Gene Kelly's Widow Claims Copyright In Interviews Done By Gene Kelly, Sues Over Academic Book
from the suing-in-the-rain... dept
Another day, another story of copyright being used for censorship, rather than as an incentive to create. Here's the headline: Gene Kelly's widow is suing to stop an academic book exploring various interviews that were done over the decades with the famed actor/dancer. And here's the lawsuit, in which Kelly's widow, Patricia Ward Kelly, who was married to Gene Kelly for the last seven years of his life, claims that she holds the copyright on every interview that Kelly ever did. From the lawsuit:The spoken and written words by Gene Kelly during all of his interviews ("Interviews") are original works of authorship and are copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United States.Now, the legal issues here are at least somewhat nuanced. The question of who actually holds the copyright in an interview is actually a hotly debated topic in some copyright circles, and the answer is not as clear or as simple as you might think (or as it probably ought to be). Remember, of course, that the law is pretty explicit that copyright is given to whoever fixes the interview into a tangible medium. So, in most cases, it would seem that whoever is recording/transcribing/publishing the interview likely holds the copyright in it.
Prior to and during Gene Kelly's marriage to Plaintiff, which lasted until his death in 1996, Plaintiff was designated as Mr. Kelly's official biographer and archivist of his materials, including letters, interviews, manuscripts, holograph notes, photographs, memorabilia, and related items. Plaintiff is the sole, official authority entrusted by Gene Kelly to promote and protect his legacy. In these capacities, Plaintiff documented his life and work, and collected, organized and catalogued his materials. including the Interviews, so that these materials could be used to write books, create online platforms, and produce films, educational talks and shows, so as to provide an accurate record of Gene Kelly's life and work.
In accordance with Gene Kelly's Will and the Eugene C. Kelly Family Trust, Plaintiff was bequeathed and succeeded to the rights to Gene Kelly's intellectual property, including the copyrights in and to the Interviews.
That's what a district court in Southern Illinois found in the Taggart v. WMAQ case back in 2000. There, a court found that the interviewer held the copyright, rather than a prison inmate who had been interviewed by the local TV station and didn't like how it came out. The inmate argued that his responses were a "performance" that allowed him to get copyright protections, but the court rightly rejected this:
Plaintiff's reading of copyright law to protect his interview comments with WMAQ as a work of authorship conflicts with the “most fundamental axiom of copyright law [that no] author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates.”But not all cases have turned out that way. There's a case from 1980 that suggests there might be a copyright interest in the interview that could be held by the interviewee, but the case did not turn on that issue and the court went no further. There's another case that suggests each individual in an interview retains a copyright interest in their portion of the interview (so just the questions or just the answers). And then some argue that the entire interview is a "joint work" of authorship, where both parties hold the copyright jointly. Frankly, I think that copyright law is pretty clear that the Taggart ruling is technically correct, that the ownership goes to whoever does the fixing. But, with weird rulings lately about "performances" who knows how courts will rule.
Frankly, it's a little amazing that the issue hasn't been more widely litigated. But here's a chance to do so, though I suspect it may get tossed pretty quickly, because the lawsuit, at least, doesn't even bother to specify what specific works are being infringed, or even hint at whether or not Kelly registered his copyrights in those interviews (a necessary step to bring a lawsuit). Given those two limitations, the lawsuit, as is, likely doesn't have much of a chance.
The book in question is written by an academic, Kelli Marshall, who appears to be a huge fan of Gene Kelly and is working to put together a scholarly book exploring a bunch of his interviews. Kelly's widow finds this quite upsetting:
On or about March 29, 2016, Plaintiff was contacted by defendant Marshall via a Facebook message inquiring whether permission is needed to include several ofthe Interviews in a printed book Marshall is planning to cause to be issued by and through University Press.As you can probably figure out, Kelly's widow refused to grant permission, and then followed it up with a cease and desist letter. University Press then sent her a letter saying that it was going ahead with the book, saying that it had obtained permission "from unidentified third parties," which likely means the publications where the interviews were initially published. And you can figure out what happened next:
On or about March 29, 2016, Plaintiff responded to Marshall via Facebook message, stating, "Yes, Gene's words are his intellectual property . . . as are his letters, holograph notes, magazine pieces, etc. . . . You must obtain permission to use them."
