## Facts

- Romola Nijinsky authored and held recorded copyrights in two books about Vaslav Nijinsky.
- In 1940, Nijinsky entered an agreement granting Basil N. Bass “exclusive motion picture rights” in the two books; Bass later transferred his interest to Oscar Serlin.
- The 1940 agreement and the Bass-to-Serlin transfer were not recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office until after later events.
- In 1954, Nijinsky executed a written agreement with Charles Vidor purporting to transfer exclusive motion-picture, television, radio, and allied rights in the same books.
- Before contracting, Vidor searched the Copyright Office records, found no recorded prior transfer of the relevant rights, received Nijinsky’s warranty that no prior assignments existed, and recorded his agreement.
- After Bass/Serlin recorded the earlier chain, a priority dispute arose over ownership of the motion-picture and allied rights.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1940 “exclusive motion picture rights” grant to Bass was an assignment of copyright interests or merely a license.
2. Whether a later assignee who records first and lacks actual or constructive notice of a prior unrecorded assignment takes priority over the earlier transferee.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Vidor.
- The court held the 1940 Nijinsky–Bass instrument was, in substance, an assignment of exclusive rights rather than a mere license.
- Because Bass/Serlin failed to record before Vidor’s recordation, and Vidor took in good faith without notice after a Copyright Office search and warranty, Vidor’s recorded transfer had priority.
- The judgment declared Vidor (by then, his estate) the owner of the motion-picture and allied rights as against Bass and Serlin.

## Legal Principles

- A transfer granting exclusive rights in a copyright medium (e.g., exclusive motion-picture rights) is treated as an assignment based on substance, not the parties’ label.
- Copyright assignments are subject to federal recordation rules; failure to timely record can subordinate the earlier transfer to a later bona fide purchaser.
- A subsequent assignee who records first and takes without actual or constructive notice of a prior unrecorded assignment prevails over the earlier unrecorded transferee.
- Reasonable reliance on the Copyright Office records and contractual warranties supports good-faith status and defeats claims that additional inquiry was legally required.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the priority function of copyright recordation by treating an exclusive grant as an assignment and awarding superior title to the later transferee who searched the public records, took without notice, and recorded first.


Vidor v. Serlin, 7 N.Y.2d 502, 199 N.Y.S.2d 669, 166 N.E.2d 680 (N.Y. 1960)