The ESTATE OF BURNE HOGARTH, Burne Hogarth Dynamic Media Worldwide LLC, Michael Hogarth, as the child of deceased author Burne Hogarth, Richard Hogarth, as the child of the deceased author Burne Hogarth and Ross Hogarth, as the child of the deceased author Burne Hogarth, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDGAR RICE BURROUGHS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Docket No. 02-7312
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Argued: January 22, 2003. Decided: August 29, 2003.
342 F.3d 149
Before: NEWMAN, KATZMANN, and RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
Roger L. Zissu, New York, N.Y. (Evan C. Gourvitz, Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., New York, N.Y., on the brief), for Defendant-Appellee.
JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Once again, Tarzan presents this Court with copyright issues.1 The issues, arising under the 1909 Copyright Act, Pub.L. No. 60-349, 35 Stat. 1075 (1909), codified at
The facts are meticulously detailed in Judge Cote‘s comprehensive opinion. Estate of Burne Hogarth v. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc., No. 00 CIV. 9569(DLC), 2002 WL 398696 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.15, 2002) (”Dist.Ct.Op.“). We recount only those facts necessary to understand and resolve the issues on appeal. Applying the “clearly erroneous” standard of review, we accept the District Court‘s findings of subsidiary facts, except for those findings related to certain aspects of the steps taken in the Office of the Register of Copyrights (“Copyright Office“). As to these, we have been greatly aided by a response from Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights (“Register“), to inquiries we submitted to the Copyright Office after oral argument of the appeal. See Letter of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to Roseann MacKechnie, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (April 8, 2003) (”Peters Letter“). Our account of those steps will supplement and slightly modify the District Court‘s account, but will not change any of the Court‘s conclusions of law.
Creation of the Books. Edgar Rice Burroughs published Tarzan of the Apes, the first of his 26 Tarzan novels, in 1912. Jungle Tales of Tarzan was published in 1916-17. Both works are now in the public domain in the United States. Burroughs formed ERB in 1923 to manage his literary rights.
In 1937, Burne Hogarth (“Hogarth“) was hired by United Features Syndicate, Inc. to illustrate the syndicated comic strip “Tarzan” and continued this work until 1950. “During that time, he developed a highly distinctive and still widely acclaimed style of illustrating Tarzan and his universe.” Dist. Ct. Op. at *2.
In the 1960s, Hogarth and Robert M. Hodes, then Vice President of ERB, had discussions out of which emerged the idea of a new series of Tarzan books. In July 1970, Hodes wrote to Hogarth, suggesting production of “a quality, high priced edition of an adult version of TARZAN OF THE APES in graphic form.” Id. at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted). In another letter, Hodes proposed terms for the project that would provide the basis for the eventual agreement between ERB and Hogarth. The letter stated:
1. We would commission you to produce the work at a cost that would be paid one-half now and one-half out of the first proceeds of the book .... That one-half deferred payment is the extent of your speculation, or risk.
2. We would undertake to find a U.S. publisher.... All expenses would be borne by us, and this, together with the sum paid to you, would be our risk.
Id. at *4.2 Hogarth responded: “Your proposal sounds like a capital idea.” Id.
Later in 1970, ERB identified Watson-Guptill Publications, Inc. (“Watson-Guptill“) as a likely publisher. This firm had previously published Hogarth‘s art instruction books. In proposing a contract between ERB and Watson-Guptill, Hodes wrote the firm‘s editor, with a copy to Hogarth:
1. Your contract is directly with [ERB]. We undertake to provide the services of Burne Hogarth to furnish you with artwork and text for your proposed illustrated book of Tarzan of the Apes....
2. You are responsible for designing and producing the book, and, in general, supervising Mr. Hogarth‘s work.... We reserve the right to require all parties to produce a book that reasonably and substantially tells the story of Tarzan of the Apes as Edgar Rice Burroughs told that story in his classic novel.... As for the artwork itself, we cannot and do not presume to influence or control the work of Mr. Hogarth.
Id.
The ERB-Hogarth Contract. In an agreement dated November 16, 1970 (“1970 Agreement“), signed by Hogarth in 1971, ERB and Hogarth established the terms for the creation of the first and subsequent books. It included the following provisions:
[¶ 1] You [Hogarth] will create a book along the lines we [ERB] have discussed with Watson-Guptill based upon approximately one-half of Tarzan of the Apes .... The creative details will be worked out between you and our publisher.
