Stewart v. Abend
United States Supreme Court
495 U.S. 207, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990)
- Written by Cynthia (Anderson) Beeler, JD
Facts
Cornell Woolrich wrote the story It Had to Be Murder (Murder) and assigned motion-picture rights to B.G. De Sylva Productions (De Sylva). The assignment included a provision requiring Woolrich to renew the copyrights in the works and assign the rights in the renewal term to De Sylva. De Sylva then sold its interests in Murder to Patron, Incorporated (Patron) (defendant), a production company jointly formed by Jimmy Stewart (defendant) and Alfred Hitchcock. Patron produced and distributed the film Rear Window, a derivative work of Murder. Woolrich died before the initial copyright term for Murder was eligible for renewal, and his estate was left to a corporate trustee. The trustee renewed the copyright for Murder and assigned the renewal rights to Sheldon Abend (plaintiff). Abend notified Patron of its copyright infringement in the renewal rights to Murder after Rear Window aired on the ABC television network (ABC). When Rear Window was licensed to ABC a second time, Abend filed suit for copyright infringement, but ultimately settled the case. After a circuit-court decision announced that copyright holders of derivative works do not need separate approval to continue to distribute a work during the renewal term, Patron released Rear Window in several new formats. Abend sued for copyright infringement based on the new distributions. The district court granted Stewart’s motion for summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed the decision. Stewart petitioned for certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.