Connection lost
Server error
Martha Graham School & Dance Foundation, Inc. v. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The heir of famed choreographer Martha Graham sued the dance center she founded, claiming ownership of her dances. The court held that dances created while Graham was a salaried employee of the Center were works for hire owned by the Center, not by Graham personally.
Legal Significance: Establishes that the work-for-hire doctrine applies even to a “genius” employee who is the driving creative force and dominant figure of the employing corporation, so long as an employment relationship exists where the work is within the scope of employment.
Martha Graham School & Dance Foundation, Inc. v. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Martha Graham, a renowned choreographer, initially operated her dance company and school as sole proprietorships. For tax and administrative reasons, she later incorporated the Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance (“the Center”) and the Martha Graham School. From 1956 to 1965, Graham was a part-time employee of the School, with duties limited to teaching. After 1966, she became a full-time, salaried employee of the Center, serving as its Artistic Director with the primary duty of choreographing new dances. The Center paid her salary, provided benefits, withheld taxes, and supplied the resources for her choreography. Upon her death, Graham’s will left her residuary estate, including any rights in her “dance works,” to her friend and heir, Ronald Protas. Protas claimed personal ownership of the copyrights to 70 of Graham’s dances. The Center counter-claimed, arguing the dances were either works for hire or had been assigned to it. The district court found largely for the Center, and Protas appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are choreographic works created by a highly influential artistic director, who is a salaried employee of a non-profit corporation established to support her work, considered “works made for hire” under the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts, thereby making the corporation the statutory author?
Yes. The court held that dances Graham created after 1966, when she Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Are choreographic works created by a highly influential artistic director, who is a salaried employee of a non-profit corporation established to support her work, considered “works made for hire” under the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts, thereby making the corporation the statutory author?
Conclusion
The case solidifies the principle that the work-for-hire doctrine's application hinges on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Except
Legal Rule
Under the 1909 Copyright Act, a work is a "work made for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa
Legal Analysis
The Second Circuit analyzed the copyright ownership of Graham's dances under three Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The work-for-hire doctrine applies to a “creative genius” who is a