On or about March 29, 2016, Marshall responded to Plaintiff via Facebook message, informing Plaintiff that Marshall is in the process of editing a book of Gene Kelly interviews for co-defendant, University Press, as part of the University Press' "Conversations with Filmmakers" series (the "Book"). Marshall stated that she intends to use various Gene Kelly interviews, including several interviews Gene Kelly had conducted with the British Broadcasting Company ("BBC"). Marshall sought Plaintiff's permission for use of those Interviews.
On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel responded to University Press by email (copying Marshall), stating that Plaintiff owns the copyrights to all of the Interviews, not just interviews with the BBC, and that Defendants have no permission to use any of the Interviews for the Book or for any other purpose. In that same email, Plaintiff's counsel advised University Press that the threatened publication is highly damaging to Plaintiff's rights and, unless Defendants cease and desist, Plaintiff would seek damages, including statutory damages, for willful infringement of the copyrights in the Interviews.Yeah, this seems like a nonstarter. First off, Kelly's widow is clearly overclaiming here. Just because Gene Kelly said stuff in interviews, it does not mean that he has any copyright interest in them, let alone automatically getting copyright on all his words, where no one can ever make use of them. That's just not how copyright law actually works.
And, from the emails, it certainly sounds like the publisher got permission from whoever has a much stronger claim to the copyright in most of the interviews it wanted to publish. And, of course, even if none of that is true, it seems like there's a fairly strong fair use case here, considering that it's an academic publication, and done as a compilation to look more closely at Kelly's interviews over the years (I wouldn't say that the fair use claim is a slam dunk, but there's a strong argument that can be made for fair use). But, of course, that requires Kelly to actually have a copyright interest (and to have registered it) in the first place.
But, really, let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. There is no legitimate copyright reason to grant Kelly a copyright in interviews that he did. He was not incentivized to do these interviews because of the copyright. He did them for whatever reason -- probably related to getting publicity in most cases. As such, it's ridiculous that we're even discussing a copyright interest at all here. There's no need for one for the interviewee.
So, in the end, this seems like yet another case of copyright as censorship. Patricia Ward Kelly does not want anyone else publishing a book that has extensive quotes from her husband (it should be noted that she's apparently working on her own book...), and thus the easy tool to use is copyright to censor this book that she doesn't control. Again, I can't see how this lawsuit survives very long, but it's another in a long list to add to examples of (1) copyright as censorship and (2) estates of deceased creators overclaiming copyright.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: books, copyright, gene kelly, interviews, kelli marshall, patricia ward kelly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's only IP post-mortem
What's that? No responsive documents? Wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's only IP post-mortem
... crickets ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... who?"
The person who's works are being locked down effectively ceases to exist.
You don't use their stuff, you don't talk about or refer to them, for all intents and purposes they and their creations no longer exist. Someone wants to exert complete control over their stuff, they get to enjoy having no one else interacting with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like a logical idea for the interviews to go strait to the public domain, doesn't it? But that can never be allowed, I guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My whole life is a performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My whole life is a performance.
Which isn't much different from what Gene Kelly's widow is claiming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More to the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Copyright Law Works
Well, not for the peons, no. But there are different rules for the rich and famous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, Now I'm just being crass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
Should read "... copyright to take a ton of money from people that actually do things, because I don't want to [do things] myself"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A creator dies and the next day all of their stuff is public domain. It's not as good as a more limited duration for enriching the public domain but at the creator's death no amount of incentive will cause them to create more, so the justification for continued copyright over the works is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's suppose for the sake of discussion (as the constitution supposes) that the ability to protect and sell your works does act as an incentive to create works of science and useful arts. Many people make life decisions with at least some consideration of what they will be able to leave to their heirs, be they children, other family members, or other designated people or organizations.
