You could read the 32 page opinion here. Or you could read my shorter, breezier and wittier analysis here. As I said over a year ago:
I am, admittedly, a stupid guy, but the asserted facts in this case are too unclear for me to figure out exactly what happened. The preemption argument is stronger than the work for hire argument but even there, is it really clear what RZA copied from? So I don't think either side will win a motion for summary judgment--there's a genuine dispute.
The Court of Appeals also took the District Court judge to task on procedural issues (required joinder y'all!) and her substantive analysis of the case. They also threw shade at the District Court's legal research skills:
The district court characterized the presumption that the work was made for hire as “almost irrebutable” and held Urbont’s claims to a “clear and convincing” burden of proof. Urbont, 100 F. Supp. 3d at 353. It is the law of this Circuit, however, that the plaintiff need only establish the existence of a contrary agreement by a preponderance of the evidence. Playboy Enters., Inc., 53 F.3d at 554–55.
That might sound dry to laypeople's ears but it's a legitimate benchslap. And it completely upends my understanding of the little guy and his relationship to the big guy. Of course, Mr. Urbont could still lose after further discovery and trial. Bur for now he's going to bibbily bop some more. Because if your heart is in it right you'll bibbily bop all night.