## Facts

- Alexander Lindsay, a documentary filmmaker, participated in an expedition associated with R.M.S. Titanic, Inc. (RMST), which held exclusive rights to conduct salvage operations at the Titanic wreck site.
- Lindsay filmed a documentary during an expedition and later proposed a separate, more ambitious filming project using specially designed high-intensity underwater lighting towers placed around the wreck.
- Lindsay alleged he conceived and directed key expressive elements of the lighting-based project, including the number and placement of lighting towers, the type and intensity of lighting, and the planned camera angles, movements, and sequencing for particular shots.
- Other expedition personnel allegedly operated the submersibles and cameras to capture footage consistent with Lindsay’s direction.
- Lindsay alleged RMST and related entities exploited and licensed the resulting footage, including to Discovery Communications, without compensating him or recognizing his claimed authorship.
- Defendants answered and asserted counterclaims for copyright infringement; Lindsay amended his complaint to add Discovery and to assert copyright claims alongside salvage-related claims seeking a share of revenues connected to the salvage enterprise.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that a director who planned and directed the expressive elements of underwater footage could be an “author” (or co-author) of the resulting audiovisual work even if he did not operate the cameras.
2. Whether Lindsay’s copyright theories impermissibly sought protection for unprotectable subject matter, such as facts about the wreck or general filming ideas and techniques.
3. Whether Lindsay was entitled, on summary judgment, to a salvage-based share of revenues connected to Titanic operations.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss Lindsay’s copyright claims.
- The court held that, accepting the pleaded facts as true, Lindsay adequately alleged authorship (at least as a co-author) based on his alleged creative control over the lighting, composition, shot planning, and sequencing embodied in the footage, notwithstanding that others operated the cameras.
- The court dismissed portions of the copyright theories to the extent they attempted to claim protection in unprotectable facts, ideas, or standard techniques rather than specific expressive choices fixed in the footage.
- The court reserved decision on Lindsay’s cross-motion for summary judgment on his salvage and copyright claims, citing the need for further factual development, including on salvage-related factors.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Authorship of audiovisual works may be plausibly alleged by a person who provides original creative conception and direction over expressive elements (e.g., selection and arrangement of lighting, angles, timing, and sequence), even if technicians execute the physical recording.
- Copyright does not protect facts (including facts about a real-world subject) or abstract ideas and general methods; protection, if any, lies in the particular expressive choices fixed in the work.
- Maritime salvage entitlement is fact-dependent and generally turns on considerations such as risk undertaken, skill and labor, and the value of property saved; participation in an expedition does not alone establish a salvage award.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the core copyright claim to proceed past the pleadings, recognizing that detailed allegations of creative direction over the expressive content of underwater footage can support authorship even without camera operation, while narrowing claims that sought protection for unprotectable ideas or facts and deferring salvage relief pending further factual development.


Lindsay v. Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel R.M.S. Titanic, 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1609 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)