Synthesized answer
The core disagreement between Bourne and Disney revolved around Disney's right to distribute music from "Pinocchio" and "Snow White" on videocassettes. Bourne argued that for "Snow White," the assignment of copyrights to Bourne did not include a license for Disney to use the music. Disney, however, contended that a 1933 agreement could be interpreted to cover "Snow White" compositions [2]. For "Pinocchio," the situation was different. Disney had assigned copyrights to Bourne, but the 1939 agreement specifically granted Disney a license to use the compositions "in synchronism with any and all of the motion pictures which may be made by [Disney]" [1, 4].
Despite this license for "Pinocchio" compositions, Bourne argued that it was insufficient to allow Disney to distribute them on videocassette [1]. The 1961 settlement agreement regarding "Pinocchio" granted Disney rights for theatrical motion picture and television performance, but "nothing in the settlement agreement gave Disney the right to synchronize or fix the Compositions on videocassette" [3]. The passages do not explicitly detail the full scope of Bourne's claim regarding the "Pinocchio" distribution rights beyond…
Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.
From the book
opyrighted compositions from the motion pictures “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” and “Pinocchio” (“the Compositions”). Although the Compositions were written by Disney employees, Disney had assigned the copyrights in the Compositions to Irving Berlin, Inc. (“Berlin”), a music publisher and the predecessor-in-interest to Bourne, in the 1930s when the movies first were released. While conceding that the instrument conveying Disney’s copyrights in the Pinocchio compositions to Bourne provided Disney with a license to use the compositions “in synchronism with any and all of the motion pictures…
d in submitting to the jury the question of whether Disney has a license for the musical compositions from Snow White. Bourne bases this argument on its contentions that (1) Snow White clearly falls outside the scope of the 1933 Shorts Agreement, and (2) the 1937 Assignment Agreement, by which the copyrights in musical compositions from Snow White were assigned to Bourne, did not contain a provision granting rights back to Disney. Accordingly, Bourne argues that the district court erred in failing to enter judgment as a matter of law in its favor with regard to Snow White. As to Bourne’s…
contract concerning Pinocchio. The litigation was settled in 1961 by mutual agreement (“the 1961 Settlement Agreement”). Although the 1961 Settlement Agreement granted Disney a license in the theatrical motion picture and television grand performing rights in the Compositions, as defined by the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, nothing in the settlement agreement gave Disney the right to synchronize or fix the Compositions on videocassette. 2. Disney’s Use of the Compositions a. In General At trial, Disney introduced substantial evidence that it had used the Compositions…
t did not reserve any rights to Disney, nor did it grant Disney a license to use the musical compositions in any manner. Notwithstanding this lack of an express license, Snow White was released in theaters on a number of occasions while the principals to the transaction still were alive, without complaint from Berlin or its successor, Bourne. c. The 1939 Pinocchio Agreement On August 15, 1939, Disney entered into a new and separate agreement with Berlin (“the 1939 Pinocchio Agreement”), assigning to Berlin the copyrights in (1) the compositions from Disney’s full-length motion picture,…
omote the theatrical releases of Pinocchio in 1984 and Snow White in 1987, even though it had not obtained a license. 3. Proceedings Below Following an eleven-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bourne on its second claim, finding that Disney infringed Bourne’s copyrights by using the Compositions in television advertising. On Bourne’s first claim, concerning Disney’s right to use the Compositions in videocassettes, the jury found for Disney. The parties stipulated to the sum of $420,000 in damages. The district court denied Bourne’s post-trial motions for attorney’s fees and a…
More questions about this book
- Trace the chain of ownership and licensing agreements for the musical compositions from their creation in the 1930s up to the point of this 1995 lawsuit. Why did Disney's original assignment of copyright become the central issue?
- Deconstruct the phrase "in synchronism with any and all of the motion pictures which may be made by [Disney]." How did Bourne interpret this clause, and what specific technological development made this interpretation crucial to their claim against Disney?
- What broader implications does this case have for creators and licensees in predicting future technological advancements and the need for precise language in copyright agreements?
- If you were counseling Disney in the 1930s, based on the arguments made in this 1995 case, what specific contractual language would you have insisted upon to protect Disney's rights for future distribution formats, and why would that language be critical?