In consideration of the sum of Fifty Thousand dollars ($50,000.), I grant LIFE Magazine exclusive world wide print media rights to my original 8 mm color film which shows the shooting of President Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. I retain all motion picture rights, but agreed not to release the film for motion picture, television, newsreel, etc., use until Friday, Nov. 29, 1963. You agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.

Abraham Zapruder

Agreed to:

Richard B. Stolley
LIFE Magazine

Witness: ___________

View Original

View Other Zapruder Materials

After losing the 1968 case, Time and its successors never brought another copyright suit. Despite this, the copyright continued to be asserted, and possession of the physical film was used thereafter to restrict access and collect licensing fees. The result is that a copyright over the single most important piece of visual evidence of a President’s assassination — a copyright used to charge licensing fees and to refuse requests to copy the frames — has gone essentially untested for two generations. A federal case now pending in Dallas brings it back before a court.

The mirror image of 1968

The new case is not a repeat of Geis. It is close to its opposite.

In 1968, the owner of the copyright went to court to enforce it: reproducing frames in a single book was enough to draw a federal infringement suit. In the case now pending, the roles are reversed. The plaintiff is not the owner but a user — the Forum on Open Access to Government Records, a nonprofit that publishes primary records of the assassination from the National Archives here on ZapruderFilm.com and reproduced frames of the film in a book of its own. It is asking a court to declare that the copyright, claimed today by the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, cannot be enforced against it at all.

Where Geis was an owner suing a user to stop copying, this is a user suing the owner to establish the copyright’s limits. The thing Geis assumed — that the copyright was valid — is among the things this case puts in question.

There is a reason the case had to take that inverted form. The Museum charges for licenses, declines to grant them, and — the court observed — will neither withdraw the copyright objection that leads the National Archives to refuse copies of the film nor say it intends to sue anyone. The court described this as a “closed loop.” When a copyright is used to keep the public from a historical record but never tested in a suit, the only way the question reaches a court is for the person kept out to bring it.

What the court decided

On August 5, 2026, the court ruled on the defendants’ motions to dismiss and allowed the heart of the case to go forward.

Among the questions the case will now reach:

Abandonment. The Forum argues that the copyright was abandoned — that its owners gave it up, and that the record shows it. The argument rests on a contrast between how the film’s first owner treated the copyright when it was worth money and what happened to it afterward.

When the film was valuable, the owner guarded it closely. In the days after the assassination, Time sold world rights to four foreign magazines within a week, naming a separate price to each; refused the frames to The New York Times; and, when it released six photographs to the wire services, dictated the territory, the embargo hour, the permitted media, and the exact wording of the copyright notice, down to the instruction that the pictures not be “retouched or altered in any way.” In 1968 it sued a book publisher for reproducing frames. This was a copyright its owner policed to the letter.

Then the owner walked away from it. Time lost the 1968 case and did not appeal. In 1974 it tried to give the film to the National Archives — while its own lawyers, according to a National Archives memorandum, were “questioning whether the film has any monetary value.” When that transfer stalled, Time disposed of the film and every claim to it, in 1975, for one dollar. In the fifty years since, through the ownership of the Zapruder family’s company and then the Sixth Floor Museum, the record reflects no copyright suit brought to stop anyone — even as the film was shown on campuses, sold to the public, broadcast on television, and, in time, posted freely online, all without permission from the purported copyright owner.

After that, the family made money from the Zapruder Film, but not through its copyright. What the owners did instead, the Forum contends, was control the film through possession. The highest quality copies came from the owner: the original sat in the National Archives under a private arrangement that let no one copy it without the family’s written permission, so a researcher who wanted the film had to go to the family (and now the Museum), pay a fee, and accept its conditions. Money changed hands — but, the Forum argues, those were the receipts of exclusive possession of an artifact, not the enforcement of a copyright against infringement. When the United States took the physical film in 1998, the family sought a single price for the film and the copyright together and was paid for the film alone. The copyright, the Forum contends, had by then been treated as valueless apart from possession of the object by everyone who had ever held it.

Fair use, and more. The court also allowed the Forum to argue that reproducing the frames is fair use — the same ground that decided Geis — and that the copyright was waived as to certain frames.

