Attorney's Fees Awarded To Village People Member

Scorpio Music v. Willis, No. 11-cv-1557 (S.D. Cal. filed 9/15/15) [Doc. 280].

In a dispute over the percentage of copyright ownership over the Village People's hit songs (including "YMCA") that went to a jury trial, the Court held that an original member of the group and author (invidivually and jointly) of various songs was entitled to attorney's fees as the prevailing party.  17 USC 505.  The court found that Mr. Willis was the prevailing party and that he achieved a high degree of success: he defeated Plaintiff's claim that he could not unilaterally terminate his grants of copyright under 17 USC 203, prevailed on a number of summary judgment motions brought on the grounds of statute of limitations and laches, and prevailed on 13 of the 24 compositions at trial (including YMCA, the most lucrative).  Specifically, the Court found that granting fees would advance the purposes of the Copyright Act inasmcuh as Mr. Willis was "trying to get back what he transferred to Plaintiffs, parties with superior bargaining power, decades ago.  An award of attorney's fees is justified to encourage authors like Willis to assert their rights to regain their copyright interests and to deter production companies and other transferees of copyright from attempting to interfere with those rights."  Willis sought an award of approximately $527,000, and the Court did not find that an upward or downward adjustment was warranted.  Costs of approximately $3,000 were also taxed.

California Law Protects Public Performance Right In Pre-1972 Sound Recordings; Turtles Granted Summary Judgment Against Sirius

Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-05693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal. filed Sep. 22, 2014) (Doc. 117).

Plaintiff, owner of all rights to The Turtles’ master sound recordings (including the hit "Happy Together"), was granted summary judgment against Sirius XM on its causes of action for violation of California
copyright law (California Civil Code § 980(a)(2)), California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.), and common law misappropriation and conversion, but only so far as the claims were premised on Sirius XM’s public performance of Plaintiff's recordings, not its alleged reproductions for which there were outstanding questions of fact.

Plaintiff argued that Sirius XM was liable for two distinct unauthorized uses of its sound recordings: (1) publicly performing its recordings by broadcasting and streaming the content to end consumers and to secondary delivery and broadcast partners, and (2) reproducing the recordings in the process of operating its satellite and Internet radio services.  Plaintiff contended that, in California, copyright ownership of a pre-1972 sound recording includes the exclusive right to publicly perform the recording; therefore, if anyone wishes to publicly perform such a recording, they must first seek authorization from the recording’s owner.  The Court agreed.

First, the Court found that California statutory and common law governs the rights that attach to pre-1972 sound recordings because the Federal Copyright Act does not apply to those earlier recordings and explicitly allows states to continue to regulate them.  Second, the Court examined the provision of California’s copyright statute that contains a provision directly addressing pre-1972 sound recordings. Cal. Civ. Code § 980(a)(2) ("The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972, has an exclusive ownership therein until February 15, 2047, as against all persons except one who independently makes or duplicates another sound recording that does not directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in such prior recording, but consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate the sounds contained in the prior sound
recording").

The crucial point of statutory interpretation for this case was whether “exclusive ownership” of a sound recording carries within it the exclusive right to publicly perform the recording.  The Court’s textual reading of § 980(a)(2) was that the legislature intended ownership of a sound recording in California to include all rights that can attach to intellectual property, save the singular, expressly-stated exception for making “covers” of a recording.

The Court further found that the rule of statutory construction requiring express statements to alter the common law did not apply because, when the legislature passed § 980(a)(2), there was no common law rule in California rejecting public performance rights in sound recording ownership.  Also, the legislative history of § 980(a)(2) and its comparison to the Federal Copyright Act bolstered the Court’s plain textual reading of the statute that sound recording ownership is inclusive of all ownership rights that can attach to intellectual property, including the right of public performance, excepting only the limited right expressly stated in the law (that the owner does not have the exclusive right to record and duplicate “covers").  Lastly, the Court found further support for its textual reading of the statute as inclusive of the right of public performance from the only two courts that have ruled on or discussed this right under § 980(a)(2).  Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment on copyright infringement in violation of § 980(a)(2) in favor of Plaintiff.

Borrowing the violation of § 980, the Court found that Sirius also violated California's Unfair Competition Law because Sirius publicly performs Plaintiff's sound recordings without authorization to do so.  Also, the Court found that Sirius XM’s unauthorized performances established conversion damages in the form of license fees that Sirius XM should have paid Plaintiff in order to publicly perform its recordings.  The foregone licensing or royalty payments that Sirius XM should have paid before publicly performing the recordings also constituted misappropriation.

