Producers of television and film projects know that entering into work-for-hire agreements with all of the creative contributors to their projects—including writers, directors, and actors—is a legal necessity. Through those agreements, copyright ownership of the finished product is placed unambiguously in the hands of the production company or other “employer” which can then exclusively reproduce, perform, distribute, and otherwise exploit the work in its discretion and allow others to do so. Although some of those contributors may share in earned revenues or profits under contractual arrangements, as employees for hire they won’t share in joint ownership or control, either with respect to their individual contributions or the project as a whole.
The alternative—failing to obtain work-for-hire agreements—invites chaos but the extent of it is rarely explored. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, recently pondered the consequences of that omission when an actress who appeared in a film claimed to own not a joint copyright in the finished work (the unhappy scenario that most readily comes to mind from a producer’s perspective) but the copyright in that actress’ own performance.1 The Ninth Circuit agreed with the actress and reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction barring performance of the film on YouTube, which had made the film available for viewing.
