Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealsummary judgmentcopyrightdeclaratory judgment
appealcopyright

Related Cases

Kingsford v. Salt Lake City School Dist., 247 F.3d 1123, 153 Ed. Law Rep. 68, 2001 DJCAR 2086
View Case »
Levant v. Whitley, 755 A.2d 1036
View Case »
Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F.Supp.2d 951, 240 Ed. Law Rep. 147
View Case »
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 105 S.Ct. 712, 83 L.Ed.2d 661, 53 USLW 4072, 8 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 6, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 34,439, 1 A.D.D. 204
View Case »
Newspapers, Inc. v. Love, 380 S.W.2d 582
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, 805 F.2d 663, 61 Rad. Reg. 2d (P & F) 543, 55 USLW 2250, 231 U.S.P.Q. 673, 1986 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,024, 13 Media L. Rep. 1625

Facts

This case arose from a dispute between Major League Baseball Clubs and the Major League Baseball Players Association regarding the ownership of broadcast rights to players' performances during games. The Clubs sought a declaratory judgment asserting their exclusive rights to broadcast the games, while the Players claimed that their property rights were being misappropriated. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Clubs, concluding that the telecasts were copyrightable works made for hire, and that the Clubs owned the copyright. The Players appealed the decision.

Issue

Whether Major League Baseball Clubs own exclusive rights to the televised performances of major league baseball players during major league baseball games.

The primary issue involved in this appeal is whether major league baseball clubs own exclusive rights to the televised performances of major league baseball players during major league baseball games.

Rule

An employer owns copyright in a work if it satisfies the requirements for copyrightability, is prepared by an employee, is within the scope of employment, and there is no express agreement to the contrary. A work is copyrightable if it is fixed in tangible form, original, and falls within the subject matter of copyright. Telecasts of baseball games are considered works made for hire, and thus the employer is presumed to own the copyright unless expressly agreed otherwise.

Analysis

The court found that the telecasts of baseball games were fixed in tangible form and original works of authorship, satisfying the requirements for copyrightability. The Players, as employees, performed within the scope of their employment, making the telecasts works made for hire. The Players did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the Clubs owned the copyright, nor did they establish any express agreement that would alter this presumption. Therefore, the Clubs were deemed to own the copyright in the telecasts.

The district court concluded that the telecasts were copyrightable works. We agree. Section 102 sets forth three conditions for copyrightability: first, a work must be fixed in tangible form; second, the work must be an original work of authorship; and third, it must come within the subject matter of copyright.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the Clubs owned the copyright in the telecasts of major league baseball games, and that the Players' rights of publicity were preempted by federal copyright law.

We therefore hold that the Clubs own the copyright in telecasts of major league baseball games.

Who won?

The prevailing party in this case was the Major League Baseball Clubs. The court ruled in their favor, affirming that they owned the copyright to the telecasts of baseball games. The court's reasoning was based on the determination that the telecasts were works made for hire, as the players were employees performing within the scope of their employment. The Clubs were also able to demonstrate that there was no express agreement that contradicted their ownership of the copyright, thus solidifying their position in the dispute.

You must be