Stillwater Ltd v. Antonia Basilotta
21-55241
| 9th Cir. | May 11, 2022Background
- Stillwater (assignee of a record label) sued Toni Basilotta (stage name Toni Basil) seeking a declaratory judgment that certain sound recordings were "joint works" and that producer Michael Mathieson was a coauthor.
- District court held a bench trial and found Stillwater failed to prove joint authorship by a preponderance of the evidence; Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- The label hired Mathieson; the label head testified Mathieson "carried out the duties of a record producer" (scheduling sessions, securing musicians, providing creative input, mixing masters), but he only occasionally observed sessions and Mathieson did not testify.
- Contracts between Mathieson and the label assigned any copyright interest to the label; there was no contract between Mathieson and Basilotta expressing coauthorship.
- Evidence showed Basilotta exercised primary artistic control—selecting songs and musicians, devising concepts, assisting with mixes, and directing related music videos—and the label retained only final technical/commercial approval.
- Stillwater argued (1) Aalmuhammed factors supported joint authorship and (2) a producer-presumption of coauthorship; the court found the evidence insufficient and rejected both arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the recordings are "joint works" under the Copyright Act | Mathieson, as producer, was a coauthor and recordings are joint works | Basilotta was sole author; Mathieson did not exercise requisite authorship control/intent | Stillwater failed to prove joint authorship; recordings not joint works |
| Control (Aalmuhammed first factor) | Mathieson exercised control as "mastermind" by arranging sessions, directing musicians, mixing masters | Testimony shows Basilotta retained artistic control; label language limited label to technical/commercial approval; Mathieson not shown to be creative mastermind | Control weighed against finding Mathieson a coauthor |
| Objective shared intent (Aalmuhammed second factor) | Producer agreements and royalty arrangements show intent that Mathieson share authorship | Producer agreements were with label, not Basilotta; no contract or objective agreement between Mathieson and Basilotta | No objective manifestation of shared intent between Basilotta and Mathieson |
| Audience appeal / apportionment (Aalmuhammed third factor) and producer-presumption | Audience appeal rested on producer contributions; traditional producers presumed coauthors if they perform duties | Evidence tied audience appeal to Basilotta’s performance; Stillwater failed to show Mathieson met traditional-producer role or offer expert proof | Audience-appeal factor favored Basilotta; no presumption applied to Mathieson |
Key Cases Cited
- Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) (defines "author" as the party who actually creates the work)
- Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets three-factor test for joint authorship: control, shared intent, and audience appeal)
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884) (discusses the "master mind" or superintending author concept)
- Edward B. Marks Music Corp. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 140 F.2d 266 (2d Cir. 1944) (addresses apportionment of audience appeal in joint authorship analysis)