The Show Must Go On?: An Analysis of To Kill a Mockingbird's Play Rights

 [1]

Background

The dispute over the right to produce To Kill a Mockingbird lies at the intersection of estates, play rights, and conflicting circuit decisions.[2] The Federal Copyright Act allows an author to terminate any exclusive or nonexclusive transfer or license of a copyright executed on or after January 1, 1978.[3]  In 1969, Harper Lee granted Dramatic Publishing Company (“Dramatic”) exclusive rights to write and license “non-first-class” adaptations of To Kill a Mockingbird.[4] Dramatic published Christopher Sergel’s version of To Kill a Mockingbird.[5] Decades later in 2011, Lee notified Dramatic that she was exercising her copyright termination rights, which would become effective in 2016.[6] Following this notification, in 2015 Lee granted Rudinplay and its successor, Atticus LLC, exclusive “first-class” stage rights to Aaron Sorkin’s adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird, as well as rights not retained by Dramatic following the termination.[7] 

In 2016, Lee passed away, and the controversy came to a head.[8] The rights licensed in Atticus LLC’s 2015 grant became a point of contention; more specifically, there was disagreement regarding whether Atticus LLC possessed “non-first-class” stage rights.[9] Atticus LLC’s argument was bolstered by Lee’s estate attorney, who originally concluded that Dramatic’s rights extended only to producing Sergel’s version in regional, noncommercial, and amateur theaters, as well as schools.[10] The attorney further argued that Dramatic could not stage any production with professional actors without violating the 1969 agreement.[11] In addition, the 1969 contract prevented Dramatic from staging its version of the play within 25 miles of any city with a population of 150,000 or more when the “first-class” play was performed in New York or on tour.[12] Following the grant of these rights Atticus LLC’s (then Rudinplay) attorneys sent cease-and-desist letters to small theaters threatening legal action if Sergel’s version of the play was performed, resulting in many theaters cancelling their productions.[13]

Dramatic v. Lee Estate

In 2019, Dramatic brought the Lee Estate to arbitration in Illinois for tortious interference with their contracts.[14] Dramatic argued that it had the right to produce Sergel’s version and could exercise exclusive rights over “non-first-class” plays under the derivative works exception to termination rights.[15] Under the derivative works exception, Dramatic can continue to produce Sergel’s version of the play in “non-first class venues” following termination.[16] The arbitrator’s ruling depended on the conclusion that exclusivity subsists following termination.[17] The Lee Estate argued the exception was misapplied, because allowing exclusivity to persist following termination defeats the purpose of termination.[18] 

Though the Lee Estate’s argument was supported by the United States government, the arbitrator ruled in favor of Dramatic, which the District Court upheld.[19] As a result, Dramatic retained exclusive “non-first class” rights to the To Kill a Mockingbird play, despite Lee’s termination.[20] Additionally, the arbitrator awarded Dramatic over $2.5 million for legal fees and for the plays canceled as a result of Atticus LLC’s cease-and-desist letters.[21] Moreover, Lee’s estate was required to pay past and future royalties it earned from Atticus LLC, Sorkin, or other institutions.[22] Lastly, Dramatic has the right to royalties from Sergel’s and Sorkin’s scripts when either is performed at “non-first-class” venues, and the Lee Estate may not sell “non-first-class” rights to anyone.[23]

The Lee Estate appealed, looking to reject the arbitrator’s and district court’s rulings. The parties were set to argue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit but settled the matter.[24]

Atticus LLC v. Dramatic

In 2022, Atticus LLC sued Dramatic in the southern district of New York seeking to mitigate the effects of the arbitration between Dramatic and the Lee Estate and prevent Dramatic from exercising exclusive rights over “non-first class” productions of the To Kill a Mockingbird play.[25] The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held for Atticus LLC, finding that exclusivity rights can end with termination or there would be no effective termination right.[26]

Conclusion

 The question remains whether Dramatic can prevent Atticus LLC from staging “non-first-class” productions. Since the Second Circuit and the arbitration in the Seventh Circuit are at odds, perhaps Lee’s estate will simply pay for Sorkin’s “non-first-class” productions.[27] Regardless of the controversies discussed above, the government allocates greater power to termination rights because that “ensur[es] that authors can enter into bargains that reflect the worth of their copyrighted works.”[28] Given the purpose of copyright protection, one would assume greater licensing would lead to greater innovation.[29]

References

[1] Photo by Daria Kraplak on Unsplash, https://unsplash.com/photos/black-typewriter-d34DtRp1bqo.

[2] See Kyle Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, Bloomberg L. (September 4, 2025, 5:30 AM), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/ip/bloomberglawnews/ip-law/BNA%20000001990b4cdaa 7a5bf9f7e9e2f0001?bna_news_filter=ip-law.  

[3] See 17 U.S.C. § 203(a); see also 17 U.S.C. § 304; Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party, Dramatic Publ’g Co. v. Lee, No. 23-1309 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2025) (inhibiting “either a right to create new works nor a right to exclude the author from authorizing the creation or public performance of new works by others.”).

[4] See Kyle Jahner, Harper Lee Estate Drops ‘Mockingbird’ Stage-Play Appeal (Correct), Bloomberg L. (September 8, 2025, 4:13 PM), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglawnews/ip-law/XA74H0VK000000?bna_news_filter=ip-law#jcite. (which defines “non-first class” as any play not “includ[ing] Broadway and West End productions in New York City, and productions anywhere governed by the Actors’ Equity Production Agreement or analogous collective agreement with similar terms and pay scale.”).

[5] See Aaron Moss, To Kill a Termination Right? ‘Mockingbird’ Battle Heats Up, copyrightlately (April 20, 2025), https://copyrightlately.com/to-kill-a-termination-right-mockingbird-battle-heats-up/; see also Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[6] See Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[7] See Moss, supra note 5; see also Jahner, Harper Lee Estate Drops ‘Mockingbird’ Stage-Play Appeal (Correct), supra note 4.

[8] See Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[9] See Alexandra Alter, Harper Lee Estate Told to Pay $2.5 Million in Dispute Over ‘Mockingbird’ Plays, N.Y. Times (February 10, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/theater/harper-lee-to-kill-a-mockingbird.html?searchResultPosition=4; see also Moss, supra note 5.

[10] See Alter, supra note 9.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] See id; see also Moss, supra note 5.

[14] See Moss, supra note 5.

[15] See Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[16] See 17 U.S.C. § 203(b)(1).

[17] See Moss, supra note 5.

[18] See id; see also Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[19] See id.

[20] See Jahner, Harper Lee Estate Drops ‘Mockingbird’ Stage-Play Appeal (Correct), supra note 4.

[21] See id; see also Alter, supra note 9.

[22] See Jahner, Harper Lee Estate Drops ‘Mockingbird’ Stage-Play Appeal (Correct), supra note 4.

[23] See id.

[24] See Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[25] See id; see also Moss, supra note 5.

[26] See Jahner, ‘Mockingbird’ Copyright Appeal Seeks Rare Arbitration Reversal, supra note 2.

[27] See Jahner, Harper Lee Estate Drops ‘Mockingbird’ Stage-Play Appeal (Correct), supra note 4.

[28] See generally U.S. Amicus Br., Dramatic Publ’g Co., No. 23-1309.

[29] See U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 8.