[¶ 2] We will have the right to approve the content of the books, but our sole interest in this regard will be to preserve the Burroughs “flavor.” We may give you our artistic suggestions from time to time, but you will be the final judge of the artwork as distinguished from the story or text.
[¶ 3] For all of your services and for all rights being granted, we will pay you, your estate [and] heirs ... for the term of the copyright, including renewals:
(a) $2,500 on January 1, 1971;
(b) $2,500 on the completion of all your work; and
(c) 50% of all net monies realized by us from the exploitation of the book.
......
[¶ 5] ... You will create the subsequent books and we agree not to employ anybody else to create them....
.....
[¶ 7] We agree that the physical possession and ownership of the original artwork shall be shared on the following basis: We shall own the originals for the first book, you shall own them for the second book, we for the third book, you for the fourth book and so on. We have indicated to you that we desire the physical possession and ownership of the foregoing artwork in order to place it in an Edgar Rice Burroughs Museum....
[¶ 8] The book will be copyrighted in the name of [ERB] and we shall be the exclusive proprietors thereof, subject always to our obligation to pay you your participation. You hereby grant us whatever rights we need to obtain the copyright in our name and to extend and renew that copyright wherever and whenever we can.
1970 Agreement; see also Dist. Ct. Op. at *5-*6.
In February 1972, ERB made an agreement with Watson-Guptill, granting it worldwide English language hardcover publication rights in the first book and the option to publish subsequent books. ERB warranted that it was the “sole author and proprietor” of the first book. Id. at *7.
The Books. The first book, published in 1972 (“the 1972 book“), is 157 pages in length, of which 122 pages contain panels of color illustrations and text, with one to four panels per page. The text is a combination of narration and quotations of what the characters shown on a panel are saying. The title page shows the title as “Tarzan of the Apes” and credits the creators in these words:
BY BURNE HOGARTH
Original text by Edgar Rice Burroughs adapted by Robert M. Hodes
The second book, published in 1976 (“the 1976 book“), is 157 pages in length, of which 122 pages contains panels of black and white illustrations and text, of a style similar to that of the 1972 book. The title page shows the title as “Jungle Tales of Tarzan” and credits the creators in these words:
BY BURNE HOGARTH
Original text by Edgar Rice Burroughs adapted by Burne Hogarth and Robert M. Hodes
Neither the 1972 nor the 1976 book enjoyed substantial sales.
The Copyright Registrations. The application for the original term registration for the pictorial version of Tarzan of the Apes was filed in 1973 by Watson-Guptill.3 It identifies as the claimant “Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.” and as the authors “Edgar Rice Burroughs ... (deceased)” and “(illustrated) by Burne Hogarth.” In 1999, counsel for ERB submitted an application for a supplementary registration, which identifies the sole author as “Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.,” and states the explanation for the “correction” as “Work was one made for hire.”
The first renewal application was received by the Copyright Office on December 15, 2000, and that date would in the normal course have become the effective date. See
The second renewal application was also received on December 15, 2000, and given a December 15, 2000, effective date. Thus, the Copyright Office has two renewal registrations for Tarzan of the Apes with an effective date of December 15, 2000, one identifying ERB as the author and the claimant, and the other identifying Hogarth as the author and Hogarth‘s children as the claimants.
The application for the original term registration for Jungle Tales of Tarzan was filed by Watson-Guptill in 1976. It identifies as the claimant “Edgard [sic] Rice Burroughs, Inc.” and as the author “Burne Hogarth.” In 1979, Marion T. Burroughs, the daughter-in-law of Edgar Rice Burroughs and an officer of ERB, filed an application for a supplementary registration to make two changes to the original registration. First, the misspelling “Edgard” in the name of the claimant was corrected to “Edgar.” Second, under the blank for “AMPLIFIED INFORMATION,” the application stated: “Add name of EDGAR RICE BURROUGHS as author of original text. Citizenship: USA (deceased).” The author was listed as “Burne Hogarth,” as it had been on the original application. In 1999, counsel for ERB filed an application for a second supplementary registration to identify “Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.” as the author instead of “Burne Hogarth.” Under “Explanation of Correction,” this second application stated: “Work was one made for hire.”
