## Facts

- Richard Warren, through Triplet Music Enterprises, Inc., composed music for the television series *Remington Steele* under a series of detailed written agreements with MTM Productions.
- The agreements provided Warren compensation through fixed fees plus contingent payments tied to MTM’s sales of broadcast rights to certain third parties.
- The contracts were renewed and modified in 1984, 1985, and 1986; Warren alleged he created approximately 1,914 musical compositions for the series.
- Warren alleged MTM and Fox failed to account for and pay royalties owed under the agreements and that continued broadcast and licensing of the series after these alleged breaches infringed his copyrights.
- Warren sued Fox, MTM, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and Princess Cruise Lines for copyright infringement and various state-law claims, including breach of contract and accounting.

## Issues

1. Whether Warren had standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) to sue for infringement as the “legal” or “beneficial” owner of any exclusive right in the musical compositions.
2. Whether Warren’s pleaded royalty and accounting rights under the agreements could constitute “beneficial ownership” of the copyrights despite contractual language vesting rights in MTM.
3. Whether dismissal of the federal copyright claims permitted dismissal of the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the copyright infringement claims for lack of standing.
- The court held Warren was not a legal owner because the agreements vested copyright ownership in MTM.
- The court held Warren was not a beneficial owner because the alleged royalty interest functioned as contractual compensation, making him a contract creditor rather than an equitable copyright owner.
- After the federal claims were dismissed, the court affirmed dismissal of the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b), only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright has standing to sue for infringement.
- Contractual language allocating “all right, title, and interest” in commissioned works to the commissioning party defeats a creator’s claim of legal ownership for infringement standing purposes.
- A right to contingent compensation or royalties does not, by itself, establish “beneficial ownership” where the agreements characterize the arrangement as services-for-compensation and do not retain an ownership interest in the copyrights.
- Nonpayment of contractually promised royalties generally supports contract remedies, not federal infringement standing, absent legal or beneficial copyright ownership.
- When the federal claim is dismissed at the pleading stage, dismissal of associated state-law claims is proper where no independent basis for federal jurisdiction remains.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a composer who contracted to create music for a television series and whose agreements vested copyright ownership in the producer lacked standing to sue for infringement, because a contingent royalty-based payment right was a contractual interest rather than beneficial copyright ownership; with no viable federal claim, the related state-law claims were also dismissed.


Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)