Caseflicks

New York Supreme Court • 1948

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

196 Misc. 67 | 80 N.Y.S.2d 575 | 1948 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2618

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that use of public-domain music and accurate composer credits in a politically objectionable film did not, without a false implication of endorsement, establish statutory privacy, libel, willful-injury, or moral-rights grounds for an injunction.

Background

Dmitry Shostakovich and the other plaintiffs were celebrated Soviet composers. Twentieth Century-Fox produced and exhibited The Iron Curtain, a film portraying Soviet-connected espionage activities in Canada. The film had an anti-Soviet political theme, although its plot did not concern the composers.

For roughly forty-five of the film’s eighty-seven minutes, Fox used the plaintiffs’ musical compositions as incidental background music. The opening credits stated that the music came from selected works of the named Soviet composers, and one composer’s name was mentioned when a character played a record of his music. The parties conceded, for purposes of the motion, that the compositions were in the public domain and had no copyright protection.

The composers alleged that associating their names and music with an anti-Soviet film falsely suggested their approval, endorsement, or participation and therefore branded them as disloyal to the Soviet Union. They sought a preliminary and permanent injunction against use of their names and music, as well as damages. The court denied their motion for pendente lite injunctive relief on every asserted theory.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the use of the composers’ names and public-domain music in the film violated sections 50 and 51 of New York’s Civil Rights Law.

Holding

No. The Civil Rights Law did not authorize an injunction because the names were used in connection with the composers’ unprotected public-domain works.

Reasoning

The court relied on Jaccard v. Macy & Co., which held that use of a designer’s name to advertise a copied, uncopyrighted dress design did not invade the statutory privacy right protected by sections 50 and 51. Although music and dress designs differ in artistic character, the governing principle was the same: an uncopyrighted work may be used by others without creating a statutory privacy claim merely because the creator’s name accompanies it.

The court also cited authority recognizing that, when works are unprotected, others may copy, publish, or compile them and may identify the author in doing so. Because the plaintiffs’ compositions were conceded to be in the public domain, Fox’s credit line naming the composers could not be restrained under the Civil Rights Law.

Issue #2

Whether the film and its use of the composers’ names and music were libelous, so as potentially to support injunctive relief.

Holding

No. The film did not falsely imply that the composers participated in, approved, or endorsed its anti-Soviet message.

Reasoning

The alleged libel rested on an asserted implication: that using the composers’ music and names in a film criticizing Soviet conduct conveyed their consent, collaboration, or endorsement. The court personally viewed the film and found no factual basis to say that the composers were shown as participants in its production or as supporters of its political theme.

The plaintiffs argued that audiences necessarily would infer consent because living composers are generally paid when their names and music are used in films. The court rejected that premise. When a work is in the public domain, it may be used without the creator’s permission or payment; consequently, the mere use of the music and crediting of its composers did not imply authorization.

The court acknowledged that New York’s older rule had generally disfavored injunctions against defamatory publication and that a higher court had left open the possibility of such relief in an appropriate case. But even assuming an injunction could issue in a proper libel case, the plaintiffs first had to establish clear libel. They did not do so, whether their theory was that the film defamed them directly or used them as unwilling vehicles for disseminating defamatory material.

Issue #3

Whether Fox’s use of the music in a politically objectionable film was an actionable willful injury without just cause or an invasion of the composers’ moral rights.

Holding

No. The plaintiffs made no clear showing of a willful injury or a legally defined invasion of moral rights warranting injunctive relief.

Reasoning

The court recognized that deliberately inflicting injury without just cause can be actionable. Here, however, the asserted injury was not alteration, mutilation, or inaccurate reproduction of the music. The plaintiffs alleged instead that the film’s political viewpoint was hostile to their ideology and that use of their music associated them with that viewpoint.

The court considered that a moral-right doctrine might, in a suitable case, protect an author even where the work is in the public domain. But applying such a doctrine would create a difficult conflict between the author’s claimed personal interests and the established public right to use public-domain works.

The court emphasized that New York law had not clearly established the existence, scope, priority, or remedy of a moral right in this setting. It was also uncertain what standard would determine an improper use—good taste, artistic merit, political belief, morality, or some other measure. In the absence of distortion and without a clear legal invasion or unjustified willful injury, the court would not grant the drastic remedy of an injunction.