The court also denied a motion by the second defendant, the National Archives, which holds early copies of the film as federal records and had declined to provide requested frames because of the Museum’s claimed copyright. On that claim, too, the case proceeds.

Why it matters

For fifty-eight years, a private copyright over the frames that recorded a President’s assassination has functioned as a settled fact — unexamined because it was never seriously contested in court. A federal court has now held that it can be contested: that whether the copyright is valid, whether it was abandoned, whether it expired, and whether reproducing the frames is fair use are all proper questions for a court to decide. If Geis showed the copyright at the height of its power, this case asks what is left of it.

One of several questions

Abandonment is only one of the grounds this case raises, and each has a history worth telling on its own — the renewal that may have come too late, the gap between a registration describing a work of a few seconds and a film that runs far longer, the frames registered as published in 1963 and the film registered as unpublished in 1967, and the reach of fair use since Geis. Future articles will take them up one at a time.

This article describes a pending case and is not a prediction of its outcome. The pleadings and a large collection of primary documents concerning the Zapruder film are available to the public.

February 10, 1965 – CIA Possession of the Zapruder Film
A letter dated February 10, 1965 states that the CIA had a copy of the Zapruder film. The copy was marked “Confidential / CIA Internal Use Only.”
View February 10, 1965 letter

April 24, 1975 – Use in VIP Protective Security Training
A memorandum from the Special Operations Group dated April 24, 1975 states that the Zapruder film had “proved to be a tragically graphic visual aid” and “has become a vital part of the SOG VIP protective security training program.”
View April 24, 1975 memorandum

May 20, 1976 – Additional Copies for VIPs
A letter dated May 20, 1976 states that the CIA had made “three additional copies” of the Zapruder film. The letter specifies that these copies were “not for training of CIA employees — but for VIP’s.”
View May 20, 1976 letter

These documents, along with other historical records, are available in the ZapruderFilm.com Documents Archive.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
National Archives and Records Service
Washington, DC 20408

October 15, 1974

Subject: Kennedy Film

Lawrence Laybourne, Vice President of Time, phoned to let me know that he is still proposing transfer of the Zaprudo [sic] film of the assassination to us. (He phoned last June to ask about our interest. It is the copy sold to Life.). Lawyers are questioning whether the film has any monetary value for the media. He will continue to propose an offer to us.

[signature]

Meyer H. Fishbein

Dallas, Texas
November 25, 1963

Mr. C. D. Jackson, Publisher
Life Magazine
c/o Time, Inc.
Rockefeller Center
New York, New York

Dear Sir:

This will confirm the agreement reached with your authorized representative, Richard B. Stolley, during the past few days, wherein I have agreed to sell, transfer, and assign to Time, Inc. all my right, title, and interest (whether domestic, foreign, newsreel, television, motion picture, or otherwise) in and to my original and all three (3) copies of 8mm color films which show the shooting of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

You acknowledge receipt, through your agent, of the original and one (1) copy thereof, and it is understood that there are two (2) other copies—one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Dallas, Texas, and one (1) of which is with the Secret Service in Washington, D.C. I have the assurance and agreement of the Secret Service that the copies in their possession are to be released only to me, and I agree that I shall, immediately upon receipt of same, deliver same to your office or to such of your authorized representatives as you designate, or I will agree to sign any authorization allowing same to be delivered directly to you.

It is understood and agreed that you have all rights attached to said film of any kind and character whatsoever and may use them as you see fit, upon the terms and conditions set forth hereinafter:

1. You agree to pay me the sum of $150,000.00, payable $25,000.00 cash immediately, and the balance of $125,000.00 to be paid in installments as follows:

   • $25,000.00 on January 3, 1964

   • $25,000.00 on January 3, 1965

   • $25,000.00 on January 3, 1966

   • $25,000.00 on January 3, 1967

   • $25,000.00 on January 3, 1968

   In addition to the above consideration, it is agreed that you will pay to me a sum equal to one-half (1/2) of all gross receipts derived by Time, Inc., its organized divisions, and its wholly owned subsidiaries from any source out of the use, sale, showing, rental, leasing, licensing, or other publication of any kind or character whatsoever, after you have received $150,000.00 in cash from gross receipts derived from the same sources. Gross receipts received from foreign publication or sale will mean the gross receipts less agent’s commissions customarily paid by Time, Inc. under the same or similar circumstances.

