|
''Petrella v. MGM'' is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6-3, that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages. ==Background== After retiring from the boxing ring, Jake LaMotta collaborated with his friend Frank Petrella to write a story about his career. That collaboration resulted in three copyrighted works: : * screenplay, written in 1963, : * screenplay, written in 1973, and : * the book ''Raging Bull: My Story'', published in 1970. In 1976, LaMotta and Petrella assigned the copyrights in their works, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc., which assigned them in 1978 to United Artists Corporation, which later became a subsidiary of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. In 1980, as a result, MGM released (and registered copyright in) the film ''Raging Bull'', which achieved popular and critical success. Petrella died in 1981, during the initial terms in the three original works. Because of the ruling in ''Stewart v. Abend'',〔''Stewart v. Abend'', 〕 the renewal rights reverted to his heirs. In 1991, Petrella's daughter Paula sought to renew the copyrights, but was only able to timely file with respect to the 1963 screenplay. In 1998, her attorney informed MGM of that status, and advised that exploitation of any derivative work, including the film, infringed on that copyright. After several years of negotiations and litigation threats, Petrella commenced a copyright infringement claim against MGM in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking monetary and injunctive relief, but only with respect to the immediately preceding three years as provided by . MGM moved for summary judgment, arguing that, under the equitable doctrine of laches, Petrella’s 18-year delay in filing suit, was unreasonable and prejudicial to MGM. The District Court granted MGM’s motion, holding that laches barred Petrella’s complaint. The judgment was later affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, citing its previous jurisprudence in the matter. Because of conflicting opinions in the various Circuit courts on the subject, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to resolve the matter. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|