Co-Ownership Claims In Jay-Z Songs Time Barred; 2nd Cir.

/
Mahan v. Roc Nation, No. 15-1238cv (2d Cir. Feb. 24, 2016).

A former Roc-a-fella Records sound engineer's copyright co-ownership claims in certain Jay-Z recordings, brought 14 years after the recordings were made and released, are time-barred, holds the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in affirming the lower court's dismissal of the claim.  The Court found that defendants had expressly repudiated the plaintiff's ownership claim years prior, when the multi-million copy selling albums were released without attribution to him or the payment of any royalties.  Accordingly, the clock started ticking then.  The Court further found that the defendants were properly awarded their attorney's fees under the Copyright Act, and remanded solely for a determination of the amount of fees available on the appeal.

Kanye, Jay-Z and Others Avoid Copyright Infringement Claim Because Two "Made In America" Songs Not Substantially Similar

/
McDonald v. West et al., No. 14-cv-8794 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2015) [Doc. 42].

In case about two songs both called "Made In America," the Court dismissed the Complaint against Kanye West, Jay-Z and others alleging copyright infringement of the plaintiff's song, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).  First, the Court found that even though the two songs shared the same title, the song title "Made In America" was not copyrightable.  "It is too brief, common, and unoriginal to create any exclusive right."  Second, the Court analyzed similarity between the lyrics in the chorus of each song, along with alleged musical similarity.  However, the Court found that plaintiff did not plausibly plead substantial similarity.  The Court then turned to a "holistic" comparison of the two songs, because even if the indvidual elements that make up Plaintiff's songs are uncopyrightable, they still may represent a protected selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements.  The Court found that no reasonable jury could find the two songs similar, lyrically or musically.  The differences were major.  "Where any reasonable juror would conclude - as here - that the differences are many, and what similarities exist are based on unprotectable elements, the two works are not substantially similar as a matter of law."  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint.

Jay-Z Awarded Attorney's Fees For Defeating Copyright Claim On Statute Of Limitations Grounds

/
Mahan v. Roc Nation LLC, Case 1:14-cv-05075-LGS (SDNY filed 07/17/1) [Doc. 81].

After defeating an alleged co-owner's copyright infirngement claims on statute of limitations grounds, the Court awarded Jay-Z and related parties attorney's fees of over $280,000.  The Court found that the Defendants were entitled to attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff’s claims under the Copyright Act were plainly time barred and therefore objectively unreasonable.  The amount of fees requested was reduced by 10%, however, because Plaintiff asserted five total claims, one of which was a state law claim which, unlike the Copyright Act, did not permit a grant of attorney's fees.

Big Pimpin Suit Continues With Triable Issues Of Fact

/
Fahmy v. Jay-Z et al., No. 2:07-cv-05715 (C.D. Cal. May 27, 2015).

In the copyright infringement action concerning Jay-Z's song Big Pimpin', the Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant's "license" affirmative defense.  The Court concluded that there were triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff conveyed any performance rights he owned in the infringed song.  The Court also concluded that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants received a license to publicly perform the song as part of Big Pimpin' through their asserted chain of title or as a result of BMI blanket licenses.

Jay-Z Must Produce Concert Revenue In 'Big Pimpin' Infringement Suit

/
Fahmy v. Jay-Z, No. 2:07-cv-05715-CAS, 2015 BL 8688 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2015).

Jay Z's motion for review of a Magistrate Judge's ruling directing him to produce documents concerning his concert revenues was denied.  This action concerns Jay Z's alleged unauthorized sampling of "Khosara, Khosara" from the 1960 Egyptian film Fata Ahlami in his 2000 hit song "Big Pimpin'."  A Magistrate Judge had ordered Jay-Z  to produce the amount of revenue he earned from concerts where he performed "Big Pimpin' in order to allow the plaintiff to calculate his damages.  Jay-Z moved for review of the magistrate's order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).  The District Court denied the motion.  The magistrate's order was not "clearly erroneous or contrary to law."   The discovery of concert revenue "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" concerning the existence and amount of damages. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).  Nor was there evidence that the burden of production was undue.

