Power v. Connectweb Technologies, Inc. et al. (D. Mass. 22-cv-10030).

Matthew Power accused Connectweb of copyright infringement, seeking a declaration that Power is either the exclusive author of a derivative work or the co-author, along with Connectweb, of a joint work.  The dispute centered around Power’s assertion that, while he had been an employee of Connectweb for a time, he had been laid off and then later engaged as an independent contractor to create revisions and derivative works of Connectweb’s CVW software.

Judge Dein granted Connectweb’s motion for summary judgment.  She noted that there was no dispute that Connectweb owned the pre-existing CVW software, and accordingly Connectweb had the sole right to create derivative works.  Power would therefore initially have to show that he had authorization to create the accused works to have a viable claim to copyright in any derivative works.   Absent permission, Powers would have no ownership or copyright in the works.  She determined that Power in his opposition to the motion for summary judgment had failed to rebut Connectweb’s assertion that it had never given Power permission to create derivative works – Power presented to evidence to the contrary or to set forth specific facts that might establish a genuine dispute.  She rejected Power’s argument that receiving administrative access to the CVW software somehow gave him rights to create and exploit new versions of the software.  Judge Dein further rejected Power’s argument that his authority came from Connectweb customers who received such authorization themselves from Connectweb because Powers failed to provide any actual evidence to support this.

Judge Dein also granted Connectweb summary judgment on Power’s alternative claim that he was a co-author of the derivative works along with Connectweb.  To qualify as a joint work, each of the authors must have intended at the time the work was made that their contributions be merged into a single unit, and that each authors’ contribution must be more than de minimis.  Here, Power presented no evidence that Connectweb intended to make Power a co-author of any version of CVW, and that the contributions Power made were marginal and insufficient to qualify as a co-author.

Judge Dein granted summary judgment to Connectweb on the breach of contract claim.  Power had produced what he purported to be a written memorialization of a previous oral agreement regarding his work as an independent contractor, but he provided no evidence that Connectweb had ever seen, much less agreed to this memorialization, and in any event, the terms that Power sought to enforce were not contained in this memorialization.  Power had sought 50% of all CVW revenues, but the memorialization’s sole reference to compensation only asserted that Power was to receive $300 for his work.

Power had asserted numerous other state law claims, as well as a DCMA claim, that required him to be found to have some legal or equitable interest in the derivative works, and summary judgment against Power was entered on these claims.