No renewal application has yet been filed for Jungle Tales of Tarzan because its renewal term will not begin until January 1, 2005, 28 years after the 1976 publication.
the characters, plots, settings, themes, and incidents contained in or suggested by all or any portion of the stories ... written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, schedules of which are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B.”
Dist. Ct. Op. at *14. Exhibits A and B list the 25 Tarzan novels written by Burroughs for which U.S. or Berne Convention copyright protection existed in 1994. Id. Neither of the Books at issue in this litigation are included in these exhibits. Id. at *26.
In paragraph 14(b)(ix) of the license, ERB warrants
(A) That, except as set forth in Exhibits “A” and “B,” ... to the best of [ERB‘s] knowledge, there are no other stories authorized by [ERB] or its predecessors in interest in which the TARZAN character appears. If there are any other Stories in which [ERB] has an interest, such stories shall be deemed Stories hereunder to the extent of [ERB‘s] rights therein, in any.
Id. at *15.
Disney released its Tarzan movie in 1999. Pursuant to the license, Disney paid ERB $15 million, $12 million to buy out ERB‘s share of Disney revenues from Tarzan merchandise and $3 million based on box office receipts from the movie.
The Pending Litigation. Burne Hogarth died in 1996. In September 1999, two months after Disney‘s release of its Tarzan movie, counsel for the Hogarth estate sent a cease-and-desist letter to Disney, claiming that the movie infringed Burne Hogarth‘s copyrights in the Books. Both Disney and ERB rejected the claim. The Hogarths then brought the pending litigation, alleging three claims: (1) that Burne Hogarth was the sole author of the Books and that his heirs are entitled to the renewal term copyrights in the Books; (2) that the Hogarths are entitled to a share of the proceeds ERB received from Disney; and (3) that ERB breached paragraph 7 of the 1970 Agreement by retaining possession of the original artwork for the 1972 Book but failing to establish a museum for its display.
ERB‘s answer, denying the Hogarths’ claims, contained no counterclaim, but did include, in the prayer for relief, a request that the Court declare “that [ERB] is owner of all copyright rights, including the renewal copyrights” in the Books. By the time of the trial, the District Court understood ERB to be contending, among other things, that the Books were works for hire.6
The District Court‘s Decision. After a bench trial in 2002, Judge Cote rejected all of the Hogarths’ claims. With respect to the copyright claim, she ruled (1) that, although the copyright registrations constituted prima facie evidence that Burne Hogarth was the author, as stated in the registrations, the evidence established that the registrations were not reliable, Dist. Ct. Op. at *18; (2) that “[i]n the Second Circuit ‘an independent contractor is an “employee” and a hiring party is an “employer” for purposes of the [1909 Act] if the work is made at the hiring party‘s instance and expense,‘” id. (citing Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Dumas, 53 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 1995)) (emphases deleted); (3) that the Books were created at the “instance and expense” of ERB, id. at *19-*20; (4) that the Books are works for hire, id. at *23; and (5) that ERB, as an employer in the case of works made for hire, is the “author” for purposes of the 1909 Act and entitled to the copyrights in the original and renewal terms, id. at *18-*24.
The District Court‘s judgment denies all of the Hogarths’ claims, but neither grants nor denies the request in ERB‘s answer for a declaration that it owns all copyrights, including renewal copyrights in the Books.
Discussion
I. Copyright Claim
A. Work for Hire and the Renewal Term
Two concepts of copyright law under the 1909 Act are at issue on this appeal — a work made for hire and the renewal term. The 1909 Act provides no definition of “work made for hire,” but it states the consequence of that designation. “[T]he word ‘author’ shall include an employer in the case of works made for hire.” 1909 Act § 26. Thus, with respect to works made for hire, the employer is legally regarded as the “author,” as distinguished from the creator of the work, whom Learned Hand referred to as “the ‘author’ in the colloquial sense.” Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Bryan, 123 F.2d 697, 699 (2d Cir. 1941). The concept of a “work made for hire” remains in the Copyright Act of 1976,
The second concept — the renewal term — is a distinctive feature of the 1909 Act, not carried into the 1976 Act for works created on or after January 1, 1978, see
Our Court first recognized a “presumption” in favor of a commissioning party in 1939 in Yardley v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 108 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1939), a case involving an artist who had been commissioned by the City of New York to paint a mural. The artist had died before the expiration of the copyright‘s original term, and his sister claimed to own a copyright for the original term by virtue of an assignment from her brother‘s executor. In addition, the sister had filed for and obtained a registration for the copyright‘s renewal term.
