Copyright Statute of Limitations Bars Suit

"Plaintiff's infringement and ownership claims premised on his alleged full copyright ownership of the songs is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff had been having 'numerous discussions and several meetings' with representatives of Atlantic, Warner/Chappell's predecessor-in-interest, as early as 1988 and knew that Atlantic was claiming a right to publish the songs at that time. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations expired at latest in 1991 and, as the instant action was filed in 2006, Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed for untimeliness.

***

Plaintiff asserts that settlement discussions took place throughout this time period, but settlement discussions are not the sort of extraordinary circumstance that justify Plaintiff's failure to bring the instant action in a timely manner or to continue prosecuting the 1991 lawsuit, absent evidence of any misrepresentations from the relevant entities or any other type of egregious misconduct at any time during the relevant period."

Poindexter v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc., 2/23/09 N.Y.L.J. "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2009)

[Procedural note: the Court converted Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(d), "because both parties referenced and submitted materials beyond the scope of the complaint." The parties were permitted to make additional submissions.]

Quantum Meruit AND Contract Claims Survive in Action Against Label

Gromley v. Atlantic Recording Corp., No. 101041/08, 1/30/09 N.Y.L.J. Decision of Interest (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co. Jan. 2, 2009)

Defendant record company ("Atlantic") moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims for quantum meruit. Plaintiff alleged defendant owed her the reasonable value of her services regarding the introduction of artists to defendant and overseeing production of records. Atlantic argued for dismissal arguing plaintiff's employment contract, which expired, covered the subject of royalties and contained a merger clause, and precluded the payment of royalties after expiration of the contract.

The court stated it was reasonable to infer the parties did not intend for plaintiff to continue working without expectation of payment even after expiration of the contract. Thus, the claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit stated a claim under quasi contract for payment for the period of time after expiration of the employment contract. However, plaintiff's claim seeking compensation under an implied contract for royalties for international sales for the period the contract existed was not actionable.

You're Beautiful...in Court.

A case filed in the Southern District of New York against Warner Music Group, Elektra, and Atlantic Records alleges conversion and misappropriation of funds arising out of a dispute concerning a recording and label agreement Custard Corp. (plaintiff) entered into with the labels following plaintiff's discovery and development of the artist James Blunt.

The complaint is not yet available.

3/10/08 - UPDATE.

[Custard Corp. v. Warner Music Group Corp.; Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp.; Elektra Entertainment Group Inc.; Atlantic Recording Corp.; filed 3/4/2008; case no. CV-2170]

R.E.S.P.E.C.T. - Label Accused of Gender Discrimination

A complaint filed in New York Supreme Court alleges that Atlantic Records discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her gender by paying male employees performing similar work higher salaries. Additionally, a VP at Atlantic allegedly referred to plaintiff as a "cunt".

[Mary Gormley v. Atlantic Recording Corp.; filed 1/23/2008; case number 08-101041]

A Flurry of John Doe Suits

The past two days saw a "flurry" of law suits filed by major labels in Federal District Court: no less than 17 copyright infringement cases were filed against John Doe defendants and IP-addresses by, collectively -- Zomba, Atlantic, Capitol, Sony BMG, MoTown, Warner Bros. Records, Elektra, UMG, Maverick, and Arista.

Additionally, several suits were filed against actual named defendants - whom were identified by 3rd party investigators for using P2P networks at the defendant's IP-address. (e.g. case no
4:07-cv-04525)

Notably, many of the cases were filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with the labels (for the most part...) represented by the SAME attorney: Jennifer K. Welsh. Talk about a pay-day! Other courts include New Hampshire, Nebraska, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.

Is there some sort of quota the labels fill before the end of the year?

[UNVERIFIED Case nos.: 1:2007cv00972; 4:2007cv03278; 1:2007cv00416; 5:2007cv03883; 2:2007cv05463; 2:2007cv05464; 2:2007cv05457; 2:2007cv05461; 2:2007cv05467; 2:2007cv05458; 2:2007cv05459; 2:2007cv05456; 2:2007cv05460; 2:2007cv05462; 2:2007cv05465; 2:2007cv05466; 1:2007cv00479; 3:2007cv00481; 6:2007cv00569; 4:2007cv04525; 4:2007cv04527; 4:2007cv04528. ***OTCS did not verify all case numbers; Check case files and citations before citing***]