Copyright Suit Dismissed Against Beatles Company

Sid Bernstein Presents LLC v. Apple Corps Ltd. et al., No. 1:16-cv-07084 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 2017)

The Court dismissed a copyright suit against the Beatles' Apple Corp. company, determining that Sid Bernstein Presents LLC – the company that currently owns intellectual property rights of a promoter who is credited with bringing The Beatles to the U.S. – did not have rights over footage from the band’s 1965 concert at Shea Stadium. The complaint alleged that Sid Bernstein Presents LLC retained copyrights to the footage and that The Beatles Company had infringed their copyright by allowing it to be used in Ron Howard’s “Eight Days a Week.” After reading through the contracts, the Judge determined that the language makes an admission that Sid Bernstein was not involved in the filming of the concert and was not the “author” of the footage for the purposes of copyright law.

Lyndard Skynard Tour Info Must Be Turned Over

Ronnie Van Zant Inc. et al. v. Artimus Pyle et al., No. 1:17-cv-03360 (S.D.N.Y. June 2017)

The legal entities and estates for founding late Lynyrd Skynyrd band members are seeking a permanent injunction blocking the production of a film about a plane crash that killed some of the band’s original members.

Following the plane crash, members of Lynyrd Skynyrd went on a 10-year hiatus, which ended once the surviving members reunited for a tribute tour. Judith Van Zant Jenness, widow of Van Zent, brought suit amid the reunion tour, which ended in a consent order laying out the details of all future Lynyrd Skynyrd events and their post-breakup image.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet ordered that the legal entities for the late band members must produce any available tour lists and information regarding Lynyrd Skynyrd shows that followed the 1988 agreement. The film company is arguing that the band has been violating the agreement for years. Judge Sweet ordered the information to determine whether ex-drummer Artimus Pyle and Cleopatra Films are in compliance with the agreement.

The plaintiffs are currently in the process of developing their own film about the band.

1st Amend. Protects Kanye's Film Name from Trademark Claims

Medina v. Dash Films et al., No. 15-2551 (S.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016).

In a trademark infringement action against Kanye West and related parties over use of the title "LOISAIDAS" for various films, the Court dismissed (under Rule 12(b)(6)) the complaint of the owner of the trademark LOISAIDAS for rap-names based on the First Amendment right to artistic expression.  Because the term at issue is the title of an artistic work, the Court first asks whether the title has any artistic relevance to the work whatsoever and then, if it does, whether the application of the relevant factors indicates a particularly compelling likelihood of confusion that renders the title explicitly misleading. 

The title “Loisaidas” clearly has artistic relevance to a series of short films about drug dealers seeking to acquire control of the drug trade in Manhattan’s Lower East Side. As noted in the attachments to plaintiff’s complaint, “Loisaidas …. is the Spanish slang term for ‘lower east siders.’” (SAC Exh. B.) The characters repeatedly refer to people and places “downtown in Loisaidas” (Ep. 3, 2:30), and scenes are identifiably set in the Lower East Side (see, e.g., Ep. 2, 0:59 (character bikes past Katz’s Deli)). The copyrighted term was “not arbitrarily chosen just to exploit the publicity value of [plaintiff’s music duo] but instead ha[s] genuine relevance to the film’s story.” Rogers, 875 F.2d at 1001. 

Next, the Court found that the title was not explicitly misleading.  The term was not a source denoter.  In conclusion:

Consideration of plaintiff’s complaint and the expressive work that prompted it permits only one conclusion: that the work is a film, and that its title is artistically relevant to its content and not explicitly misleading as to any association with plaintiff’s music duo. Given the First Amendment values at interest, the Lanham Act and its state law counterparts have been and must be construed not to reach such expression. 

Court Has Jurisdiction Over King Of Pop's Executors In Photo Shoot Case, But Plaintiff's Counsel Disqualified As A Witness

Noval Williams Films v. Branc, 14-cv-4711 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 3, 2015) [Doc. 43].

In a case where Plaintiff film matker sought a declaratory judgment against Michael Jackson's estate that it did not infringe the copyrights in certain audivisual and photographic materials by using them in a documentary film, the Court denied Michael Jackson's executor's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively to transfer to California federal court.  However, the executor's motion disqualify plaintiff's counsel was granted because he is a material witness.