Focusing on the original term, we ruled that, although the contract commissioning the artist‘s work was silent as to which party would hold the copyright, and although the artist had included a copyright notice in his favor on the painting, this term belonged to the City because it had commissioned the artist to paint the mural. Id. at 30-32. In so holding, we adopted a “presumption” that the commissioning party “desires to control the publication of copies” of the commissioned work and that the artist “consents” to such control in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Id. at 31. Our conclusion that the artist “consents” to his patron‘s right to control reproduction of the commissioned work, coupled with the absence of any reference to the work as a “work for hire,” may have been intended to reflect a conclusion that the copyright for the original term and the expectancy of a copyright for the renewal term were transferred by the artist to the patron by an implied assignment, in which event the artist‘s heirs or executor would retain renewal rights if the artist died before the renewal term vested.11
Some support for this conclusion can be drawn from our rejection of the sister‘s renewal claim on the ground that “only [the artist‘s] executor could legally obtain a renewal.” Id. at 32 (citing Fox Film Corp. v. Knowles, 261 U.S. 326 (1923)). Presumably, if we had regarded the mural as a work for hire, the commissioning party would have been deemed in law the author and, as such, would have been entitled to the copyright for both the original and the renewal terms, regardless of whether the artist had died during the original term. See Shapiro, Bernstein, 123 F.2d at 699-700; Tobani v. Carl Fischer, Inc., 98 F.2d 57, 59-60 (2d Cir. 1938). On the other hand, because the sister had conceded that only the executor “could legally obtain a renewal,” Yardley, 108 F.2d at 32, we had no occasion to consider the effect, if any, of the Yardley presumption on a renewal right dispute between the executor and the City.
We seemed to resolve the question of renewal rights in commissioned works in 1955, when we considered a work (song lyrics) created “as a special job assignment, outside the line of [the lyricist‘s] regular duties” for his employer. Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 221 F.2d 569, 570 (2d Cir.), modified on other grounds, 223 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1955) (”Vogel Music II“).12 The District Court had found that the employer paid the lyricist $25 “for the lyric and his rights therein.” Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. Jerry Vogel Music Co., 115 F. Supp. 754, 757 (S.D.N.Y. 1953) (”Vogel Music I“). We ruled that the lyricist‘s right to the copyright for the original term “passed to [the employer] under [the lyricist‘s] original contract with [the employer] to write a lyric.” Vogel Music II, 221 F.2d at 570. But we also ruled that the lyricist retained his right to the renewal term (until he subsequently assigned that right to a third party). Id. Although we did not amplify this conclusion, the District Court had explained: “Since [the lyricist] was not [the employer‘s] employee for hire, [the employer] had no renewal interest in the [lyricist‘s] lyric.” Vogel Music I, 115 F. Supp. at 760.
Picture Music involved a songwriter who was asked by a music publisher to adapt music and one line of a lyric from an animated movie into a new song. For her efforts she received a percentage of song royalties. She claimed an interest in the renewal term of the copyright in the song. In rejecting her claim, this Court ruled that the songwriter had acted “in the capacity of an independent contractor“; that the music publisher and the creator of the movie were the “‘motivating factors‘” in the composition of the new song; that they had the power to “accept, reject, or modify” the song; and that these circumstances rendered the song a work for hire. Id. at 1217.
Somewhat extending this Court‘s earlier decisions,14 Picture Music stated that the “instance and expense” test, which had previously been used to identify an employee‘s work as a work for hire and to deem a commissioned party to have assigned to the commissioning party a copyright for the original term, would now be used to determine whether a commissioned work was a work for hire, thereby entitling the commissioning party to the renewal term in addition to the original term. Rejecting a distinction between an employee and an independent contractor as long as the “instance and expense” test was satisfied, the Court stated that “the purpose of the [1909 Act] is not to be frustrated by conceptualistic formulations of the employment relationship,” id. at 1216, and concluded: “That [the song-writer] acted in the capacity of an independent contractor does not preclude a finding that the song was done for hire.” Id. at 1217.