   The proceeds of this one-half (1/2) of gross proceeds over $150,000.00 shall be paid to me as follows:

   • $25,000.00, or such lesser amount as may then be due, shall be paid on January 3, 1969, and a similar payment of $25,000.00, or such lesser amount as may then be due, annually thereafter on the 3rd day of January of each calendar year, until this agreement shall cease and terminate by its terms.

   It is, however, understood that Time, Inc. and its presently constituted divisions, as well as its wholly owned subsidiary, Time-Life Broadcast, Inc., shall have unlimited free use on its own behalf of the subject matter.

2. This contract and agreement shall last for the life of any copyrights taken out by you and/or the undersigned in connection with said film, plus any time allowed for renewals. You agree to indemnify and hold me harmless from any claims and expenses in connection with claims arising out of your use, dissemination, and distribution of the film, and further agree not to use my name in connection with any such issue or publication without my prior written consent.

   You further agree that you shall furnish me with a certified audited report of the auditing firm of your company showing the total gross receipts derived from said film each calendar year or at such other times as may be agreed upon hereafter.

3. It is further understood and agreed that in the event you shall sell or transfer all rights to this film, such sale shall be subject to the terms of this agreement and shall be binding upon the purchaser thereof.

   Furthermore, should Time, Inc. transfer or assign either the print media rights in their entirety, or the film for motion picture, television, newsreel, etc. dissemination, publication or viewing, in their entirety, any such sale shall likewise bind the purchaser thereof to the aforementioned provisions concerning payment of one-half (1/2) of the gross receipts from exhibition, publication, licensing, renting, or other publication of said film.

4. Time, Inc. further agrees that it will present said film to the public in a manner consonant with good taste and dignity and agrees to exercise its best business judgment in the presentation, sale, leasing, licensing, and rental of said film, consonant with your business custom and practice for the production of gross receipts therefrom.

5. I warrant that I am the sole owner of this film and that I have not and will not grant any rights to any other person, corporation, or entity, and will agree to accord to you all rights in connection with same and cooperate with you to the fullest extent to secure same.

6. Time, Inc. agrees to obtain, at its expense, such copyright protection, domestic and foreign, as it may deem necessary or proper for its own safety and to prevent any infringement thereof, should the same be necessary.

7. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, neither I nor my heirs shall have any right to sell, transfer, assign, pledge, hypothecate, mortgage, encumber, or in any way dispose of this contract or any of the payments specified herein or the proceeds hereof, nor to receive payment at any time other than as specified herein. Nor shall you have any right to make any payments in advance.

Very truly yours,

[Signed]
Abraham Zapruder

ACCEPTED AND AGREED
this 25th day of November, A.D. 1963:

TIME, INC.

By: [Signed]
Richard B. Stolley

11-22-63 Eastman Kodak Company Dallas affidavits of making copies 0185, 0186, and 0187.

11-23-63 Initial Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Richard B. Stolley on behalf of Life Magazine (eventually replaced by 11-25-63 Contract) (best copy available) View Plain Text.

11-25-63 Contract between Time, Inc. and Abraham Zapruder in the form of a letter to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, and signed by Abraham Zapruder and Richard Stolley on behalf of Time, Inc. View Plain Text.

11-25-63 Letter from Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson regarding his authorship of the film and the Kodak and Jamieson affidavits.

11-27-63 Pollard (LIFE) to AP and UPI, releasing six prints from the Nov. 29, 1963 issue on stated conditions, including the required copyright credit and a bar on alteration or television release.

11-25-63 Copyright registration: Class B, Reg. No. B 77445; claimant Time Inc. LIFE Vol. 55, No. 22 published (cover date 11-29-63); JFK assassination issue containing the first published Zapruder frames.

12-7-63 Book copyright registration, Time Inc., John F. Kennedy Memorial Edition (Reg. No. A 673423).

