Gentile v. Crededio

Background

Christopher Gentile and Juan A. Crawford brought a copyright action against Cassi Crededio and Kevin Doyle. This order addressed only the claims against Crededio; the opinion states that Doyle had filed an answer with counterclaims and that those matters were not relevant to this order.

The plaintiffs alleged that they hired Crededio to help draft a pilot television screenplay that they had initially conceived. According to the complaint, Crededio prepared a three-act screenplay over approximately three weeks, using the plaintiffs’ verbal instructions, physical outlines, and rough drafts. The plaintiffs paid Crededio $500 for each act she drafted. The complaint also alleged that Crededio signed a confidentiality agreement and later registered the screenplay with the Copyright Office in her name.

The complaint asserted two claims against Crededio: a request for a declaration that the plaintiffs, rather than the defendants, held the only valid copyright registration for the screenplay, and a copyright-infringement claim based on Crededio’s registration of the screenplay in her name.

Motion to dismiss

Crededio moved to dismiss both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. She argued that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts showing that they could own the copyright.

Crededio first argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged joint authorship. The court described the applicable two-part test as requiring each claimed co-author to have intended, when the work was created, to be a co-author and to have made independently copyrightable contributions.

Crededio also argued that the plaintiffs could not claim ownership under the work-made-for-hire doctrine. Under the Copyright Act, a work may be made for hire when it is prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or is specially ordered or commissioned under a signed written agreement stating that it is a work made for hire. The court noted that the complaint did not allege such a written agreement or documents establishing an employer-employee relationship.

The plaintiffs argued that they had adequately pleaded joint authorship because they supplied written outlines and drafts of their ideas and gave them to Crededio to edit and convert into formal scripts. They also argued that the work-made-for-hire issue was too fact-intensive to resolve on a motion to dismiss. They requested permission to amend if the court found the complaint deficient.

Court’s analysis

The court expressed concerns about whether the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded authorship. It said the complaint appeared to allege that the plaintiffs supplied ideas rather than particular forms of expression that became part of the screenplay. The court also noted the absence of a written agreement stating that the screenplay would be a work made for hire.

The court further observed that the complaint appeared to portray Crededio as an independent contractor when she produced the screenplay. It noted that the complaint did not address the tax treatment of the payments to Crededio, which the court described as a highly indicative factor in assessing whether an employment relationship existed.

The court reserved judgment on these issues because the parties agreed that allowing an amended complaint was an acceptable way to proceed. The court also agreed with Crededio that an earlier decision provided a useful framework for the information the plaintiffs should include in an amended complaint.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by July 28, 2022. It stated that the amended complaint should include, in the main text or an attached exhibit as appropriate, some or all of the following: a copy of the screenplay; copies of the physical outlines, rough drafts, or other work product the plaintiffs provided to Crededio; allegations identifying the specific parts of the screenplay the plaintiffs believed they authored; and any written employment agreement with Crededio, if one existed.

The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had to plead enough factual content to support a reasonable inference that Crededio was liable for the alleged misconduct. It stated that it was not prejudging any future amended complaint.

Because the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, the court ordered that Crededio’s pending motion to dismiss was DENIED AS MOOT and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at docket entry 24. The order did not decide the merits of the copyright-ownership or infringement claims.