By the time we next encountered a commissioned work, in 1995, Picture Music had carried the day, and we relied on it and its expansive reading of Brattleboro to hold that, as long as the “instance and expense” test is met, the work is a work for hire, and the party commissioning the work is regarded as the “author,” entitled to all rights of copyright. See Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Dumas, 53 F.3d 549, 553-55 (2d Cir. 1995).15
Significance of CCNV. Whatever questions might be raised about the law‘s progression in this Circuit from Yardley through Picture Music, we would normally be obliged to follow Picture Music, especially after its holding was reconfirmed in Playboy. We are given pause, however, by language in the Supreme Court‘s opinion in CCNV. CCNV concerned the work-for-hire provision of the 1976 Act. That Act defines a work for hire as:
(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for [any of nine specified uses] if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
However, in recounting the history of the work-for-hire doctrine under the 1909 Act, the Court explained that, as to commissioned works, courts of appeals “generally presumed that the commissioned party had impliedly agreed to convey the copyright, along with the work itself, to the hiring party.” Id. at 744. For this account, CCNV cited our decisions in Yardley and Vogel Music II. Id. By emphasizing our early cases’ reliance on an implied agreement between the commissioning and the commissioned parties, this account could be read to confirm the view of Vogel Music II that a commissioned work is not a work for hire and to support an interpretation of Yardley that, upon the death of the commissioned party during the original term, the right to obtain the renewal term belongs to his executor (if no spouse or child survives) either because the renewal right was not impliedly assigned or, if impliedly assigned, such assignment is voided by his death before the vesting of the renewal term. The argument would be that, since with a true work for hire, copyright ownership and the right to obtain the renewal term are with the employer automatically upon the employee‘s creation of the work, the Court‘s reference to the commissioned party‘s implied agreement to convey the copyright reflects a view that the commissioning party does not have the right to obtain a renewal term if the creator dies before the term vests. Interestingly, the Nimmer treatise takes this precise message from Justice Marshall‘s opinion in CCNV. See Nimmer § 9.03[D], at 9-28.4.16 Our issue thus becomes whether to adhere to the clear holdings of Picture Music and Playboy or reject them on the basis of the language used in CCNV to describe our Court‘s earlier treatment of commissioned works under the 1909 Act.
The Hogarths’ copyright claim therefore turns on whether they can successfully challenge either the District Court‘s ultimate conclusion that the Books were created at the “instance and expense” of ERB or the factual findings that underlie this conclusion.
Application of the “instance and expense” test. The Hogarths challenge to the District Court‘s conclusion that the Books were created at the “instance and expense” of ERB, as those terms have been used in this Circuit to determine copyright ownership of commissioned works, see Playboy, 53 F.3d at 553-56; Picture Music, 457 F.2d at 1216; Brattleboro, 369 F.2d at 567-68, is essentially a dispute about the facts. Judge Cote carefully considered the evidence and made precise findings to support her conclusion that the Books were created at the instance and expense of ERB. See Dist. Ct. Op. at *18-*24. We see no basis for disturbing her findings or her conclusions. Furthermore, as the District Court suggested, id. at *19, *24, the Books are derivative works based on original works for which ERB held the copyrights, and we ruled in Picture Music that in such circumstances the copyright proprietor has the right to “‘direct and supervise‘” the work of the commissioned party, sufficient to render it a work for hire, Picture Music, 457 F.2d at 1216 (quoting Donaldson Publishing Co. v. Bregman, Vocco & Conn, Inc., 375 F.2d 639, 643 (2d Cir. 1967)).
The Hogarths contend that ERB is barred from claiming to be the author of the Books pursuant to the work-for-hire doctrine because of the statute of limitations, laches, and equitable estoppel.
Statute of limitations. Civil actions seeking copyright remedies are barred unless “commenced within three years after the claim accrued.”
