Selby v. New Line Cinema Corp.
United States District Court for the Central District of California
96 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (2000)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
William Selby (plaintiff) wrote a screenplay entitled “Doubletime” based on an idea he had conceived for a theatrical motion picture. Selby registered the screenplay with the Writer’s Guild of America and the United States Copyright Office. Selby’s agents later submitted his ideas and screenplay to New Line Cinema Corporation (defendant) (New Line) for review and consideration. New Line rejected both but knew and understood that Selby expected to be compensated and receive screen credit if New Line ever used his ideas for the creation, development, and production of a theatrical motion picture. Despite its representations to Selby, New Line subsequently purchased a screenplay entitled “Frequency” from Toby Emmerich (defendant). Selby sued New Line and Emmerich (collectively, New Line) for breach of implied-in-fact contract, among other claims, alleging both the “Frequency” screenplay and motion picture as produced copied his “Doubletime” screenplay. Selby further alleged New Line used his ideas in producing the motion picture without compensating him or providing him with screen credit. New Line moved to dismiss Selby’s cause of action on the ground that it was preempted under the Copyright Act of 1976.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Matz, 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. 46,500 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.
