Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held that many of the works of famed modern dance artist and choreographer Martha Graham were created as “works for hire” while the late Graham was an employee of the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance. An heir to Graham’s estate who had claimed ownership of much of the work had argued that the choreographer’s status as a major artist and inspirational figure over whom the center exercised little control exempted her from the work-for-hire doctrine, which grants copyright to the employer. But the 2nd Circuit disagreed. In a unanimous 50-page opinion by Judge Jon O. Newman, the court held, “The fact that Graham was extremely talented understandably explains the dance center’s disinclination to exercise control over the details of her work, but does not preclude the sort of employee relationship that results in a work for hire.” The circuit’s Aug. 18 ruling in Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation v. Martha Graham Center largely upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, who also found that Graham created many of her dances as an employee. Widely regarded as the founder of the modern dance movement, Graham created and exhibited most of her work through the Martha Graham Center. But upon her death in 1991, she left her estate, including rights and interests in her work, to a friend, Ronald Protas. Protas, who initially became artistic director of the Martha Graham Center, later fell into a dispute with the center’s board of trustees. During a period of financial difficulty in which the center suspended operations, Protas founded the Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, claiming it had exclusive rights to teach and perform her work. When the center reopened in 2001, Protas sued to enjoin the center from infringing on copyrights he claimed for the Martha Graham School. The center responded by claiming ownership over Graham’s dances, costumes, and name. The case has been closely watched by the artistic community. An amicus brief signed by the heads of other major dance groups urged the court to exercise caution in applying the work-for-hire doctrine to situations involving not-for-profit corporations created to foster and support creative artists. Though the court found the arts groups’ argument appealing, it also found that Graham was paid by the Martha Graham Center to be its artistic director and that, especially after 1966, her primary duty was to create new dances. The court rejected Protas’ argument that Graham was not an employee because she did not create dances at the “instance” of the center. “Many talented people, whether creative artists or leaders of major corporations, are expected by their employers to produce the sort of work for which they are hired without any need for the employer to suggest any particular project,” the court wrote. The court remanded the issue of seven of Graham’s dances to the District Court for a new finding because they were created between 1956 and 1966, a time at which her primary role at the center was not choreography. Cravath, Swaine & Moore’s Katherine Forrest represented the Martha Graham Center pro bono. Irell & Manella’s Judd Burstein represented Protas. Anthony Lin ([email protected]) is a senior reporter with the New York Law Journal , an ALM publication.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.