Synthesized answer
In the 1930s, Disney assigned copyrights for musical compositions from "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Pinocchio" to Irving Berlin, Inc. ("Berlin"), the predecessor to Bourne [1]. For "Snow White," this assignment occurred before the movie's premiere in 1937 via the "1937 Assignment Agreement," which did not reserve rights or grant Disney a license to use the compositions [2, 3]. For "Pinocchio," Disney assigned copyrights to Berlin in 1939 through the "1939 Pinocchio Agreement," which did specifically grant Disney a license to use these compositions in synchronism with its motion pictures [3]. Disney later entered into a settlement agreement in 1961 that granted it theatrical motion picture and television performing rights for the compositions but not the right to fix them on videocassette [4].
Disney's original assignment of copyright became the central issue because, for the "Snow White" compositions, the "1937 Assignment Agreement" did not expressly grant Disney a license to use them [2, 3]. Bourne argued that Disney had no right to use these compositions until the 1961 settlement, which Bourne contended did not grant videocassette rights [1, 4]. This lack of an…
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…
the agreement to include the musical compositions contained in 18 additional Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony cartoons. In 1936, the scope of the 1933 agreement again was expanded, this time to include the musical compositions contained in a series of cartoons to be distributed under an agreement with RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. The 1936 agreement was supplemented by a letter agreement in 1939 to include the “music and compositions contained in [Disney’s] short subject motion pictures for the … 1937–38 and 1938–39” seasons. b. Snow White and the 1937 Assignment Agreement Disney’s first…
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,…
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…
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…
More questions about this book
- Explain, as if to a non-lawyer, the fundamental disagreement between Bourne and Disney regarding the distribution of music from "Pinocchio" versus "Snow White," highlighting the key legal distinction between the two.
- 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?