Film Festival Temporarily Enjoined From Screening Aretha Franklin Documentary

Franklin v. Nat'l Film Preserve, No. 15-cv-1921 (D. Colo. filed 9/4/2015) [Doc. 14].

The Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Telluride Film Festival from screening a documentary film about Aretha Franklin, which consisted primarily of previously unreleased footage from a 1972 concert.  The deed granting the film producer rights in the footage required Ms. Franklin's consent to use the footage, which defendant did not obtain.

The Court found that Ms. Franklin has a strong interest in her rights of publicity, and to the use of her name/likeness.  She also had a federal statutory right to prevent bootlegging.  17 USC 1101(1).  The Court found that the film, which essentially recreated the entire concert experience, was not a fair use, and that a TRO would preserve the status quo.

Only Breach Of Contract Claim Survives in Ozzy Osbourne Guitarist Case

Rhoads v. Margolis, No. B249800 (Cal. App. Ct., 2d Dist. - Div. 7, Jan. 26, 2015).

Only a breach of contract claim survived in an action, brought by the family of a well-known rock guitarist who died in a 1982 plane crash, against Defendants based on the family's grant of the right to use personal information and memorabilia to make a documentary film about the deceased guitarist.  When the documentary project faltered, defendants instead published a book about the guitarist.  The family sued, alleging the book was based on materials they had provided for the exclusive purpose of making the documentary film.  Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On appeal, the Court found that the Anti-SLAPP Statute (section 425.16) applied because the principal thrust of every claim was premised on the allegation that the defendants, in researching, writing and publishing the book, used the family's proprietary material provided solely for the purpose of the documentary.  Whether or not defendants violated the terms of the agreement, their conduct in writing and publishing the book qualified as a form of protected activity.  With the exception of the breach of contract claim, the family failed to establish a probability of prevailing on its claims. The fraud claim failed because there was no allegation that the defendants intended to create the book at the time of the agreement.  The misappropriation claim (based on the right of privacy) failed because the alleged acts did not implicate the personal privacy or publicity rights of the guitarist's family members.  Additionally, the life and death of the guitarist was a matter of public interest.  The unfair competition claim failed because plaintiffs had not articulated an actionable manner in which the public was likely to be deceived by the book or that consumers suffered substantial injury.

Beatles Rights Holders Did Not Interfere With Film's Release By Asserting Copyright Claims

Ace Arts, LLC v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, No. 13-cv-7307-AJN (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 26, 2014).

This action arises from the use of eight Beatles songs in a documentary film, "The Lost Concert."  Plaintiff alleges that defendants (publisher and record label) interfered with the US distribution of the film by asserting copyright claims regarding those songs.  According to the allegations in the complaint and certain judicially noticeable documents (e.g., copyright registrations), the Beatles first performance in the US took place in 1964, twelve songs were played, and defendant had copyright registrations for 8 of the songs.  The concert was preserved on a certain video tape.  In 2009, a production company acquired the video tape and produced The Lost Concert film, which consists of the concert footage and other sequences and interviews.  Plaintiff was granted distribution rights by the producers.  In 2009, the producers approached Sony ATV for a synch license.  Plaintiff's allege that at Apple's request, Sony refused to grant the producers a synch license, and instead Sony granted Apple an exclusive synch license for Apple's distribution of certain Beatles material on iTunes.  Nonetheless, the producers and distributor believed that there was no legal obstacle to distributing the film and arranged for a premier and distribution in the USA and UK.  Sony ATV sought an injunction against the producers in the UK alleging that the film would infringe Sony's copyrights.  The US premier was then cancelled after Sony ATV made a claim to the distributor's partner.  Eventually, the plaintiff commenced the action seeking a declaration, inter alia, that neither Sony ATV nor Apple has rights that would be infringed by exploitation of the film in the USA, and that Sony ATV "misused its copyrights."

First the Court denied the defendants' request to stay the US federal action pending resolution of the UK action.  The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify abstention.

Second, the Court found that the controversy was ripe for a declaratory judgment claim.

