Today’s news is often overcome with vivid imagery of war in the middle east, the upcoming Presidential Election, and other important topics. Yet, one recognizable name seems to be in the news more than all of the rest- Taylor Swift.
Swift is again making headlines for being the topic of conversation. Earlier this year, The pop singer was widely reported on because of an alleged invasion into her privacy when rapper Kanye West, and his Wife Kim Kardashian West, shared a recording of a phone call with Swift, seemingly without her consent. Oscar winner Jared Leto, who most recently played the Joker in this summer’s hit, Suicide Squad, is the latest celebrity to be embroiled in a spat with the infamous Swift.
Unique to this situation is Leto’s legal claim to prevent notorious gossip company TMZ from releasing leaked footage. The footage shows Leto listening to Taylor Swift’s album, seemingly for inspiration for his own band’s music, and dismissing her and her music. Leto’s production company, Sisyphus Touring Inc., brought suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California claiming that they owned the copyright to the work under work made for hire.
In copyright law, the work made for hire doctrine gives the copyright interest to the employer rather than the creator when the work was made within the creator’s scope of employment.
The District Court held that despite the existence of a written contract, there was no written agreement signed before the footage was filmed. In fact, the work-made-for-hire contract was signed about three months after the footage was filmed. Therefore, Leto’s production company cannot claim that the leaked recording was a work made for hire and therefore cannot claim the copyright. The court cited the controlling case for the Ninth Circuit which states that the work made for hire contract has to be made before the creation of the work. In other words, the contract signed after the creation of the work cannot act retroactively, nor can it work to transfer the rights to the work unless specifically stated.
The use of copyright to restrict the use of a protected work is not unique. Many copyright owners have succeeded in using the monopoly of copyright ownership in order to effectuate censorship. Leto’s use of copyright law, if it had been successful, would have been the latest in a series of copyright claims made to effectuate censorship which is directly at odds with not only the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but with the Copyright Clause of the Constitution which empowers the United States Congress to promote the progress of the useful arts, not to restrict it.