## Facts

- Abraham Quintanilla, Jr. managed Selena y Los Dinos; other plaintiffs included Selena-related songwriters and Selena’s estate representative.
- On February 7, 1993, Selena y Los Dinos performed a concert in Corpus Christi that was videotaped by the television station’s personnel under a prior arrangement.
- The station’s director sent written notes stating the station would use the footage on the station’s entertainment and news programming and would provide Quintanilla a master copy for promotional use.
- After Selena’s death, the station rebroadcast portions of the footage multiple times, including a televised special tied to the anniversary of her death.
- Plaintiffs asserted that Quintanilla held exclusive copyright ownership of the concert videotape and that the station only had a limited nonexclusive license (allegedly confined to a particular show).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the station on the federal copyright claims and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Quintanilla proved sole copyright ownership of the concert videotape under the work-made-for-hire doctrine.
2. Whether a joint-ownership/joint-authorship theory was adequately pleaded and preserved (or could be added by amendment) to avoid summary judgment.
3. Whether any copyright interest held by the station was transferred to Quintanilla through a writing sufficient to satisfy the Copyright Act.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the television station on the federal copyright claims.
- Quintanilla failed to establish sole ownership of the videotape under work-for-hire because the station’s personnel were not his employees and there was no written work-for-hire agreement.
- The court declined to treat the case as one for joint ownership because the complaint did not adequately present that theory and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying late amendment.
- No writing showed an assignment or transfer of any station copyright interest; the correspondence reflected, at most, permitted use and an exchange of copies.
- Claims tied to the musical compositions failed for lack of sufficient evidentiary support of ownership/registration by the songwriter plaintiffs.
- The district court’s dismissal without prejudice of remaining state-law claims was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A party claiming sole ownership of a work as “made for hire” must satisfy statutory requirements, including an employment relationship under agency-law factors or, for certain commissioned works, a written agreement expressly designating the work as made for hire.
- A transfer of copyright ownership generally requires a signed writing; informal correspondence granting use or providing copies does not itself assign ownership absent clear transfer language.
- Joint-ownership theories must be timely and clearly pleaded; appellate review generally proceeds on the theories actually presented and preserved in the district court.
- Copyright plaintiffs must present competent evidence of their ownership and, where required, registration to maintain infringement claims.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that the evidence did not support Quintanilla’s asserted exclusive ownership of the concert videotape and that no alternative joint-ownership or transfer theory was properly established, so the station was entitled to summary judgment on the federal copyright claims.


Quintanilla v. Tex. Television Inc., 139 F.3d 494 (5th Cir. 1998)