1-7-64 Letter from Life Bureau Chief to Secret Service Chief James Rowley Regarding Secret Service copies (Secret Service’s Copy) (View Life’s Copy)

1-14-64 Letter Dallas Special Agent In Charge Forrest Sorrels Regarding Secret Service copies

1-22-64 Letter from Forrest Sorrels to James Rowley Regarding Secret Service copies

1-27-64 Letter from James Rowley Responding to Life Bureau Chief Regarding Secret Service copies

7-9-64 Letter from Harold R. Medina, Jr. (Cravath, Swaine & Moore) for Time Inc. to J. Lee Rankin, regarding use of the copyrighted photographs in the Warren Commission Report and the required copyright notice.

7-22-64 Abraham Zapruder Deposition Transcript before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy

7-22-64 Abraham Zapruder Deposition Testimony as it appears in the Warren Commission Report

9-28-64 Copyright registration: Class B, Reg. No. B 1388324; claimant Time Inc. LIFE published (cover date 10-2-64); Warren Report issue.

10-64 (Estimate) Undated — National Archives and Records Service, Appendix A: Administrative Files Relating to Warren Commission Records and Kennedy Autopsy Materials. NARA's folder-by- folder index of its custody files. Names "P&C 065-103 Accessioning of Zapruder Camera

12-4-64 Letter from Hoover to Rankin regarding loaning film to CIA

12-15-64 FBI is not Authorized to Loan film to CIA

2-4-65 Letter from Richard Stolley (LIFE) to Paul Chretien (CIA), transmitting a film print for internal training only and asserting Time Inc.’s copyright and reservation of all rights.

2-10-65 CIA Copy of Zapruder Film Designated Confidential/CIA Internal Use Only.

10-7-66 LIFE publishes The Warren Report is not Enough by Loudon Wainright.

11-21-66 LIFE press release (dated Nov. 20, 1966) announcing the “reasonable doubt” editorial position based on re-examination of the Zapruder film.

11-23-66 LIFE – Josiah Thompson consulting agreement, providing that materials Thompson supplied would become LIFE’s property.

11-21-66 LIFE Vol. 61, No. 22); “reasonable doubt” (cover date 11-25-66) / Issue re-examining the Zapruder film. Copyright registration: Class B, Reg. No. B 303025; claimant Time Inc.

1-19-67 to 6-19-67 LIFE–Josiah Thompson correspondence and memoranda

1-30-67 LIFE press release, statement of managing editor George Hunt addressing the accidental damage to frames 207–212 and releasing those frames for publication.

3-8-67 Letter from Pollard (LIFE) to Marion Johnson (National Archives), urging that the film be shown to qualified researchers but that no prints be made, citing the threat to LIFE's control.

3-24-67 Letter from Robert H. Bahmer, Archivist of the United States (National Archives), Responding to the 3-8-67 Richard O. Pollard (LIFE) letter and confirming that the Archives would advise requesters the film could be shown to qualified researchers but that LIFE would not permit its reproduction.

5-15-67 Mu 7813 — Copyright registration, Class L, unpublished motion picture: The Assassination of President Kennedy, author Abraham Zapruder, claimant Time Inc. (undated on the face). This is the registration of the film itself — arguably the most important of the three registrations, and it’s the one not on the list.

12-1-67 Time files Complaint against Bernard Geis Associates, Bernard Geis, Josiah Thompson, and Random House, Inc. Time is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

1-5-68 Defendants’ Answer in Time v. Geis.

5-1-68 Stipulation of Facts in Time, Inc. v. Geis

9-24-68 Order Granting Summary Judgment for Defendants View Published Order: Time v. Geis, 293 F. Supp. 130 (1968)

10-15-74 Letter from GSA about communications with Vice President of Time, Inc. View Plain Text.

3-24-75 Paul Hoch Memorandum Re Need to Investigate CIA and FBI

4-4-75 Draft Agreement between Time, Inc., and Zapruder’s heirs, Lillian Zapruder, Henry Zapruder, and Myrna Faith Hauser. Unsigned by Time.

