Ricky Martin Music Video Case Must Be Arbitrated; 1st Cir.

Cortes-Ramon v. Sony Corp., No. 15-1786 (1st Cir. Sep. 9, 2016).

Claims against Ricky Martin and his record label were properly dismissed in favor of mandatory arbitration, holds the 1st Circuit affirming the lower court.  The dispute concerned an original song and music video that the plaintiff submitted to Sony as part of a songwriting contest sponsored by Sony.  Plaintiff did not win the contest.  Nonetheless, shortly thereafter Martin released a song and music video -- "Vida" –- that, according to the plaintiff, closely resembled his own contest submission.  

Sony filed a motion seeking, among other things, dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and, in the alternative, a stay pending arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 3.  Sony appended the "Contest Official Rules" to its motion to dismiss.  Those rules contained a mandatory arbitration clause, requiring that disputes "arising under, in connection with, touching upon or relating to" the rules be submitted to an arbitrator.  The District Court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice.  The District Court found that the plaintiff "received, signed, notarized, and returned" an affidavit stating he had complied with the Contest Rules, and noted that "a valid agreement to arbitrate is presumed even when the signed document incorporates by reference an arbitration provision that may be found in another document, irrespective of whether the party received a copy of the document containing the clause." 

On appeal, the plaintiff appealed only the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim -- not the dismissal on the grounds of the arbitration clause.  Accordingly, the First Circuit affirmed.  "Because those rulings provide an independent basis for dismissing his claims, we need not address Cortés's challenge to the District Court's decision to dismiss his complaint on 12(b)(6) factual sufficiency grounds."

Former Commodores Band-Member Properly Enjoined From Using "Commodores" Or Performing Under "Commodores" Name

Commodores Entertainment Corp. v. McClary, No. 14-14883 (11th Cir. Apr. 15, 2016).

The 11th Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from using the "The Commodores" mark and from performing under the name "The Commodores featuring Thomas McClary" or "The 2014 Commodores."  The Commodores were a popular funk/soul group on the Motown label in the 1970s (hits included Brick House and Three Times a Lady).  In the early 1980s, two fo the original members of hte group left to embark on solo careers, including defendant McClary.  The remaining members, as the plaintiff corporation, continued to perform and registered four trademarks.  In 2014, defendant McClaray began performing songs made famous by the band in the 1970s with his own band called "The Commodores featuring Thomas McClary" or "The 2014 Commodores."  This use gave rise to litigation, and the lower court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction.  The 11th Circuit affirmed, finding that defendant's use was likely to confuse and therefore plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, and further that the plaintiff had standing and had made a showing of irreparable harm.  Lastly, the Court found that there was no error with the distric court's conclusion that the defendants may be enjoined extraterritorially (i.e., outside of the United States).

Federal 2nd Circuit Certifies Pre-72 Question To New York's Highest Court in Flo & Eddie Case

Flo & Eddie v. SiriusXM Radio, 15-1164cv (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2016).

In the "Turtles" case against Sirius for common law copyright infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings under New York common-law, the Second Circuit certified the question to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals: "This case presents a significant and unresolved issue of New York copyright law: Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? Because this question is important, its answer is unclear, and its resolution controls the present appeal, we reserve decision and certify this question to the New York Court of Appeals."

The lower court had denied Sirius' motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit reviewed the matter de novo.  The Circuit stated "the issue before us is whether New York common law affords copyright holders the right to control the performance of sound recordings as part of their copyright ownership."  However, New York's highest court has not ruled on the issue in any prior case, and without such guidance, the Circuit was "in doubt" whether New York provides such rights under common law.  Thus, the Court found that certification to the New York Court of Appeals was appropriate.  Accordingly, the Court reserved decision and certified the following question for decision by the New York Court of Appeals:

"Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right?"

Pre-72 Class Actions Stayed In Light Of Turtles' Appeals

Sheridan v. iHeartMedia, 15-cv-7574; Sheridan v. Sirius XM, 15-cv-7576 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2016).

