## Facts

- Alice Childress, a professional playwright, was asked by actress Clarice Taylor to write a play about comedian Jackie “Moms” Mabley.
- Taylor initiated the project, assembled research materials about Mabley, provided them to Childress, and continued researching at Childress’s request.
- Childress wrote the dramatic script for *Moms: A Praise Play for a Black Comedienne*, which was produced in 1986 with Taylor starring; Childress was paid $2,500.
- Taylor’s agent proposed an agreement stating the finished play would be equally owned by Taylor and Childress; Childress rejected co-ownership and registered the copyright in her own name.
- After negotiations failed, Taylor hired Ben Caldwell to create a new Mabley play, provided him Childress’s script, and directed changes; the new production used advertising that referenced the earlier production and quoted reviews of Childress’s play.
- Childress sued for copyright infringement and related federal and state claims; defendants argued Taylor was a joint author and thus could not infringe.

## Issues

1. Whether Taylor was a joint author of the play under the Copyright Act, defeating liability for infringement.
2. Whether joint authorship requires (a) independently copyrightable contributions by each putative author and (b) mutual intent, at the time of creation, to be co-authors of a unitary work.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Childress.
- The court held Childress was the sole author of the play.
- Taylor’s contributions—research, ideas, and general suggestions—did not constitute independently copyrightable expression in the play.
- The record showed no mutual intent that Taylor and Childress would be co-authors, as evidenced by Childress’s rejection of co-ownership and sole copyright registration.

## Legal Principles

- A “joint work” under 17 U.S.C. § 101 requires authors who, at creation, intend their contributions to be merged into a unitary whole and intend shared authorship status.
- Joint authorship requires each putative author to contribute independently copyrightable expression; ideas, research, facts, and generalized suggestions are insufficient.
- Mutual intent to be co-authors is assessed objectively from the parties’ words and conduct; unilateral expectations of co-authorship do not establish a joint work.
- Accepting input from collaborators (e.g., actors or researchers) does not, without copyrightable contribution and mutual intent, confer joint authorship.

## Conclusion

The court held that Taylor was not a joint author because she supplied uncopyrightable ideas and research and lacked mutual intent with Childress to share authorship; therefore, Childress retained sole authorship and defendants could be liable for infringing her play.


Childress v. Taylor, 945 F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1991)