Lastly, the Court found that Sirius could not rely on the doctrine of laches because this was an action at law seeking money damages, and laches is an equitable defense.  Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action, but only so far as the claims are premised on Sirius XM’s public performance of the recordings, not its alleged reproductions.

Judge Finds Liability In Shakira Infringement Trial

Mayimba Music, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of Am. et al., No. 1:12-cv-01094-AKH (SDNY filed 08/19/14) [Doc. 104].

This is an infringement action alleging that a Shakira song infringes the copyright in a musical composition.  After a bench trial, the Court found: (a) that plaintiff, as exclusive licensee, had standing; (b) there was no proof of laches; (c) the Shakira song was an unlawful copy of plaintiff's song; and (d) the US distributors were liable for infringement.  The next stage was determining damages, or alternatively a permanent infringement.

9th Circuit Reverses "Platters" Injunction Because No Presumption Of Irreparable Harm In Trademark Cases

Herb Reed Enterprises v. Florida Entertainment, No. 12-16868 (9th Cir. Dec. 2, 2013) [Decision].

The 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against defendants’ use of the mark “The Platters” in connection with a vocal group, holding that the likelihood of irreparable harm must be established, rather than presumed, by a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief in the trademark context, and that the record did not support a determination of the likelihood of irreparable harm.  Likelihood of success can not be collapsed into irreparable harm.  The 9th Circuit also found (affirming the district court) that: (i) earlier New York actions did not have res judicata effect -- there was no claim or issue preclusion; (ii) the claim was not barred by laches; (iii) Plaintiff had not abandoned the trademark.

Rick Ross Name Claim Time Barred

Ross v. William Leonard Roberts II, No. BC450511 (Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles).

It is reported that a lawsuit accusing rapper Rick Ross, his label and others of misappropriating the name and identity of former drug kingpin "Freeway" Ricky Ross, has been dismissed based on an expired statute of limitations. The Judge ruled that the former drug trafficker's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations under California's single publication rule and the doctrine of laches. Per the Court, the rapper's first hit single received significant radio play beginning in 2005 and alerted plaintiff, who was in prison at the time, that his name was being used commercially.

Lyricist's Suit Against Video Game Developer Survives

Greer v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 10-cv-3601 (N.D. Cal. order filed Feb. 1, 2012) [Doc. 96].

In this copyright infringement action, plaintiff contended that defendant improperly used a

sound recording and the lyrics of a song by incorporating them into a widely-distributed videogame. Defendant moved for summary judgment on three independent grounds. Although two of defendant’s three arguments presented close calls, triable issues of fact existed that precluded summary judgment, and the motion was denied.

Facts: Plaintiff was a member of a band that registered a copyright relating to an album the band had recorded, which included the song at issue. Plaintiff subsequently filed a correction to the registration to clarify that he claimed sole copyright to the lyrics of the song. One of Plaintiff's band mates was employed by a video game developer, and was working to create a soundtrack for a video game that was being was developed. The band mate chose to include the song as part of the soundtrack for the game. The band mate and two other band members submitted declarations stating that all of the band members executed a written license agreement giving the developer the right to use the song in the game in exchange for one dollar and acknowledgement in the on-screen credits of the game. No signed copy of such a license agreement was located, and Plaintiff denied ever being asked to sign a license agreement, and alleges that he did not become aware that the song had been incorporated into the game until 2009.

Discussion: First, the court addressed issues with the registration of the album containing the song as a "PA" (performing arts), in contrast to registration on a form "SR" (sound recording). While Form SR may be used to register both the underlying composition and the

sound recording if separate registrations are not necessary or desired, nothing on Form PA permits it to be used to register a sound recording. Thus, defendant was correct that the band’s recorded performance of the song that was used in the game was never registered. That fact, however, wasnot fatal to plaintiff's claims, because plaintiff's complaint specifically identified by registration number the copyrighted work that plaintiff alleged had been unlawfully copied. While the complaint also repeatedly asserted the erroneous legal conclusion that the registration was of the sound recording (as opposed to the underlying musical composition) the facts alleged were sufficient to state a claim for infringement of the musical composition. There was no dispute that the band's performance of the song incorporated in the game was a performance of the underlying composition.