Sampling Case Against Jay-Z Dismissed Because No Substantial Similarity

/
Tufamerica Inc. v. WB Music Corp. et al., No. 1:13-cv-07874-LAK (SDNY filed 12/08/14) [Doc. 19].

The Court dismissed a claim against Jay-Z that was based on the sampling and use of the word “oh” in an audio recording and music video entitled Run This Town.  Plaintiff’s works were a composition and a pre-1972 sound recording thereof in each of which the word “oh” appears once.  The Court held that, even assuming that defendants copied, or “sampled,” a portion of plaintiff’s works, plaintiff had not stated a plausible claim because there was no substantial similarity.

According to the Court, "Run This Town bears very little and perhaps no similarity at all to [Plaintiff's song]. The melody and lyrics are entirely different. The lyrics do not contain the word 'oh'. And while the Court assumes, as plaintiff contends, that the alleged 'sample' of that word appears in the accused recording and video 42 separate times, it must be said also that it does so, if at all, only in the background and in such a way as to be audible and aurally intelligible only to the most attentive and capable listener."

The Court observed, in dicta, that plaintiff's usage of the word "oh" in the composition likely was not subject to copyright protection, though it may have been in the sound recording.  However, the Court found other grounds to dismiss and therefore assumed "oh" was protectable.  Specifically, the Court found there was no substantial similarity.

First, the "oh" was not quantitatively significant in either the composition or sound recording thereof. Second, the court found that the qualitative significance of "oh" in plaintiff's work was insufficient.  "Oh" was not the heart of the composition, having appeared only once and being a common word.  As to the recording, "oh" only appeared at the beginning, and was a replaceable term; indeed, "oh" could have been removed completely without significantly changing the essence of the recording.  That Jay-Z used the "oh" more than 40 times did not change the analysis, because what is relevant is the qualitative and quantitative significance of the copied portion in relation to the plaintiff’s work as a whole (not the significance to the defendant's work).

99 Problems + The Law

/
Caleb Mason, JAY-Z’S 99 PROBLEMS, VERSE 2: A CLOSE READING WITH FOURTH AMENDMENT GUIDANCE FOR COPS AND PERPS, Saint Louis Univ. Law J. (Vol. 56, pp. 567-585) (link to article).


"ABSTRACT: This is a line-by-line analysis of the second verse of 99 Problems by Jay-Z, from the perspective of a criminal procedure professor. It’s intended as a resource for law students and teachers, and for anyone who’s interested in what pop culture gets right about criminal justice, and what it gets wrong."

Standing Still Lacking Under 1909 Act In "Big Pimpin'" Case

/
Nafal v. Jay-Z, et al, 11 cv 06238 (C.D. Cal. Mar 2, 2012).

Plaintiff argued that because was the exclusive license of a song sampled in the Jay-Z song "Big Pimpin'", he had standing to sue Defendants for infringement. The court held that Plaintiff's standing had to be evaluated under the 1909 Copyright Act (due to the copyright date of the sampled song). Even if Plaintiff were deemed a co-exclusive licensee, the 1909 Act required Plaintiff to join the author's heirs in the action, who were the copyright owners. He did not do so, and accordingly, lacked standing.

Statute Of Limitations Limits Damages Claim Against Jay-Z; Concert Profits Questionable Damages

/
Fahmy v. Jay-Z, et al., 07-cv-5715-CAS (C.D. Cal. decided. Dec. 9, 2011) [Doc. 309].

Plaintiff brought this copyright infringement action concerning the song Big Pimpin'. The Court concluded that plaintiff may recover damages from any infringement only within three years prior to the filing of his lawsuit unless he can provide other bases for equitably tolling the statute. The Court, however, was unpersuaded by any of the three bases offered by plaintiff for why the statutory period should be equitably tolled. The mere fact that plaintiff lived in Egypt and speaks little to no English did not toll the statutory period. Alleged misrepresentations by the record label did not toll the statute. Lastly, the existence of a prior judicial action did not toll the statute. "Ultimately, plaintiff cannot avoid the fact that he admittedly knew that Big Pimpin’ allegedly infringed Khosara, Khosara by December 2000, more than six years prior to filing the present lawsuit."

