Sample Case Against Jay-Z and Timbaland Dismissed For Lack of Specificty

HINES V. ROC-A-FELLA RECORDS, LLC No. 19-CV-4587 (JPO), 2020 WL 1888832 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2020)

Plaintiff Ernie Hines coauthored the soul single “Help Me Put Out The Flame” in the 1960s. Hines alleged that the sample from that song was used in two hip-hop songs without permission. Hines brought suit against four major record labels, as well as prominent artists Jay- Z and Timbaland. The court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Defendants argued that Hines’s complaint did not specify the material from his song was copied in “Paper Chase”, co- authored by Jay-Z and Timbaland, or “Toe 2 Toe” which was authored by Timbaland. The Court agreed with Defendants that the complaint only contained broad allegations of similarity. Defendants also sought dismissal on grounds that the complaint failed to allege “whether and when the copyright ... was registered pursuant to statutory requirements.” The Court rejected the Defendants motion to dismiss on these grounds. However, the Court ruled in favor of Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on lack of specificity. The court also found that service of process had not been properly completed. Leave to amend was conditioned on Hines’s payment of the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the Record Label Defendants in filing and defending their motions to dismiss.

Absence of Registration Dooms Copyright Case Against Ricky Martin; 1st Cir.

CORTÉS-RAMOS V. MARTIN-MORALES No. 19-1358, 2020 WL 1847072 (1st Cir. Apr. 13, 2020)

Luis Adrian Cortes-Ramos sued Rickey Martin, alleging violations of federal copyright law and Puerto Rico laws. Plaintiff alleged that Ricky Martin’s music video was similar to Plaintiff’s. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The First Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the district court. The Court held that the district court was correct in holding that the complaint did not state a proper copyright claim by not alleging registration. However, the district court erred by dismissing the complaint with prejudice because plaintiff had otherwise alleged a copyright claim and on remand the court should consider whether plaintiff could supplement his allegations concerning registration.

Plaintiff in Roc Logo Case Granted Leave To Amend

Walker v. Carter et al., No. 1:12-cv-05384-ALC-RLE (S.D.N.Y. filed 08/14/13) (Doc. 58).

Plaintiff alleged that defendants (Jay-Z, his record label(s) and business partners) entered into an oral contract with Plaintiff in 1995 under which Plaintiff was to re-design the logo for the Roc-A-Fella record label in exchange for: (i) $3,500 up-front, and (ii) 2% of all revenues from products bearing the logo for the next ten years.  The moving defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because none of them had any dealings with plaintiff.  In opposition, Plaintiff requested leave to amend the complaint.  The Court denied the motions without prejudice and granted Plaintiff leave to amend (but was cautioned about requesting leave to amend again).

EMI Sues Video Sharing Website

EMI has filed two related complaints, one by its labels and the other by its publishing units, against the video-sharing website Vimeo .

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 09 CV 10101-DAB (S.D.N.Y. complaint filed Dec. 10, 2009); and, EMI Blackwood Music, Inc. v. Vimeo, LLC, No. 09 CV 10105 (S.D.N.Y. complaint filed December 10, 2009).

Both complaints claim direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and inducement to infringe. The Capitol complaint includes misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims.

Copyright Claim Stated Despite Oral License Defense

Ortiz v. Guitian Music Brothers Inc., No. 07 Civ. 3897, 8/12/09 NYLJ "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009) (Sweet, J.).

Defendants' FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss copyright amended complaint denied. According to the amended complaint, plaintiff was solicited to create a series of musical works to be used as the instrumental score for a movie, and plaintiff was to receive certain payments. Plaintiff composed the works for the movie, and 13 works were used as the background instrumental score. The movie was ultimately released, distributed, and sold featuring the works as the background instrumental score. Plaintiff alleges non-payment.

After discussing the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the Court found that plaintiff had sufficiently plead his claim for copyright infringement under the Rule 8 pleading standards, which require a copyright complaint state: (1) which specific original works are the subject of the claim; (2) that plaintiff owns the copyright; (3) that the works have been registered in accordance with the copyright statute; and (4) by what acts and during what time defendant has infringed the copyright.

Defendants argued that their affirmative defense precluded the action - namely, that plaintiff granted defendants an oral nonexclusive license to use the works in connection with the creation and distribution of the movie. The Court rejected this argument; it was not persuaded that he limited facts alleged in the amended complaint conclusively established such an oral nonexclusive license.

The Court observed that even if it had found such an oral nonexclusive license was apparent on the face of the amended complaint, plaintiff would not be precluded from bringing his copyright claim "because it is further alleged that Defendants did not perform their part of the understanding between the parties." In other words, a licensor can bring an action against a licensee who exceeds or breaches the license agreement. "Indeed, absent consideration, nonexclusive licenses are revocable." Assuming an oral license did exist and plaintiff's allegations of non-payment were true, such license was revocable, and by instituting the action, plaintiff revoked any license that may have existed.

Therefore, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.