Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
425 F.2d 397 (1970)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
David Goodis (plaintiff) wrote the popular novel Dark Passage. Prior to the novel’s 1946 publication in book form, Goodis sold the exclusive movie rights to Warner Brothers. Goodis also sold Curtis Publishing Company (Curtis) the right to publish the novel in serialized installments in the Saturday Evening Post. Each issue of the magazine containing an installment of Dark Passage included a copyright notice in the magazine’s name. In 1956 Warner Brothers assigned its rights in the property to United Artists (UA). UA’s television division, United Artists Television, Inc. (defendant), produced a series called The Fugitive. In 1965 Goodis brought suit against UA in federal district court, alleging that the television series infringed Dark Passage. UA countered that the television series was covered by the contractual assignment of rights. The court granted summary judgment in favor of UA, holding that Curtis had been a mere licensee whose rights in Dark Passage expired with the publication of each installment. In the court’s reasoning, this placed the novel in the public domain. Goodis died in 1967. His executors (plaintiffs) appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lumbard, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
