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.

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."

1st Cir Affirms $675,000 Jury Award For Unauthorized Downloads/Distributions

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, No. Case: 12-2146 (1st Cir. filed 6/25/2013) [Doc. 00116547502].

From the decision:
Joel Tenenbaum illegally downloaded and distributed music for several years. A group of recording companies sued Tenenbaum, and a jury awarded damages of $675,000, representing $22,500 for each of thirty songs whose copyright Tenenbaum violated. Tenenbaum appeals the award, claiming that it is so large that it violates his constitutional right to due process of law. We hold that the award did not violate Tenenbaum's right to due process, and we affirm.
The two issues on appeal were: (1) what is the correct standard for evaluating the constitutionality of an award of statutory damages under the Copyright Act; and (2) did an award of $675,000 violate defendant's right to due process?  On issue one, the Court held that the correct standard was that announced in St. Louis, I.M. & S.Ry. Co. v. Williams, 251 U.S. 63 (1919), that a statutory damage award violates due process only "where the penalty prescribed is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable."  On issue two, the Court found that the award did not violate defendant's due process rights.