## Facts

- A 1959 screenplay titled *The Little Shop of Horrors* was authored by Charles Byron Griffith and later co-owned in relevant part by Concorde-New Horizons Corp.
- In 1960, a motion picture based on the screenplay was released and distributed to the public.
- The screenplay was registered for copyright protection in 1982 as an unpublished work.
- Shoptalk, Ltd. and Alan Menken participated in later adaptations (a musical stage work and related productions) using material derived from the original storyline and paid royalties to Griffith and Concorde.
- The parties entered a 1983 settlement agreement resolving prior disputes and providing for royalty payments for use of screenplay material.
- The motion picture copyright was not renewed and expired in 1988, placing the film in the public domain.
- After learning of the nonrenewal, Shoptalk and Menken stopped paying royalties to Concorde but continued paying Griffith.
- The district court ordered Shoptalk and Menken to pay past royalties plus prejudgment interest and to continue paying royalties, reasoning that the screenplay remained protected because it had not been published or registered before 1982.
- Shoptalk and Menken appealed; Concorde cross-appealed, arguing the contract required royalties even if copyright had expired.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the Copyright Act of 1909, public distribution of a motion picture constitutes publication of the underlying screenplay to the extent the screenplay is disclosed in the film.
2. Whether the 1983 agreement required royalty payments independent of copyright protection, including after copyright expiration.

## Decision

- The court held that publication of the motion picture in 1960 published the screenplay elements disclosed in the film for purposes of the 1909 Act.
- The court rejected Concorde’s theory that a later registration as “unpublished” preserved protection for material already disclosed to the public through the film.
- The court concluded that the 1983 agreement did not clearly require royalties after the expiration of the relevant copyrights and therefore did not support post-expiration royalty liability.
- The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its holdings, including determination of the scope of screenplay material disclosed in the film versus any undisclosed material.

## Legal Principles

- Under the 1909 Act, publication of a derivative work (including a motion picture) constitutes publication of the underlying work to the extent the underlying work’s expression is revealed in the derivative work.
- Published works governed by the 1909 Act were subject to a limited term and renewal requirements; failure to renew results in public-domain status at the end of the applicable term.
- A contract for royalties tied to exploitation of copyrighted material will not be construed to require payments after copyright expiration absent clear, express language establishing that obligation.
- Characterizing and registering an underlying work as “unpublished” after public disclosure through a derivative work cannot extend exclusive rights in the disclosed material beyond the statutory limits.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the 1960 release of the film published the disclosed screenplay elements under the 1909 Act, subjecting them to finite term and renewal limits, and it refused to impose post-expiration royalties because the parties’ agreement lacked clear language requiring payments after copyright protection ended.


Shoptalk, Ltd. v. Concorde-New Horizons Corp., 168 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 1999)