## Facts

- The Judicial Conference undertook a bicentennial project to produce a television series, *Equal Justice Under Law*, dramatizing early Supreme Court decisions.
- The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts commissioned Metropolitan Pittsburgh Public Broadcasting, Inc. (WQED), a public television station, to produce the series; PBS distributed it nationally and stations including WETA broadcast it.
- M. B. Schnapper and Public Affairs Press claimed the production contract required WQED to secure copyrights in the films and assign them to the federal government.
- Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the copyrights, alleging the arrangements unlawfully restricted public access to the films and prevented publication of the films’ text.
- Although the government later asserted WQED retained the copyrights and no assignment occurred, the courts treated the complaint’s assignment allegation as true on the Rule 12(b)(6) posture.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether films created for the federal government by an independent contractor are “works of the United States Government” under 17 U.S.C. § 105 and therefore uncopyrightable.
2. Whether an alleged assignment of the contractor’s copyright to the United States converts the films into uncopyrightable government works under § 105.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated any statutory or constitutional basis (including asserted public-access/First Amendment theories) to invalidate the copyrights or overturn the Register of Copyrights’ actions.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held § 105’s bar applies only to works prepared by federal officers or employees as part of official duties, not to works authored by independent contractors, even if commissioned or funded by the government.
- The court held that a post-creation assignment to the United States (assuming one occurred) would not change the authorship-based § 105 analysis.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ challenges to the Register of Copyrights because the complaint identified no legal basis to set aside registration or compel public-domain treatment.
- The court declined to invalidate copyright on generalized public-access or constitutional grounds absent a statutory prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 U.S.C. § 105, copyright protection is unavailable only for a “work of the United States Government,” defined as a work prepared by a federal officer or employee within official duties.
- Government commissioning, supervision, or funding does not, by itself, make a work a § 105 government work if the author is an independent contractor.
- Ownership transfer to the United States by assignment does not retroactively convert a contractor-authored work into a § 105 government work.
- Courts will not invalidate copyrights or registrations based on broad public-access claims where the Copyright Act permits protection and no separate statutory cause of action is stated.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that § 105’s public-domain rule is limited to works authored by federal employees in the course of their duties; contractor-created works commissioned or funded by the government remain eligible for copyright, and the complaint alleged no statutory or constitutional basis to void the copyrights or the registrations.


Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (D.C. Cir. 1981)