Buday v. New York Yankees Partnership
486 F. App'x 894
2d Cir.2012Background
- Buday sues NY Yankees Partnership alleging the team failed to pay for a logo Timur designed in the 1930s and revised in 1947.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, initially on a basis of no federal question.
- Buday amended to allege federal-question jurisdiction based on a federal copyright claim, potentially arising under the 1976 Copyright Act.
- Court assumes familiarity with facts and reviews de novo the dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6).
- Court finds Buday’s allegations show a work-for-hire arrangement and that the logo was published before 1978, undermining federal copyright claims.
- Appellate court concludes the district court should have allowed briefing before dismissal but affirms dismissal on the merits for lack of federal copyright standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal jurisdiction exists for Buday’s copyright claim | Buday argues federal-question jurisdiction based on federal copyright claim | Yankees contend no federal question arises and no jurisdiction | No federal copyright claim; dismissal affirmed on jurisdictional grounds |
| Whether the 1976 Copyright Act preempts common-law copyright for unpublished works | Act grandfathered common-law rights for unpublished works | Logo not unpublished, published before 1978 | Logo published before 1978; no federal common-law copyright claim survives |
| Whether Buday has statutory standing to sue as the copyright owner | Timur’s rights assigned to Buday; Buday owns copyright | Work-for-hire presumption assigns copyright to employer | Buday lacks standing; work-for-hire presumption applies to employer; no statute-based ownership |
| Whether the work-for-hire doctrine applies to the logo arrangement | Timur transferred rights; Buday owns copyright | Logo created for Yankees; presumption of employer ownership | Logo was a work-for-hire; employer owned the copyright; Buday cannot sue |
Key Cases Cited
- Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987) (preemption of common-law rights by federal copyright law for unpublished works)
- Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 2000) (federal jurisdiction when a copyright claim is pleaded)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility required)
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1988) (only legal or beneficial owner may assert infringement)
- Brattleboro Publ’g Co. v. Winmill Publ’g Corp., 369 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1966) (work-for-hire presumption favors employer ownership)
- Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Dumas, 53 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 1995) (burden to overcome work-for-hire presumption by contrary agreement)
- Shoptalk, Ltd. v. Concorde-New Horizons Corp., 168 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 1999) (publication ends common-law rights of first publication)
- Roth v. Pritikin, 710 F.2d 934 (2d Cir. 1983) (prospective application of work-for-hire rules)