## Facts

- Batjac produced and copyrighted the motion picture *McLintock!* in 1963 but failed to renew the motion picture copyright; the film entered the public domain in 1991.
- In 1993, Batjac prepared a new home-video/television version by changing the visual presentation (panning-and-scanning to a different aspect ratio) and substantially reworking the soundtrack (remixing and adding new sound material).
- Batjac registered the 1993 version as a derivative work identifying the 1963 film as preexisting material and transferred exclusive domestic home-video rights in the 1993 version to Maljack.
- Plaintiffs attempted to register two versions of the *McLintock!* screenplays as separate copyrights; the Register of Copyrights refused registration.
- UAV produced and distributed a 1993 home-video release that was virtually identical to Batjac’s 1993 version in framing and most audio content, while substituting new music.
- The actions were consolidated to resolve summary judgment on (1) whether the Register properly refused screenplay registration and (2) whether UAV infringed the 1993 derivative-work copyright.

## Issues

1. Whether the Register of Copyrights properly refused to register the *McLintock!* screenplays after the underlying work had entered the public domain.
2. Whether UAV’s home-video release infringed the copyright in Batjac’s 1993 derivative version of *McLintock!*.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for the Register; the refusal to register the screenplays was upheld.
- Partial summary judgment was granted for Plaintiffs against UAV; UAV was held to have infringed Batjac’s 1993 derivative-work copyright.
- The rulings resolved liability and registration questions at the summary judgment stage, leaving remedies for later proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When a work enters the public domain due to nonrenewal, it cannot be removed from the public domain by later registration or related attempts to claim exclusive rights in the same public-domain material.
- Copyright in a derivative work based on public-domain material extends only to the author’s original contributions, not to the underlying public-domain work.
- Creative choices in preparing a new version of a film for a different format—such as panning-and-scanning/reframing and substantial audio remixing and additions—can constitute protectable original expression in a derivative work.
- Infringement may be found where a defendant’s work is substantially similar to, and copies, the protected original elements of a derivative work, even if the defendant changes some unprotected or different elements (such as substituting music) while keeping the copied protected contributions.

## Conclusion

The court held that the screenplays could not be newly registered because they had entered the public domain with the unrenewed motion picture, but it also held that Batjac’s 1993 home-video version contained protectable original contributions and that UAV infringed those protected derivative elements by distributing a nearly identical version.


Maljack Prods., Inc. v. UAV Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1416 (C.D. Cal. 1997)