Third, the Court analyzed plaintiff's anti-trust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court found that, as alleged, the agreements between Sony ATV and Apple -- in particular their efforts to enforce Apple's exclusive synch license by preventing the US distribution of the film -- did not constitute horizontal restraints on trade that are a per se violation of the Sherman Act.  Nor was there an anti-trust violation under the "rule of reason" because the allegations concerned a routine dispute between business competitors that is not cognizable under the Sherman Act.

Fourth, the Court considered the tortious interference with contract and economic relations claims, which was based on the allegation that Sony ATV and Applied conspired to interfere with the distribution contract by stating that the film infringed on Sony ATV's copyrights.  The Court found that plaintiff failed to adequately plead breach of the contract because it was possible that the distribution contract was lawfully terminated.  The complaint did not identify which section of the contract was breached, "a particularly damaging omission in light of the provisions in the contract suggesting that [the distribution partner] had the right to suspend working on, distributing or exhibiting all or any portion of the film for which the partner received a demand or claim.  Further, plaintiff failed to allege the use of "wrongful means."  Sony ATV steadfastly  maintained that it owns the rights to the song, and it did not assert copyright claims in bad faith.  The bare legal conclusions of malice were insufficient.

Fifth, the Court considered plaintiff's unfair competition claim under New York common law.  The Court rejected an extension of the common law claim (which has two theories: for palming off and misappropriation) to include "commercial immorality."

Finally, the Court considered Plaintiff's claim under NY GBL sec. 349.  The Court found that defendants' alleged conduct was not consumer-oriented.  It was not a standard-issue consumer oriented transaction that section 349 was designed to protect.

6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal Of "Soul Men" TM Case

Moore v. Weinstein Co. et al., No. 12-5715 (6th Cir. filed Oct. 31, 2013) (decision here).

Plaintiff, Sam Moore of the group "Sam & Dave", appealed an adverse judgment on his trademark infringement and common law claims against the producers and distributors of a 2008 movie called "Soul Men" (starring Samuel L. Jackson and Bernie Mac) and its soundtrack.  The 6th Circuit affirmed dismissal.

Plaintiff argued that defendants had violated his right of publicity.  The Court disagreed, finding that the movie "added significant expressive elements to any purported use of Moore's identity."

Plaintiff also argued that defendants had committed trademark dilution under the Tennessee Trademark Act, of the mark SOUL MEN.  But, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of the mark's fame.

Accordingly, the 6th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.

Suit Filed Over Beatles Movie

Ace Arts LLC v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC et al.; No. 13-cv-7307 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 16, 2013).

The Beatles' music publisher and record company were sued in connection with plaintiff's contract to distribute a film, The Beatles: The Lost Concert, which documents the impact the Beatles had in the USA and their first concert in Washington DC in 1964.  Plaintiff claims $100 million in damages for alleged violation of the Sherman Act, tortious interference with contract, interference with prospective economic relations, unfair competition, and violation of the N.Y. General Business Law.

7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 50/50 Case for Failure To Allege Confusion

Eastland Music Group v. Lionsgate Entertainment, No. 12-2928 (7th Cir. 2/21/2013) [Doc. 22].

Plaintiff was the proprietor of the rap duo Phifty-50, and registered “PHIFTY-50” as a trademark.  Plaintiff also claimed a trademark in “50/50” and contends that defendants infringed its rights by using “50/50” as the title of a motion picture that opened in 2011.  The district court dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6).  The 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal.


"This complaint fails at the threshold: it does not allege that the use of “50/50” as a title has caused any
confusion about the film’s source—and any such allegation would be too implausible to support costly litigation."  Additionally, "If there is any prospect of intellectual property in the phrase 50/50, Eastland Music is a very junior user and in no position to complain about the 2011 film. Phifty-50 entered a crowded field, and its rights are correspondingly weak and narrow."  "Only a confusion about origin supports a trademark
claim, and “origin” for this purpose means the “producer of the tangible product sold in the marketplace.” 539 U.S. at 31. Eastland Music’s complaint does not (and could not plausibly) allege that consumers treat it as the producer or source of the film 50/50, or treat Lionsgate as the producer of the 2003 rap album."