If I'm a businessman, I can build a business that I can leave to my kids. If I'm a farmer, I can leave them the farm. But if I'm an author, or a singer, or a painter, or a composer, and my copyright terminates when I do, the best I can do is leave them whatever I've saved of the royalties. The copyright, being valid for a shorter time, is worth less, and thus the monetary incentive to create is less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Put bluntly, if someone would have created something, whether a story, or a song, or a piece of art but decided not to because their kids, or the kids of their kids wouldn't be able own it and control it for decades after their deaths, then I'm pretty sure the public and culture can do just fine without their contribution.
Copyright is ultimately meant to benefit the public, with benefit to the creators the means of doing so, so even if decades of postmortem copyright did provide some slight extra bit of incentive to create, it does so to the detriment of the public and culture, locking up and barring use of the works for even longer, and I highly doubt the handful of extra works that might be created as a result would come even remotely close to how many works would be created were the original work made public earlier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To say, then, that copyright shouldn't last past the author's lifetime, because no incentive can then result in him creating anything new, is overly simplistic and shortsighted. That additional copyright lifetime has a present value. That value matters, whether the author wants to leave it to his kids or sell it to a publisher (and if a particular author really doesn't want, or need, that additional time, he can always dedicate his works to the public domain in his will, or even before his death).
Obviously the value to the author needs to be balanced against the public's interest in the work, and the present laws do an abominable job in that regard (in many ways, not only with respect to duration).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None of that'll ever happen in my, my kids or my grandkids lifetime so it's all just wishful thinking that it will happen one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If copyright is so great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is going to work out great for all those convicted felons who had statements recorded by the police and then had those same comments used against them without the courts first obtaining licensing rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That doesn't mean that we haven't limited copyright such that it might not apply here, and that certainly doesn't mean that copyright's purpose is being served here, but a monopoly being used to do a monopoly's work is a monopoly and should be called out as such.
"Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly. [...] I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad." —Lord Macaulay, then in the House of Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The brand old new gold-digger technique (now on a computer):
1) marry an old successful author, preferably some 45-60 years older than you
2) feed him viagra, sorry I mean sidenafil and force sex on him till he drops
3) ???
4) PROFIT (off his IPs for -at least- the next 75 years)
*WARNING: May involve having to wipe and spoon feed an old man for up to 2-300 business days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Kelly's Widow
It is fine to have a copyright on a person and their image and on a few famous quotes. Martin Luther King's widow stopped some direct quotes from being used in the movie, Selma, but these were well known quotes, world famous quotes.
I, like Prof Marshall, have read an enormous amount of material on Gene Kelly, to include his interviews, books and scholarly articles. In all of that reading, there is not a particularly noteworthy quote that rises to the level of an MLK speech. Therefore, I guess if Gene said in an interview, that he loved dancing, no one could quote that in a book due to copyright infringement.
I seriously doubt Prof Marshall intends to make a dime from this book as it most likely would only be bought by hardcore Gene fans. She is simply doing it for her devotion to his great talent and as a scholarly endeavor.
Someone needs to get off their high horse and get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incentivising Creativity
1) If Gene Kelly's estate does not retain copyright over his interviews, how will he be incentivized to perform new interviews?
2) Copyright really is incentivizing creativity, it's just that we already have enough lawyers willing to create crazy lawsuits on behalf of their crazy clients, thank-you-very-much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
She's dancing on his grave,
What a marvellous feeling,
she's making money again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear in academic publishing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright scam
Such a shame to use their "copyright card". Many authors should use more tips here from professional writers to know all of the tricks in copyright laws. Maybe copyright rights should be rewatched in moments like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]