## Facts

- Author David Goodis wrote the novel *Dark Passage* (1945).
- Goodis sold Warner Brothers exclusive motion picture rights and related dramatic/exhibition rights under a 1945 contract containing negotiated radio/television provisions.
- Before book publication, Goodis licensed serialization rights to *The Saturday Evening Post*; each installment bore a copyright notice in the magazine publisher’s name, not Goodis’s.
- Warner Brothers produced a feature film based on the novel.
- Warner Brothers later assigned its contractual rights to United Artists.
- United Artists produced the weekly television series “The Fugitive,” broadcast by ABC.
- Goodis (and, after his death, his estate) alleged the series infringed protected elements of *Dark Passage*.
- Defendants argued the novel entered the public domain due to the serialization notice and, alternatively, the 1945 contract authorized the television series.

## Issues

1. Whether serialization of the novel in a magazine with copyright notice only in the magazine publisher’s name caused the work to enter the public domain.
2. Whether the 1945 motion-picture-rights contract, as assigned, unambiguously authorized a television series using the novel’s characters and premise in new plot situations.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the contract-scope defense.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the magazine’s copyright notice in the publisher’s name was sufficient to protect the author’s copyright and prevent forfeiture to the public domain.
- The court held the contract’s application to a television series like “The Fugitive” was not resolvable as a matter of law on summary judgment because it raised factual questions about intent and industry understanding.

## Legal Principles

- Under the 1909 Act notice regime, a magazine publisher holding serialization rights may place a valid copyright notice in its own name that preserves the author’s copyright, absent a showing the author intended a public-domain dedication.
- The “indivisibility” concept should not be applied mechanically to forfeit an author’s rights when the publication circumstances show an intent to secure copyright protection.
- Summary judgment is improper where contract interpretation depends on disputed intent, contextual meaning of provisions, or extrinsic evidence (including industry practice), particularly for contested uses such as a continuing television series.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the public-domain defense based on the serialization notice and held that the claimed television-series authorization under the 1945 rights contract required factual development, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.


Goodis v. United Artists Television, Inc., 425 F.2d 397 (2d Cir. 1970)