4-8-75 Press Release

4-8-75 Storage

4-8-75 Memorandum from Audiovisual Archives Division Director James W. Moore to the Archivist of the United States Regarding the Time, Inc. Offer and Courtesy Storage of the Original

4-9-75 Life Deed of Gift

4-9-75 Life Assignment of Copyright

4-11-75 Assignment of Copyright from Lillian Zapruder, Henry G. Zapruder, and Myrna Faith Hauser to LMH Company

4-16-75 Intraservice Memorandum Requesting Assignment of an Accession Number to the Time, Inc. Gift

4-23-75 Letter re CIA Training

4-24-75 Letter Thanking Time for Gift

4-24-75 Film is Part of Special Operations Training Program

5-7-75 Letter from CIA Responding to Paul Hoch Memorandum

5-12-75 Change of Holdings Report, Accession NN-375-222 — 323 Color Transparencies, Frames 164–486

5-13-75 Letter from Robert M. Trien to Acting Archivist James O'Neill Enclosing the Copyright Assignments and Specifying the LMH Copyright Notice [0043]

5-14-75 CIA Letter to Rockefeller Commission’s Robert Olsen Disclosing All Zapruder Textual Material

5-15-75 Cover Sheet, Transaction Dossier NN-375-222

6-3-75 Letter from James W. Moore to Robert M. Trien Agreeing to Comply with the Copyright Notice Request

9-8-75 Researcher Letter Requesting Whether FBI Loaned Copy to CIA

10-28-75 CIA Letter re CIA possession of Zapruder copy designated Confidential

5-20-76 CIA Made Three Additional Copies

5-20-76 CIA Releasing Copy to FBI and Redacting CIA Liaison Officer Mrs. Jane Roman

6-29-78 Inventory

6-29-78 National Archives Receipt

6-29-78 Memorandum to File from Clarence F. Lyons, Jr. Regarding Delivery of the Original Film

7-10-78 Letter from Henry to National Archives re: Storage

9-28-82 CIA Review of Zapruder files

10-15-88 - Declaration of Gerard A. Selby, Jr. re Selby v. Henry Zapruder

10-20-88 - Complaint Filed by Gerard Selby and Harold Weisburg against Henry Zapruder and LHM, Civil Action No. 88-3043 (D.D.C.)

10-29-88 Letter from Henry G. Zapruder to Mark N. Goodman — Filed by the National Archives as “Typical Agreement for Use”

10-27-88 Notice of Dismissal, Selby v. Zapruder, Civil Action No. 88-3043 (D.D.C.)

4-25-89 Selby Weisberg v Zapruder Memorandum from R. Brad Powers, NARA Legal Services Staff, Regarding Selby and Weisberg v. Zapruder [0067, 0069]

5-1-89 Letter regarding Selby v Zapruder Lawsuit

11-16-90 Memorandum from William Cunliffe, Director, Special Archives Division

3-6-91 Letter from Anita L. Dove to Donald Roe Designating James Lorin Silverberg to Issue Permissions

6-6-91 Silverberg Appearance

7-16-91 Letter from Leslie C. Waffen to Thomas Wilson — "None of the originals are available for viewing"

5-15-92 Statement of Dr. Don W. Wilson, Archivist of the United States, on H.J. Res. 454, Assassination Materials Disclosure Act of 1992

10-15-92 Authorization

11-6-92 Memorandum from William T. Murphy Regarding Preservation Copying and the Omitted Intersprocket Imagery