The Court next turned to the question of whether Jay-Z’s concert revenues are properly considered direct or indirect profits resulting from his allegedly infringing performances of Big Pimpin’. Because the Court determined that this question presented a triable issue, the Court reserved judgment as to whether plaintiff is able to prove the requisite causal nexus.

Kanye & Jay-Z "What? What?"

/

Kanye West and Jay-Z are among the co-defendants in a case filed in the District of Maryland (which Plaintiff erroneously describes in the caption as being in the Sixth Circuit).
Plaintiff Dayna D. Staggs -- who is likely appearing pro se -- has asserted...request your own copy of the complaint here. The complaint is an interesting, if not sometime confusing, read. But don't get the wrong idea; OTCS believes plaintiff's complaint would withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim!

From what we gather from the single spaced, unnumbered, 6 page complaint (which includes a single signature line for the multiple defendants), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and legal fees arising for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and "unauthorized use of Plaintiff [sic] likeness and Mtv sound recording, composition and internationally musical content entitled 'Volume of Good Life' herein described on phonorecord white label by the United States Library of Congress." Though Plaintiff's grammar and syntax could be improved, the allegations have a good chance of satisfying FRCP's liberal pleading standards (Rule 8). What could be a more "short and plain statement" than one completely lacking legalese?
Plaintiff alleges that he is the songwriter for the composition "Hollar at Me" (1985), released on EMI by R&B artists ICEE HOTT. But, this is all of minor relevance because the alleged infringement relates to Kanye West's release of "Good Life" on Roc-a-fella records. Plaintiff alleges to be the author of a composition and sound recording entitled "Volume of Good Life", which Kanye West sampled without authorization (and which his label released).
Additionally, "the vulgar, sexual and racially-charged nature of the Infringing master work is directly counter to [Plaintiff's] long established public persona, utterly inconsistent with the musician, artist clean image. And harms the reputation of the Dayna D Staggs Copyrighted Rock/Pop master work clean titled 'Volume of Good Life." [sic].
Despite the numerous grammatical errors in his complaint, Plaintiff appears to have some idea of what he is doing. For example, he sent cease and desist letters which "did not receive a favorable response". He alleges the labels have commercially profited from the infringement. He alleges willful infringement -- "Defendants are undoubtedly familiar with [Plaintiff], his songwriter likeness, and also are friends of the Plaintiffs myspace page located at www.myspace.com/dmystro." He makes claims for legal fees, and claims that he has no adequate remedy at law (though he later requests punitive damages and states "the Actual harm Plaintiff suffered is reflected in the amount of licensing fee that Plaintiffs lost because of the infringement").
So in sum, Plaintiff has asserted an unauthorized sampling claim against Kanye West and his label and publishers.
[Staggs v. West et al., No. 08-cv-0728-PJM (D.Md. filed Mar. 20, 2008).]

Jay-Z To Join...Apple?!

/
OTCS thanks its friends over at Tilzy.tv for bringing the following to our attention:

Jay-Z is launching a record label with...APPLE. Yes, that Apple, that brings you iPods, iTunes and iCantThinkOfAnythingElse.

News is sure to abound, and OTCS plans to watch this developing story closely.

Meanwhile, what does this mean in Apple computer's settlement with Apple Records (of The Beatles fame) over use of the "apple" trademark for a music distribution company?

'Steada Kisses, We Get Kicked / It's a Hard Knock Life

/
Shawn Carter a/k/a Jay-Z sued in New York Supreme Court (NY County/Manhattan) for employment discrimination on the basis of gender and disability. Folake Ogundiran (plaintiff) was a former sales associate for Jay-Z at his 40/40 Club, but was allegedly fired after she became pregnant. Apparently, pregnancy doesn't fit the "unattached and 'sexy'" image the 40/40 Club allegedly embraces. Now THAT'S Baller.