Supreme Court Rules Against Classic Film Owners : Law: The distributors of ‘Rear Window’ must share earnings from the film’s re-release with a literary agent. Some claim the ruling could limit the availability of old movies. Thousands of works could be affected.

In a costly defeat for the producers of classic motion pictures, the Supreme Court said Tuesday that authors and songwriters whose original works were incorporated into old movies are entitled to profit from the re-release of those productions.

The 6-3 decision means that the owners of hundreds of old films which have been re-issued for use in theaters, television or videocassettes may be forced to share millions in profits with the heirs of the original artists.

The impact can be seen in the case before the court: For $650, Sheldon Abend, a self-described “literary speculator” in New York, bought the copyright in the 1970s for the short story “It Had to be Murder.” Its author, Cornell Woolrich, had sold this and several other stories to a film production company in 1945 for $9,250.

Before Woolrich’s 28-year copyright expired, the author himself expired in 1968, leaving no heirs.

But his work lived on. In 1954, actor Jimmy Stewart and producer Alfred Hitchcock had used Woolrich’s story to make the movie classic “Rear Window” at Paramount. Now, thanks to the high court ruling, Abend--who in effect is the author’s heir because he bought the copyright--can lay claim to a share of the $12 million in revenues from the re-release of “Rear Window” by Universal in 1983.

“For the studios and the public, this could be a very serious situation,” said Sheldon Mittleman, house counsel for Universal Pictures. “It could mean that the American public will be deprived of the chance to see classic movies.”

Tuesday’s decision does not affect more recent movies, television programs, musical recordings or other artistic productions. They are governed by the Copyright Act of 1976, which took effect Jan. 1, 1978.

Works issued before 1978 are governed by the Copyright Act of 1909. Interpreting the history of this law, the Supreme Court concluded Tuesday it was intended to give authors and other artists a “second chance” to profit from their original works.

First, they were paid when they sold their works to a producer. In doing so, they signed over a 28-year copyright.

But they are also entitled to a second sale when it comes time to renew the copyright for another 28-year period, the court said. Songs and stories that were once sold for hundreds of dollars may now be worth millions since they have been incorporated into highly successful movies, plays, recordings or television productions.

Stephen A. Kroft, a Beverly Hills attorney who represented the major Hollywood studios in the case, said thousands of old movies, as well as records, plays based on novels and textbooks could be affected by the ruling.

“Unfortunately, the motion picture studios are going to have to deal with those people who own the copyrights. I say ‘unfortunately’ because a lot of people like Abend have snapped up those rights for virtually nothing and now want to hold up the studios,” Kroft said.

“If you have a musical with a whole lot of different songs, you are going to have multiple problems,” he said.

The ruling could also discourage distributors from re-releasing old films, said Louis P. Petrich, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Stewart and Hitchcock’s heirs.

The court said that a living author or songwriter cannot sign away his renewal rights for a second, 28-year period. As a result, Petrich said, film distributors cannot know in advance what an author’s heirs might seek as a share of the re-release profits.

“The practical effect of this might be to keep a lot of old works on the shelf,” Petrich said.

In the 1976 copyright law, Congress said old copyrights could be renewed for a third, 19-year period. This extends the total life of a copyright to 75 years.

“This means that families of authors will be given a meaningful chance to benefit from the exploitation of the author’s work. It could affect thousands of films and tens of thousands of old songs,” said Peter J. Anderson, a Santa Monica attorney who represented Abend.

For at least the past decade, the major Hollywood studios have operated on an entirely different legal theory of copyrights. The 1909 law speaks of “derivative works.” Lawyers for the studios contended that motion pictures, as “derivative works,” had their own copyright that incorporated everything that went into the production.

“Our argument is that the movie itself is entitled to recognition and protection,” Universal’s Mittleman said. “It is copyrighted and no one else can make prints of it, but now the owner can’t show it. We think that is absurd.”

The studios have argued that Woolrich’s heirs could still use or sell the story “It Had to Be Murder,” but they should have no claim to the movie “Rear Window.” In 1977, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had endorsed this theory of copyright law.

But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court majority flatly rejected it.

“The renewal provisions (in the Copyright Act of 1909) were intended to give the author a second chance to obtain fair remuneration for his creative efforts and to provide the author’s family a ‘new estate’ if the author died before the renewal period arrived,” wrote Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for the court in Jimmy Stewart vs. Sheldon Abend, 88-2102.

The copyrights of stories or songs incorporated into a movie are “independent” of the movie’s copyright, the court said. Even if the author or songwriter had long ago signed over the renewal rights to his work after the 28-year copyright expired, this agreement means nothing, O’Connor said. Simply put, the law does not allow the author to give away the rights of his widow or heirs to profit from the sale of the second, 28-year copyright.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia dissented.

The ruling upholds a decision last year by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena. While the appeals court refused to allow Abend or other heirs to block the distribution of classic motion pictures, it said that he and other holders of copyrights to original works can seek a fair share of the profits from re-releases.

Now, the case goes back to U.S. District Judge A. Andrew Hauk in Los Angeles to determine how much of $12 million in re-release revenues earned by “Rear Window” should go to Abend as the owner of the story copyright.

Mittleman said that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the copyright law applies only in the United States. “Interestingly enough, that is not the law in the rest of the world,” he said. “The studio can distribute ‘Rear Window’ in every country in the world--in Canada, England, anywhere--except in the U.S.”

Steve Weinstein contributed to this article from Los Angeles.