In a putative class action, the owners of sound recordings made before 1972 brought copyright infringement and unjust enrichment claims under New Jersey law against defendants for broadcasting their recordings without receiving authorization or compensation.  Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of three similar actions currently before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 9th and 11th Circuits.  The court granted the stay.  "Most importantly, the Court finds that staying this case until the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled on related cases will more likely than not simplify the issues presented here and promote judicial economy."

In Tejano Case, Virtually Identical Opening Lines Of Song Does Not Mean Per Se Striking Similarity; 5th Cir.

Guzman v. Hacienda Records, No. 15-40927 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2015).

Affirming judgment after a bench trial, the Fifth Circuit held that the District Court did not err in finding lack of access to the song (despite radio play and live performances) and that the songs were not strikingly similar even though the first lines were virtually identical (because there was no evidence of uniqueness or complexity).  Applying the "clearly erroneous standard," the 5th Circuit declined to second guess the District Court's findings.

Appeals Court To Hear Sirius's Pre-72 Case

Sirius XM Radio, Inc. v. Flo & Eddie, Inc.; No. 15-497, (2d Cir. 04/15/2015) (Doc. 30).

In the pre-1972 sound recording case between Sirius XM and the Turtles, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted Sirius XM's petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), for leave to appeal the district court’s orders denying summary judgment and reconsideration.  Generally, federal appellate courts have limited jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions (e.g., injunctions).  However, the appellate court has discretion to permit an appeal from an interlocutory appeal when the district judge is explicitly of the opinion that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.  28 U.S.C. 1292(b).

Attorney's Fees Awarded To Defendants In Black Eyed Peas Alleged Infringement Case

Pringle v. Adams, No. 8:10-cv-01656 (C.D. Cal. filed 07/23/14) (Doc. 326).

The Court awarded over $1 million in attorney's fees and costs to multiple defendants who successfully defeated, both at the trial level and on appeal, a copyright infringement claim concerning the Black Eyed Peas song "I've Gotta Feeling."  The Court did not grant all the fees requested, however.

Pre-1972 Safe Harbor Issue Will Not Be Heard By NY's Highest Court

UMG Recordings v. Escape Media Group, 2013 NY Slip Op 87510(U) (1st Dep't Oct. 8, 2013).

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, denied defendants' motion for leave to appeal the Court's decision concerning pre-1972 sound recordings to the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.

Copyright Case Properly Reinstated Against Church

Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church et al., No. 12-20520 [Doc. 00512341666] (5th Cir. filed 08/14/2013).

Plaintiff filed a copyright infringement complaint against Defendants in Texas.  Defendants are a large church and its pastors, Joel and Victoria Osteen.  Plaintiff had granted the church a limited license to use a song
in connection with various  marketing media.  When the church used the song in a televised promotional broadcast, Plaintiff asserted that the limited license did not permit use of the song on television and that in any case, the term of the license had expired. Unable to resolve their dispute, Plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit against Defendants.

Plaintiffs it later voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice.  Plaintiff then filed an identical case in federal court in New York.  Back in Texas, the church has filed a motion for its costs and when the parties were before the Court on that matter, the parties agreed on the record to dismiss the New York action and re-instate the Texas action. Because under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the two successive voluntary dismissals of the lawsuit had the effect of rendering the second dismissal as one with prejudice, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate its voluntary dismissal under Rule 60(b), which the district court granted.  Defendant opposed, arguing that Rule 60(b) only applies to a "final" order or judgment, and the first voluntary dismissal was not "final."  The Fifth Circuit found that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a “final proceeding” under Rule 60(b) and the district court did not abuse its discretion in reinstating the case.

6th Circuit Rules On Copyright Issue

Severe Records, LLC v. Rich et al., No. 09-6175 (6th Cir. Sep. 23, 2011).