4-5-93 to Silverberg Referring

9-1-93 Memo to NARA GC Re Fair Use

6-9-94 Notes re Zapruder Meeting

7-12-94 Notes Zapruder Silverberg

7-20-94 Letter re OLC Copyright

7-29-94 Memo Copyright

7-29-94 Memo re Status Record

7-31-94 Ohio St Professor to Tunheim

8-26-94 Request to Determine Copyright Act

9-19-94 - Letters to Determine What Constitutes a Record

9-19-94 to Silverberg

10-18-94 Demand from Silverberg to NARA

10-18-94 Demand from Silverberg to Marwell

10-18-94 Demand from Silverberg to Tunheim

10-18-94 Demands from Silverberg to Others

10-94 Draft Response to Silverberg

10-18-94 Demand from Silverberg to NARA

10-24-94 Tunheim re Copyright

10-26-94 Letter to Manhart

10-26-94 Memo from Marwell

11-22-94 Walter Dellinger to Tunheim Regarding Lead Agency

12-16-94 NARA Letter from Runkel to Silverberg

12-22-94 Letter from Henry Authorizing Silverberg

12-27-94 Letter from Silverberg Demanding $15,000,000

1-10-95 Letter re: ADR from Silverberg

1-10-95 from Silverberg about 3 unreturned phone calls

1-13-95 Memo on Returning Silverberg’s Calls

1-17-95 NARA to Silverberg

2-3-95 Draft Possible Settlement to John Tunheim

2-3-95 Draft Possible Settlement with Edits

2-3-95 Fax Possible Settlement

2-6-95 Memo re: Questions for Meeting

2-14-95 Response from John Tunheim

3-13-95 NARA to Silverberg

3-28-95 NARA to Silverberg

4-3-95 Zapruder Notes

4-6-95 - Memo to ask Life about Assignment

4-21-95 Letter to Life

4-25-95 Harry Johnston

4-27-95 Harry Johnston

5-1-95 Letter to Harry Johnston

5-3-95 Memo on Takings, Copyright, and Payment

5-9-95 - Memo on Takings Rather than Tort

5-19-95 Letter to Tunheim

5-24-95 Letter to Tunheim with Draft

7-20-95 Letter to Silverberg

8-2-95 Letter from Silverberg

8-13-95 Letter to Silverberg

8-16-95 Memo Current Status

9-7-95 Letter Re Fair Use

9-13-95 Call about Zapruder Taking

10-13-95 Copyright 15m Demand - Silverberg

10-17-95 Memorandum for Elizabeth A. Pugh, General Counsel, NARA, from Walter Dellinger, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Section 11(a) of the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992

10-17-95 Memorandum from Kirk Manhardt, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, to Jeremy Gunn, ARRB, Disagreeing in Part with the OLC Opinion

12-5-95 Loaning Camera to 6FM

12-21-95 Charles W. Mayn Technical Review

5-29-96 Letter to Time

6-6-96 Handwritten Meeting Notes

6-6-96 Gunn Maxwell Call

6-10-96 Washington Post Article on James Files

6-11-96 Memo on Authenticity

7-16-96 Memo on Possession Custody and Control

7-24-96 Draft Settlement Zapruder

7-24-96 Memo on Legal Status

7-24-96 Draft Settlement with Notes

7-25-96 Memo on Taking

7-29-96 Request to Inspect

7-30-96 Background Memo

8-2-96 Proposed Settlement Agreement

8-23-96 Memo to Elizabeth Pugh

9-10-96 Settlement Contract Negotiations

9-26-96 Further Draft Settlement Agreement

9-30-96 Letter Re Zapruder Litigation

10-22-96 NARA to Silverberg

2-6-97 Letter Re Appraisal

3-19-97 Silverberg to Gunn

3-31-97 Inventory of Zapruder Film Copies

4-2-97 Complete Transcript of Assassination Records Review Board Hearing on the Taking of the Zapruder Film; List of Witnesses; Schedule; Detailed Agenda; Meeting Minutes; Statement of Robert Brauneis; Statement of Art Simon; Statement of David Lifton; Statement of Jim Lesar; Statement of Charles J. Sanders.

4-4-97 Kodachrome

4-14-97 Kodak Digitization Quote

4-24-97 Policy on Zapruder Film

1-7-97 Letter from Kodak re: Zavada Report and $20,000 Contribution

10-30-97 Response to Silverberg

5-15-98 Letter to Silverberg

5-29-98 Letter to Time

6-5-98 Letter Securing Film

10-15-98 Arbitration Agreement - the Justice Department and the Zapruders agree to arbitrate for the value of the film

8-3-99 DOJ Press Release

11-6-02 Preservation Suggestions

2017 - National Archives Guidance on Requesting Copies of the Zapruder Film

Undated-Article and Patent - Trustworthy Digital Camera