Second, the Court analyzed the competing arguments about the existence of a license. The Court concluded that the record did not permit a conclusion on summary judgment that the license agreement was ever signed, either in the unsigned form of the document defendant hadsubmitted, or in any form. While the recollections on both sides were vague, they were in direct conflict.

Third, the Court analyzed the defense of laches. Defendant made a compelling showing that this was a case in which laches may ultimately apply to bar at least some portion of plaintiff's claims. Among other things, the evidentiary prejudice was manifest in the witnesses’ fading memories and the uncertainty in the documentary record as to whether the license agreement was ever signed. The critical question, however, was when plaintiff knew or should have known that the song had been incorporated into the game. Plaintiff's testimony that he did not learn of the song’s use in the game until 2009 was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to his actual knowledge. If the trier of fact accepts the testimony that the possibility of using the song in the game was discussed at length prior to plaintiff's departure from the band, he more likely can be held to a duty of some inquiry, even assuming he never saw or signed the license agreement. Defendant had not shown, however, that undisputed facts compel a finding that plaintiff was on constructive notice as early as 1995, or at any particular time thereafter. Finally, defendant had not established that laches necessarily would bar plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief against any ongoing infringement, even assuming it ultimately bars some or all of his claims for past damages.

80s Rock Band Argues Copyright Claim Is Time Barred

McCarthy et al. v. Johannesson et al., No. 1:11-cv-07422 (N.D. Ill. filed Jan. 17, 2012) [Doc. 28].

In moving to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), defendants-- members of the 80s rock band "Poison" -- argue that because over 20-25 years have passed since plaintiffs claim that defendants violated plaintiffs' supposed copyright in four of plaintiffs' songs, the action is "spurious and hopelessly timebarred". Additionally, defendants argued that several of the claims are barred because plaintiffs do no have copyright registrations for the songs at issue.

My Boyfriend's Back

Sirico v. F.G.G. Prods., Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 01733 (1st Dep't Mar. 4, 2010).

Singers of the 1960s hit "My Boyfriend's Back" sues producer of the recording concerning royalties. On appeal of denial of motion for renewal, the Appellate Division addresses plaintiff's New York breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, accounting, rescission, and right of privacy statutory claims. Specifically at issue is whether summary judgment was appropriate based on limited discovery and problematic affidavits. The court also addresses laches, statute of limitations, limitation on equitable claims.

Sirico v F

"My Humps" Licensing Suit

Tolliver v. McCants, 05 Civ. 10840, 4/7/09 N.Y.L.J. "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. decided Mar. 25, 2009)

In 1982, plaintiff collaborated with defendant to produce a music album that included a recording of a musical composition entitled, "I Need a Freak." In 2005, defendant licensed the composition to the popular music group, The Black Eyed Peas, for use in their hit single, "My Humps." At issue in this case is whether the grant of the license by defendant infringed upon plaintiff's copyright to the composition. Both parties cross-moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion was granted; defendant's denied.

Issues:

Statute of Frauds: No writing assigning to defendant right to license work for derivative works, therefore no valid assignment so that the license for "My Humps" violated plaintiff's copyright.

Statute of Limitations: "conundrum" between the limitations period for an ownership claim and an infringement claim

Adding affirmative defense (laches) on summary judgment motion, 2.5 years after litigation commenced.

Co-Author's Face Now A Whiter Shade of Pale?

The founder of Procol Harum won his court battle over royalty rights to the band's most famous hit, the 1967 song "A Whiter Shade of Pale."

A British appellate court ruled [decision] that although former keyboard player Matthew Fisher could be credited as co-author of the work (for writing the organ part), the fact that it took him 38 years to take the case to court meant he should not benefit financially. "Matthew Fisher is guilty of excessive and inexcusable delay in his claim to assert joint title to a joint interest in the work," Judge Mummery said in his judgment. "He silently stood by and acquiesced in the defendant's commercial exploitation of the work for 38 years."

Laches? Estoppel?

[Billboard article.]

4/7/08 UPDATE

The New York Times reports:

Mr. Fisher can still appeal the “Whiter Shade of Pale” decision to the House of Lords, which serves as Britain’s supreme court ... Even without a further appeal, though, the case isn’t over yet: Still to be settled is who must pay whose legal bills, which are reported to have mounted well into the millions of pounds on each side