing or exploiting their song, 'Daddy's Home'.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the District Court's interlocutory order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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Does an assignee of an unpublished work's copyright forfeit that copyright by publishing a derivative version of the work with a notice bearing the assignee's name before recording the assignment in the Copyright Office?
Opinions:
Majority - Lumbard, C.J.
No. The assignee did not forfeit the copyright. When Nom Music added a piano arrangement, it created a derivative work which is considered a 'new work' under § 7 of the Copyright Act, subject to its own copyright. Nom Music was the original proprietor of the copyright in this new arrangement. Therefore, the copyright notice properly listed Nom Music's name as the proprietor of the new, published work. The court found it unnecessary to decide whether § 32 (requiring recordation of an assignment before an assignee can substitute their name in the notice) applies to assignments of unpublished works, because Nom Music was not acting as a mere assignee substituting its name, but as the proprietor of a new work. The assignment from Keel simply served as the required consent to use the underlying lyrics and melody.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the copyright notice requirements for derivative works, establishing a significant distinction between the copyright in an underlying work and the copyright in new material added to it. It allows the creator of a derivative work to claim copyright in their own name immediately upon publication, without waiting for the recordation of the assignment of the underlying rights. This simplifies the notice process for publishers of derivative works but underscores the importance for researchers to investigate the full copyright history of a work, as the notice on a derivative piece may not reveal the ownership of the original elements.
Unlock the full brief for NOM Music, Inc. v. William Kaslin, a/k/a Bill Chaplin, et al.