The initial obstacle to the limitations defense is that ERB has not made a “claim” to which even a valid limitations defense could be asserted by the Hogarths. ERB did not file a counterclaim. As the issues were presented to the District Court for trial, ERB‘s work-for-hire contention was a defense to the Hogarths’ claim for renewal rights. A defendant who is not seeking any affirmative relief and who asserts a defense only to defeat a plaintiff‘s claim is not barred by a statute of limitations. See United States v. Western Pacific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 72 (1956) (“To use the statute of limitations to cut off the consideration of a particular defense in the case is quite foreign to the policy of preventing the commencement of stale litigation.“); Luckenbach Steamship Co. v. United States, 312 F.2d 545, 548-51, 552 n. 3 (2d Cir. 1963) (“The law is well settled that limitations do not normally run against a defense.“); 133-24 Sanford Avenue Realty Corp. v. Cisneros, 940 F. Supp. 83, 85 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“It is well established that statutes of limitations run against affirmative claims for relief, but not against defenses.“). Even if circumstances had existed when Watson-Guptill filed applications for registration in the 1970s that would have entitled ERB to seek a declaration of non-liability against a claim by Burne Hogarth, ERB would not have been obliged to seek such declaratory relief. Potential defendants are not required to seek at the earliest opportunity a declaration that a defense to a claim not yet brought is valid.
Arguably, ERB‘s inclusion, in the prayer for relief of its answer, of a request for a declaration that ERB owns all copyright rights in the Books functions as a counter-claim against which the Hogarths’ limitation defense can be asserted. But the District Court apparently did not understand ERB to be asserting a counterclaim, and the judgment does not adjudicate one.17 Moreover, even if ERB had filed a time-barred counterclaim, the statute of limitations would not have prevented ERB from asserting its affirmative defense to the Hogarths’ claim. See Delaware Chemicals, Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 35 Del. Ch. 493, 503, 121 A.2d 913, 918 (1956) (dismissing counterclaims as time-barred but permitting counter-claimant to seek leave to amend to assert the counterclaims defensively).
We need not rest solely on the pleadings, however, because the limitations defense lacks merit. Contrary to the Hogarths’ contention, ERB‘s claim to copyright interests in the Books did not accrue in the 1970s when the applications for registrations were filed. Even if the filing of an application for registration by an adverse party could start a limitations period, a matter we do not decide,18 a party cannot be held to have started the limitations period for assertion of its copyright claims by filing its own applications for registration, no matter how erroneous. Recognizing that ERB‘s work-for-hire “claim” cannot accrue until it has suffered some injury, the Hogarths contended in the District Court that ERB suffered a “self-inflicted injury.” Dist. Ct. Op. at *24. Not surprisingly, there is no authority for such a contention. The district court cases in which a claimant has been time-barred from asserting claims contrary to the information disclosed in a copyright registration involve applications for registrations filed by a party with interests adverse to those of the claimant. See Carell v. Shubert Organization, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 236, 249 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Willsea v. Theis, No. 98 Civ. 6773(BSJ), 1999 WL 595629, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.6, 1999); see also Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 1308, 1315-16 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (copyright ownership claim accrued when claimant received comic book with copyright notice identifying adverse party as copyright proprietor).
Laches and equitable estoppel. The District Court correctly ruled that ERB is not barred from asserting its defense because of laches or equitable estoppel. Id. at *25. The Hogarths presented no evidence of reliance to their detriment arising from the registrations or from any other action taken by ERB. See Ivani Contracting Corp. v. City of New York, 103 F.3d 257, 259 (2d Cir. 1997) (laches defense unavailable in absence of prejudice); General Electric Capital Corp. v. Eva Armadora, S.A., 37 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 1994) (equitable estoppel requires, among other things, reliance on misrepresentations causing change of position by innocent party).
C. Effect of Registrations
The Hogarths contend that the registrations for the Books that became effective in the 1970s created a presumption that Burne Hogarth was the author and that ERB has not overcome this presumption. Section 209 of the 1909 Act provides that the Register‘s certificate of registration “shall be admitted in any court as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.” The 1973 application for registration of Tarzan of the Apes, filed by Watson-Guptill, identified the authors as “Edgar Rice Burroughs (deceased)” and “(illustrated) by Burne Hogarth.”19 The 1976 application for registration of Jungle Tales of Tarzan, also filed by Watson-Guptill, identified the author as “Burne Hogarth.” ERB did not fully correct these registrations until 1999, when it filed applications for supplemental registrations identifying ERB as author on the basis of work for hire.20 In 2000, conflicting applications for registrations for the renewal term for Tarzan of the Apes were filed by ERB and by the Hogarths. ERB‘s initial renewal application listed “Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.” as the author (on a work-for-hire theory), and the Hogarths’ application listed Burne Hogarth as the author.
