Nicholas Martin & Anor. v Julia Kogan

In determining a consequential authorship credit, the court should make an overall merits-based assessment directed to the fairest and most accurate reflection of the judgment, while recognising that third-party crediting systems may use their own definitions and limited, multiple-choice categories. Quantitative contribution is not subject to a fixed threshold unless the applicable guidelines impose one. A person’s contribution must be assessed qualitatively as well as quantitatively. A credit which suggests that one contributor worked only on the story may be misleading where that contributor also made a material contribution to the screenplay. Where contributors worked as a team, the applicable credit need not be confined to one person. The decision was case-specific and did not establish a general principle.

The court had previously found that Julia Kogan was an author of 20% of the screenplay for the film Florence Foster Jenkins, and directed the film companies to arrange an IMDb credit reflecting her work. At a consequential hearing, Nicholas Martin and Ms Kogan disagreed about the appropriate wording. IMDb had recorded: Writing Credits Nicholas Martin (written by) and Julia Kogan (written by) (originally uncredited).

The court considered the Writers Guild of America and Writers Guild of Great Britain guidelines, together with IMDb’s own rules, and had to decide whether that credit complied with the court’s earlier judgment.

1. The court ruled that the existing IMDb credit complied with the film companies’ obligations and should not be changed.

2. The court made an overall, merits-based assessment. The credit should reflect the earlier findings as accurately as the available categories permitted, while also taking account of the relevant WGA, WGGB and IMDb definitions. The categories could not capture every nuance of the judgment, and the court did not purport to establish a general principle.

3. Ms Kogan’s 20% contribution was not too small to justify a screenplay or written-by credit. The point had been raised too late, and the WGGB guidelines contained no hard percentage limit. Her contribution was real and non-trivial.

4. The WGGB guidelines were particularly relevant to a dispute concerning UK copyright, although it was permissible to consider both sets of guidelines. They did not, however, support every aspect of Ms Kogan’s case: a screenplay-by credit required a substantial written contribution, and a written-by credit required work on both screenplay and story. The WGA guidelines took a broader approach to writing.

5. The guidelines did not require a written-by credit to be limited to one person. The court’s finding that Mr Martin and Ms Kogan worked as a team supported credits for both. Giving Mr Martin screenplay-by and story-by credits while giving Ms Kogan only story-by would wrongly imply that she had not contributed to the screenplay.

6. The current credit best reflected the film’s original crediting, Mr Martin’s substantially greater contribution, and the later recognition of Ms Kogan’s authorship. IMDb had not independently assessed whether Ms Kogan specifically merited a written-by credit; it had replicated the film credit and added the qualification that she was originally uncredited.