Copyright Case Over Lil' Wayne Movie Dismissed

Crump v. QD3 Entertainment, Inc., 2011 WL 446296 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011) (Jones, J.).

The lawsuit stems from the use of three copyrighted musical compositions in a documentary film entitled The Carter. The film focused on the life of Dwayne Carter, a hip hop and urban musical artist who is known by his stage name “Lil' Wayne.”

Defendants moved for summary judgment. As a procedural matter, the court focused on Plaintiff's failure: to oppose the filing of a motion for summary judgment pre-discovery, to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit, and to describe any potentially discoverable facts that make a motion for summary judgment premature.

In its legal analysis, the Court found that "the only issue is whether the agreement with another Young Money entity (Young Money Entertainment, Inc.) was sufficient to grant a nonexclusive license in the Defendants." The Court determined that the language of the subject agreement and uncontested facts clearly established that Defendants received a non-exclusive license to use any performance by Dwayne Carter of his copyrighted musical compositions, including “Pussy Monster,” “La La,” and “Lollipop.” In sum, Defendants met their burden of establishing that they received a grant of a nonexclusive license from Dwayne Carter and Young Money Publishing to use the three musical compositions at issue here in The Carter. The undisputed facts presented by both parties demonstrated that the clear intent of the parties was to grant the nonexclusive license. Summary judgment granted to Defendants.

Ono/EMI Withdraw All Claims Against Premise Media

Article:

"Yoko Ono and EMI Records have withdrawn all claims filed against Premise Media. The dismissal follows failed attempts by Yoko Ono in federal court and EMI Records in state court to enjoin Premise Media’s documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” because it uses a 15-second clip of a John Lennon song."

Prior Posts.

'Imagine' State Court Update

Despite Judge Stein (SDNY) denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on fair use grounds, let us not forget that a related case is pending in New York State court (based on pre-'72 recordings).

Reviewing the papers filed in the state court action reveal that Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211. A hearing was requested for June 9, 2008 (9:30AM) in the Motion Submission Part, Room 130, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.

What consideration will the Honorable Richard B. Lowe give to the federal order and decision? How does Judge Stein's decision affect the state proceeding?

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Lennon Case

Lenon v Premise Media - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIAL - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: Lenon v Premise Media - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIAL

Commentary from the Wall Street Journal

Patry agrees with court's analysis.

Judge Stein Promises Quick Ruling in 'Imagine' Case

From the tipster wire:

"A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song "Imagine'' taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution after a lawyer for the film's distributors warned the litigation could wreck the movie's political message."

[Article.]

Would an injunction "muzzle" the film producer's free speech? They argue that the film is asking if John Lennon was right, and concludes he was wrong. "Why would you ask somebody for permission to criticize their work?'' their attorney asked. "It's not likely it's going to be granted.''

Lennon's attorney responded: "fair use is not about destroying the other person's market. It's about carving very, very limited exceptions to a copyright proprietor's monopoly.''

So, readers - is it FAIR USE?

Notably, Judge Stein only required plaintiffs post a $20,000 bond to cover any losses suffered by the film's producers as a result of an injunction. What standard to judges apply to determine potential damages resulting from a wrongful preliminary injunction in setting the bond?

'Fair Use Project" to Represent Expelled in 'Imagine' Suit

From the tipster wire:

Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project to Represent Filmmakers in Lawsuit Brought by Yoko OnoPublication

STANFORD, Calif., May 1 , 2008—The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society today announced that it is signing on to defend Premise Media’s right to use a clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in its documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” for the purposes of commentary and criticism. The film, released in the United States on April 18, 2008, is about alleged discrimination against people who support alternative theories of evolution such as intelligent design. The song is played for roughly 15 seconds to illustrate and criticize the ideas suggested in it—that the world might be a better place without religion. Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono Lennon and sons Sean and Julian, along with EMI Blackwood Music, filed suit on April 22, 2008 claiming that Premise Media’s unauthorized use of “Imagine” violates copyright and trademark law. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Premise Media, C&S Production LP, Premise Media Distribution LP, and Rocky Mountain Pictures misappropriated the composition in violation of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and New York state law. On the same date, EMI Records Ltd. and Capitol Records LLC filed suit against the same defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging violation of their rights in the sound recording under New York state law.

