## Facts

- Cornell Woolrich authored the short story “It Had to Be Murder,” published in 1942.
- Woolrich granted motion-picture rights for the initial copyright term and promised to assign motion-picture rights for the renewal term.
- A film based on the story, *Rear Window* (1954), was produced and later controlled by motion-picture interests including James Stewart, Alfred Hitchcock, and MCA.
- Under the 1909 Copyright Act, the work had an initial 28-year term and a separate 28-year renewal term.
- Woolrich died in 1968, before the renewal term vested.
- In 1969, Woolrich’s executor renewed the copyright and assigned the renewal rights to Sheldon Abend.
- During the renewal term, the film was re-released in theaters and on television under licenses obtained from the motion-picture interests, not from Abend.
- Abend asserted that continued distribution of the film infringed the renewed copyright in the underlying story because he had not granted permission.

## Issues

1. Under the 1909 Copyright Act, whether the owner of a derivative work may continue distributing the derivative work during the renewal term of the underlying work when the author died before renewal vested and the renewal owner has not consented.
2. Whether the continued commercial exploitation of the film during the renewal term constituted fair use of the underlying story.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Abend.
- Distribution and publication of the derivative film during the renewal term infringed the renewal owner’s rights where the author died before renewal vested and the statutory successor (or assignee) did not grant permission.
- The Court rejected the rule that a derivative-work proprietor may continue exploiting the derivative work in the renewal term based solely on the author’s initial-term grant.
- The Court held the continued exploitation was not fair use, characterizing it as commercial exploitation that harmed the story owner’s adaptation market.

## Legal Principles

- Under the 1909 Act, the renewal term creates a new estate; renewal rights are not merely an extension of the original term.
- An author’s pre-renewal assignment conveys only an expectancy; if the author dies before renewal vests, statutory successors take the renewal right, free of the author’s unvested promise.
- A derivative work may be separately copyrighted only as to the new matter contributed, but continued exploitation that incorporates protected elements of the underlying work in the renewal term requires authorization from the renewal owner.
- Commercial, non-transformative reuse of a fictional work that uses substantial protected expression and impairs the market for licensed adaptations is unlikely to qualify as fair use.

## Conclusion

The Court held that when an author dies before renewal rights vest, the renewal owner may control continued exploitation of a derivative film incorporating the underlying work during the renewal term, and that continued commercial distribution of the film without consent is infringement not excused by fair use.


Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990)