NORMAN PETER MANASA, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Norman Manasa appealed the dismissal of his complaint alleging infringement of common law copyright in a written proposal he prepared for the University of Miami's academic program. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Manasa had no cause of action for common law copyright because he prepared the document as an employee of the University and because his submission constituted more than a limited publication.
The complaint does not present a valid cause of action for common law copyright infringement for two independent reasons: (1) Manasa prepared the document for the benefit of the University pursuant to his employment as director of the program, and (2) his submission of the proposal to the University constituted more than a limited publication, which is necessary to qualify for common law copyright protection.
[1] A common law copyright claim for a document prepared by an employee for the benefit of their employer pursuant to their employment is not actionable.
[2] Submission of a proposal to a university for funding purposes constitutes more than a limited publication and is therefore not subject to common law copyright.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It affirmatively appears from the complaint that Manasa prepared the document for the benefit of the University pursuant to his employment by the University as director of the program.”
Establishes the first basis for finding no valid common law copyright claim—that work prepared by an employee for his employer belongs to the employer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManasa prepared a written proposal for one of the University of Miami's accredited academic programs while employed as director of that program. The p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Limited Publication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Norman Peter Manasa, Jr., plaintiff in the trial court, from an order dismissing with prejudice his complaint against the University of Miami for infringement of a common law copyright to which he claims to be entitled for preparation of a written proposal for one of the University’s accredited academic programs. The proposal was prepared for the purpose of, obtaining federal funding for the program, and was submitted by Manasa to the University. It was then revised and delivered to a Federal Governmental Agency for funding.
The sole issue is whether the complaint, as amended, presents a cause of action for infringement of a common law copyright. We agree with the trial court that it does not for two reasons. First, it affirmatively appears from the complaint that Manasa prepared the document for the benefit of the University pursuant to his employment by the University as director of the program. Compare Tumey v. Little, 18 Misc.2d 462, 186 N.Y.S.2d 94 (S.Ct.1959), involving architectural plans and Williams v. Weisser, 273 Cal.App.2d 726, 78 Cal.Rptr. 542, 546-547 (2d Div. 1969) involving lectures of a university professor. Second, his submission of the proposal to the University as alleged in the complaint is more than a limited publication and, therefore, not subject to common law copyright. In order to qualify as a limited publication for purposes of a common law copyright, the publication must be directed “ . . . to a definitely selected group and for a limited purpose, and without the right of diffusion, reproduction, distribution or sale. White v. Kimmell, 193 F. 2d 744, 746 (9th Cir. 1952). Also see Ball, The Law of Copyright and Literary Property, § 60.
We find no error in the trial court’s transfer to the county court of Manasa’s action for reimbursement of expenses from the University of Miami which is within the jurisdictional limit of that court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Southpointe Pharmacy, 636 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…1990).” Sparta Surf, Inc. v. Korda, 599 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Until January 1, 1978, state courts had jurisdiction to decide common law copyright claims which were, indeed, predicated on state law. See, e.g., Manasa v. University of Miami, 320 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Since then, state law protection of the right of first publication has been preempted, U.S. Const, art. VI, cl. 2; 17 U.S.C. § 301, and Congress has ousted state courts of jurisdiction over cases brought to establish whether a co…
Authorities Cited
- White v. Kimmell, 193 F.2d 744 (9th Cir. 1952)