Premise Media contends it has the right to use the song under the fair use doctrine, which among other things permits the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of comment, criticism, and discussion. “The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they may represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project. “These rights are under attack here, and we plan to defend them.” Falzone will serve as counsel on the case along with Stanford Law colleagues Julie A. Ahrens and Brandy Karl. The Stanford team will be joined by Roy Hardin and April Terry, partners at the Dallas office of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP. The producers of “Expelled” spent two years interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and public leaders, including University of Minnesota biology professor P.Z. Myers, who does not support alternative theories of evolution. The clip of “Imagine,” which is audible for approximately 15 seconds, is used in a segment of the documentary in which the film’s narrator and author Ben Stein comments on statements made by Myers and others about the place of religion. In the documentary Stein says: “Dr. Myers would like you to think that he’s being original but he’s merely lifting a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” This is followed by an audio clip of Lennon’s song “Imagine,” specifically, the lyrics “Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too.” “We included the ‘Imagine’ clip not only to illuminate Ben Stein’s commentary but to criticize the ideas expressed in the song,” says Logan Craft, chairman and executive producer of Premise Media. “Yoko Ono and the other plaintiffs are trying to redefine the Constitution and the free speech protection it affords,” Craft continued. “Our movie is about freedom—the freedom to discuss alternative views of how life began on our planet, the freedom to ask reasonable questions about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory, and the freedom to challenge an entrenched establishment. Now we find that we also have to fight for our free speech rights.”

The plaintiffs in both cases have filed motions asking the court to issue a nationwide injunction against showing the film in its present form. These motions are likely to be heard in the next few weeks.

Lennon - Complaint

Below is the complaint in Lennon et al. v. Premise Media Corp., L.P. et al., No. 08-cv-3813-SHS (S.D.N.Y. filed April 22, 2008). A couple highlights:

Paragraph 20 - noting the influence of Internet bloggers

Paragraph 23 - alleging that the defendants obtained synch licenses to use other songs in the film. Does this implicate bad-faith or willfulness? If Defendants' affirmative defense is Fair Use, there is split authority on whether bad-faith precludes a fair use defense. Judge Leval (and others) argue that a defendant's bad faith has no place in fair use analysis.

Paragraph 25 - end credits list Imagine, but do not state that permission was granted. Again, how does this implicate bad-faith or willfulness? Fair use?

Paragraph 36 - seeks permanent injunction and damages on copyright claim

THIRD CLAIM - is based on The Lanham Act sec. 43(a), infringement of unregistered mark. Does Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) foreclose this claim? Dastar holds that the section 43(a) does not apply to claims arising out of a failure to attribute or credit the origin of creative work; rather, such claims are cognizable under the Copyright Act. Are Plaintiffs making such a claim? See Contractual Obligation Productions LLC v. AMC Networks Inc., No. 04-cv-2867, 4/7/08 N.Y.L.J. "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. March 25, 2008). It appears that rather than alleging that Defendants are failing to credit the origin of Imagine, Plaintiffs' claim is a sponsorship claim.

Exhibits A & B - Noticeably absent is an SR registration. Imagine is a Pre-72 work; thus, Plaintiffs include publishers of the song, but not a record label. However, state common law copyright may protect Pre-72 recordings - why do Plaintiffs omit a common law claim from their complaint?

Read this doc on Scribd: Lennon v Premise Media Corp COMPLAINT

Fair Use? - 'Imagine' Suit Over Documentary

John Lennon's heirs - Sean, Julian, and Yoko Ono - and his publisher (EMI Blackwood) brought suit in the S.D.N.Y. against the filmmakers behind "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for using John Lennon's "Imagine" in the film without authorization. Plaintiffs seek an injunction and damages.

In response to the suit, defendants cited fair use. "We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song 'Imagine' in our documentary film," they said in a statement.

Readers: any thoughts on fair use?

[Details on case to follow when available...]

Licensing Dispute Over Competing Marley Biopics

See here, and here.