As the Register‘s letter to this Court explains, however, the Copyright Office‘s examination of copyright applications is “necessarily limited,” Peters Letter at 4, and should be “distinguished from the Patent and Trademark Office‘s process for issuance of patents,” id. at 3-4. “[T]he Office does not make factual determinations with respect to publication or any other act done outside of the Office” and “will register adverse claims by more than one party,” id. at 4, which are “not unusual,” id. at 14. Commenting on ERB‘s application for supplementary registration, filed in 1999, which identified ERB as the author of Tarzan of the Apes on a work-for-hire theory, the Register‘s letter also points out that it is not unusual for correcting information to be submitted at any time during the original term. Peters Letter at 10.
The Register‘s letter specifically endorses the following passage from Judge Cote‘s opinion concerning the significance of the registrations:
“[A] certificate of registration creates no irrebuttable presumption of copyright validity. Extending a presumption of validity to a certificate of copyright merely orders the burdens of proof.” Carol Barnhart, Inc. v. Econ. Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “where other evidence in the record casts doubt on the question, validity will not be assumed.” Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908 (2d Cir. 1980).
Peters Letter at 22 (quoting Dist. Ct. Op. at *17). “Thus,” the Register concludes, “all that the statutory presumptions flowing from the certificates of registration do is to shift the burden of going forward.” Id. at 23. We agree.22 See Langman Fabrics v. Graff Californiawear, Inc., 160 F.3d 106, 111 (2d Cir. 1998).
In the pending case, ERB has adequately discharged its burden of rebutting the presumption to be accorded the facts reflected in the original registrations. On the facts as found by the District Court and under this Circuit‘s case law applicable to those facts, the Books are works for hire. ERB is legally regarded as the “author” entitled to both the original and the renewal terms.23
II. Contract Claims
The Hogarths’ two contract claims merit no discussion beyond the analysis provided by the District Court. Concerning the claim for a portion of the payment ERB received from Disney, Judge Cote properly concluded that ERB did not license to Disney any rights in the copyrightable material in the Books, Dist. Ct. Op. at *25-*27, and that, even if that had occurred, the 1970 Agreement gave Burne Hogarth no entitlement to any portion of the Disney payments, id. at *28-*29. As to the claim that ERB‘s failure to build a museum to house the Tarzan artwork breached the 1970 Agreement and entitled the Hogarths to return of the original artwork for the 1972 book, Judge Cote properly concluded that ERB was not obligated to build the museum, and that the artwork had been correctly distributed pursuant to the 1970 Agreement. Id. at *29.
Conclusion
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Although, as we have noted, the incorrect identification of the author in the original registrations and ERB‘s long delay in correcting those registrations are not grounds for disturbing the District Court‘s judgment, we observe that had ERB been more attentive to the filings made on its behalf, this litigation would in all likelihood have been avoided or at least substantially reduced in scope. We therefore exercise our discretion to deny ERB an award of appellate costs. See Fed.App.P. 39(a) (cost provisions apply unless court “orders otherwise“).
JON O. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Notes
H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, at 124 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5740.[The termination provision is] based on the premise that the reversionary provisions of [section 24 of the 1909 Act] should be eliminated, and that [the 1976 Act] should substitute for them a provision safeguarding authors against unremunerative transfers. A provision of this sort is needed because of the unequal bargaining position of authors, resulting in part from the impossibility of determining a work‘s value until it has been exploited.
Nimmer § 9.03[D], at 9-28.4.The effect of the italicized sentence is that the hiring party owns a commissioned work created under the 1909 Act via assignment, not as its initial proprietor. The right to renew such a work, in the first instance, should therefore revert to that author rather than vesting automatically in the hiring party. To that extent, the holding of Picture Music becomes untenable.