Plaintiff Mark Christopher “Chris” Sevier authored a song entitled “Better.” Defendant Shanna Crooks recorded the song and, because they were pleased with the results, they co-authored and recorded a second song, “Watching Me Leave.” Their relationship then collapsed, Crooks signed as a recording artist with unrelated recording and management companies, and various

accusations and altercations followed, precipitating this action. Sevier and his recording company, Severe Records, LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed suit, alleging what Sevier characterized as a “novel” claim of copyright infringement against Crooks and

others for preventing Plaintiffs from commercially exploiting the two songs through threats contained in cease-and-desist letters and requests to music retailers that the songs not be offered for sale. Plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment regarding the authorship of the songs and ownership of the copyrights to the two songs. The district court dismissed the amended complaint for failing to state a claim of copyright infringement and declined to consider Plaintiffs’ pendent state law claims or issue a declaratory judgment. The 6th Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the copyright infringement claim and reversed its dismissal of the

declaratory judgment claim.

There is no allegation anywhere in the amended complaint that Crooks did anything with the musical composition “Better” other than utilize the sound recording that she and Sevier created and that she was admittedly permitted to use for commercial or non-commercial gain. Indeed, Plaintiffs conceded in paragraph 735 of their amended complaint that “[t]he Defendants did not engage in unauthorized copying, but rather, their actions prevented Plaintiffs from copying.” That ends the inquiry; no claim for copyright infringement was properly alleged. Plaintiffs’ allegation that “Crooks attempted to transfer and did transfer an interest in the composition ‘Better’, [sic] which she did not own, to the Rich Defendants” is not the same thing as creating an improper copy of “Better.” We read nothing in the plain language of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106, to suggest that such a transfer constitutes copyright infringement. We expressly decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to grossly expand copyright infringement causes of action to include any acts that create barriers to a copyright holder’s ability to fully exploit that copyright.

Plaintiff's Award Reduced In Wu-Tang Suit

Coles v Wu-Tang Prods., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00789 (1st Dep't Feb. 10, 2011)

The appellate division modified the trial' court's award to plaintiff by 25% of the net royalty payments received by defendant Wu-Tang Productions.

The action was for the payment of royalties for musical compositions co-written by plaintiff. The Court found that the documentary evidence established that Wu-Tang was entitled to retain 25% of the net royalty payments it received from Careers-BMG Music Publishing, Inc. (BMG) before paying plaintiff his share. Pursuant to the agreement between plaintiff and Wu-Tang, plaintiff conveyed an undivided 50% percent interest in the copyrights in those compositions to Wu-Tang, and, with plaintiff's consent, Wu-Tang transferred 50% percent of its interest in the copyrights to BMG. Thus, Wu-Tang retained a 25% interest in the copyrights.

Additionally, the record supported the trial court's determination that plaintiff, as a lyricist of the compositions, and defendant producer of the music, regarded themselves as joint authors sharing equally in the ownership of a joint work. Thus, the court properly granted plaintiff leave to conform the complaint to the evidence presented at trial by adding a claim against the producer for his unauthorized receipt of a 50% producer's fee

2d Cir Finds Antitrust Suit Stated Against Record Labels For Online Sales

The United States Circuit Court, Second Circuit, holds that plaintiffs' antitrust complaint alleging a conspiracy by major record labels to fix the prices and terms under which their music would be sold over the Internet states a claim for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The amended complaint contains "enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest that an agreement was made," id. at 555, and therefore states a claim.

"The present complaint succeeds where Twombly's failed because the complaint alleges specific facts sufficient to plausibly suggest that the parallel conduct alleged was the result of an agreement among defendants," Judge Katzmann said.

The defendants "agreed to launch MusicNet and pressplay, both of which charged unreasonably high prices and contained similar DRMs", and the entities did not "dramatically" drop "their prices for Internet Music (as compared to CDs), despite the fact that all defendants experienced dramatic cost reductions in producing Internet Music."

Starr v. Sony BMG, No. 08-5637-cv, NYLJ 1/14/2010 "Decision of the Day" (2d Cir. decided Jan. 13, 2010).

FCC Appeals Wardrobe Malfunction To Highest Court

The infamous 2004 Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction.



This week, the FCC appealed a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, saying that court was wrong to throw out the case and a $550,000 fine against CBS Corp. in July. Will the US Supreme Court hear the case?