Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp.
United States District Court for the Central District of California
964 F. Supp. 1416 (1997)

- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
In 1963, Batjac Productions, Inc. (plaintiff) produced the motion picture McClintock! and registered the motion picture with the United States Copyright Office. Batjac failed to renew the copyright in a timely manner, and the motion picture entered the public domain in 1991. Then, in 1993, Batjac created a panned and scanned version of the motion picture for exhibition on television and home video. Batjac reduced the aspect ratio of the motion picture from 2.35:1 to 1.33:1; remixed, resequenced, sweetened, equalized, and balanced the motion picture’s monaural soundtrack; and added new sound material. Batjac then transferred exclusive domestic home video rights in the 1993 McClintock! to Maljack Productions, Inc. (plaintiff) and registered the same with the Copyright Office as a derivative work. Batjac identified the 1963 McClintock! as the preexisting material, and also listed the new material added thereto. In 1993, UAV Corporation (defendant) began producing and distributing a videocassette version of McClintock! that was virtually identical to the 1993 McClintock! except that UAV replaced the original soundtrack music with new music. Batjac and Maljack brought suit against UAV for copyright infringement of the 1993 McClintock!
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.