IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Writer hired to help draft screenplay wins dismissal of copyright lawsuit, (Apr 3, 2023)

By Jonathan Anderson

Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege their authorship of the work both under the traditional authorship and work-made-for-hire approaches.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed a lawsuit alleging copyright ownership and infringement of a draft screenplay. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege they were the authors of the work both under the traditional authorship and work-made-for-hire approaches. Plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory and lacked sufficient factual specificity, and further, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant was an employee or had signed a written instrument designating the draft script as a work made for hire (Gentile v. Crededio, March 31, 2023, Swain, L.).

The dispute involves ownership of a draft version of a television screenplay. Plaintiffs Christopher Gentile and Juan Crawford developed the idea for the show and submitted a short draft of the first few scenes to the Writers Guild of America. Plaintiffs hired defendant Cassi Crededio to work for a three-week span to help write the first three acts and provided defendant with detailed instructions, outlines, and rough drafts. Plaintiffs asserted that they authored and were responsible for the details of the acts, that defendant’s role was limited to reducing to writing plaintiffs’ instructions, and that to the extent defendant made any independent contributions, they were made on a work-for-hire basis.

After completing drafts of the first three acts, defendant applied to register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, which granted the application. Plaintiffs responded by asserting the registration was made under false pretenses and later applied for their own copyright registration, which was granted.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit against Crededio and a second defendant, Kevin Doyle, seeking declarations that Crededio’s copyright registration is invalid, that their copyright registration is valid, and that they are the exclusive owners of the work. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for copyright infringement. Crededio moved to dismiss the complaint.

Declaratory judgment. In ruling on plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment, the court held that plaintiffs failed to plead sufficient facts to render their Declaratory Judgment Act claim plausible.

Traditional authorship. First, the court found that plaintiffs’ allegations were conclusory and “fail[ed] to identify with any factual specificity the elements of the screenplay that appeared in” preliminary versions and allegedly incorporated into later versions. Plaintiffs also failed to submit copies of the preliminary versions of the work to allow the court to compare the initial drafts to the defendant’s work product. Further, the court wrote that many elements of the screenplay that plaintiffs claimed to have authored or dictated were broad conceptions that are not copyrightable and which “required substantial expansion to transform into a viable screenplay.” Indeed, the court found that defendant “played a significant role in transforming Plaintiffs’ ideas into the written, tangible screenplay and exercised some degree of freedom throughout the drafting process.”

Work made for hire. Second, the court held that defendant’s contributions were not a work made for hire because the facts the plaintiffs’ proffered were insufficient to support an inference that defendant was an employee, and plaintiffs did not allege that Crededio had signed a written instrument designating the draft script as a work made for hire. The court applied the Reid framework for assessing whether someone is an employee for purposes of copyright ownership and noted that (1) Crededio worked for plaintiffs only for a three-week period; (2) Crededio was paid in a lump sum payment using a one-off money transfer; (3) the complaint contained no allegations that Crededio received any employee benefits or that plaintiffs withheld taxes from her compensation; and (4) plaintiffs failed to establish that they maintained control over Crededio’s daily activities in the manner of a traditional employment relationship.

Copyright infringement. Because the court found that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege authorship of the work, the court also ruled that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for copyright infringement.

Disposition. The case continues against defendant Doyle whose involvement was not substantively discussed in the memorandum opinion and order.

The Case is No. 1:21-cv-08528-LTS.

Attorneys: Caitlin M. Moyna (Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.) for Christopher Gentile. Stephen Bryan Popernik (Law Office of Stephen B. Popernik, PLLC) for Cassi Crededio. Michael A. Paskin (Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP) for Kevin Doyle.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews