Business Law 11th Edition by Kenneth Clarkson,Roger LeRoy Miller,Gaylord Jentz,Frank Cross

تمرين 13

Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, Inc. v. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2004. 380 F.3d 624.
• Background and Facts Martha Graham's career as a dancer, dance instructor, and choreographer began in the first third of the twentieth century. In the 1920s, she started a dance company and a dance school and choreographed works on commission. In the 1940s, she funded the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. (the Center). She sold her school to the Martha Graham School of Contemporary Dance, Inc. (the School), in 1956. By 1980, the Center encompassed the School. In 1989, two years before her death, Graham executed a will in which she gave Ronald Protas, the Center's general director, "any rights or interests" in "dance works, musical scores [and] scenery sets." After her death, Protas asserted ownership of all of Graham's dances and related property. In 1999, the Center's board removed Protas and, due to financial problems, suspended operations. Meanwhile, Protas founded the Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, Inc., and began licensing Graham's dances. When the School reopened in 2001, Protas and his foundation filed a suit in a federal district court against the Center and others to enjoin their use of, among other things, seventy of the dances. The Center responded, in part, that Graham had assigned the dances to it. The court ruled that twenty-one of the dances had been assigned to the Center. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
* * * *
The Appellants contend that the District Court erred in finding that Graham assigned to the Center 21 dances, * * * which were created before 1956, unpublished at the time of assignment, and not commissioned. We disagree.
* * * *
Although there is no document memorializing Graham's assignment of copyright in her pre- 1956 dances to the Center, the District Court was entitled to find that Graham assigned to the Center, orally or in writing, her copyrights in her noncommissioned pre-1956 dances that were not published at the time she assigned them.
The District Court relied on several items of evidence to reach its conclusion. For example, Jeannette Roosevelt, former President of the Center's board of directors, testified that Graham had given the dances to the Center prior to 1965 or 1966, when she joined the board. There was additional evidence that the Center acted as the owner of the dances by entering into contracts with third parties, and that Graham was aware of this and did not object. Other evidence showed that the Center received royalties for the dances and treated them as its assets. However, the only evidence that Graham had assigned the entire group of her pre-1956 dances (noncommissioned and unpublished) to the Center are two letters from Lee Leatherman, the Center's Executive Administrator at that time, written in 1968 and 1971. These letters indicated that "[r]ecently Miss Graham assigned performing rights to all of her works to the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc.," and that "Martha has assigned all rights to all of her works to the Martha Graham Center, Inc." The Appellants contend that these letters are hearsay a and were impermissibly considered.
These two letters, both in existence 20 years or more at the time they were offered as evidence, were authenticated * * *. There was no reason to suspect their authenticity. Moreover, Linda Hodes, a witness with relevant knowledge, testified that the letters were what they purported to be. The letters were therefore exceptions to the hearsay rule [under which the letters would otherwise be inadmissible]. The District Court did not err in admitting and relying on these letters. [Emphasis added.]
Under New York law, an assignment * * * may be made without writing or delivery of any written statement of the claim assigned,* * * provided only that the assignment is founded on a valid consideration between the parties. The District Court was entitled to find that Graham received consideration for the assignment of her pre-1956 dances. Graham benefited from the Center's assumption of the legal and financial duties associated with her choreography; assigning to the Center the copyrights in her dances gave her what she wished-freedom from the responsibilities of copyright registration and renewal, licensing, collection of royalties, and archival tasks. [Emphasis added.]
The District Court was entitled to find that Graham assigned her pre-1956 dances * * * to the Center sometime between 1957 and the mid-1960s.
• Decision and Remedy The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment on this issue, "commend[ing] the District Court for its careful rulings on the many issues in this complicated case." The appellate court held that Graham had received consideration for her assignment of certain dances and that, although the assignment had been oral, it had been reliably proved by written testimony.
• What If the Facts Were Different Suppose that Graham had not benefited from the Center's assumption of the duties associated with her choreography. Would the alleged assignment have been valid Why or why not
• The E-Commerce Dimension If Graham's dances had existed as part of a database available only over the Internet, would the principles applied in this case, and the way in which they were applied, have been different Why or why not
[a. Hearsay is testimony given in court about a statement made by someone else, as was discussed in Chapter 3.]