Sampling Case Against B.I.G. Dismissed

Hutson v. Notorious B.I.G., LLC et al., No. 14-cv-2307-RJS (SDNY Dec. 22, 2015) [Doc. 51].

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court dismissed plaintiff Lee Hutson's copyright infringement claims against the Notorious B.I.G.'s successor, label, publisher, record company and distributor, which alleged unauthorized sampling of Plaintiff's 1973 song (composition and sound recording) "Can't Say Enough About Mom" in the Biggie song "The What" appearing on the 1994 album "Ready To Die."  Plaintiff alleged that he first discovered the unauthorized sample in 2012, and brought suit in 2014.  In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleged infringement of the composition, of the sound recording outside the USA, and the digital performance right of the sound recording.

The Court dismissed each claim.  After noting the standard on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and discussing which documents outside of the pleadings it would consider (e.g., agreements, the sound recording, copyright registrations, certificates of incorporation), the Court then turned to each cause of action.

First, the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing.  Although Plaintiff alleged that he owned 50% of the copyright in the composition, the Court found that allegation implausible for the time of the infringement (1994-the present) because the agreements submitted did not establish that he had a chain of title, and further, the allegation that plaintiff was "doing business as" a certain entity was insufficient given corporate formalities.  [The Court did note in dicta, fn. 4, that the statute of limitations defense likely failed.]  Similarly the Court found that Plaintiff failed to plead ownership of the sound recording because of a a prior lawsuit in which the settlement included an assignment to the record label as well as a release.

Second, the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over infringement occurring abroad.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the claims.  The Court even dismissed claims against a non-moving defendant.

Lastly, the Court denied Plaintiff's application for leave to amend, as futile.

Happy Birthday Case Settles Shortly After Plaintiffs Granted Leave To Expand Class Period Back To 1949

Good Morning To You Productions v. Warner/Chappel, No. 13-4460 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 7 & 8, 2015).

In the "Happy Birthday To You" case, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to expand the proposed class period back to 1949.  Shortly thereafter, an announcement was made that a settlement had been reached.

Hip Hop Producer Failed To State A Claim Against Her Former Attorneys In An Earlier Copyright Action

Boone v. Codispoti & Assocs., No. 15-cv-01391 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2015).

The Court held that a hip-hop producer, proceeding pro se, did not state a claim for fraud, conspiracy and denial of due process arising from her former attorney's prior representation in a copyright infringement action.  Plaintiff alleged that her former attorneys falsely led her to believe that a jury trial would occur, and to amend her pleadings, knowing that almost all copyright infringement actions do not survive summary judgment.  The claim failed because the alleged statements were a mere expression of future expectations that did not constitute actionable fraud.  Moreover, the alleged actions were not fraudulent representations or omissions.  The claim was also time-barred.  Lacking a fraud claim, her conspiracy claim also failed.  The due process claim, under 42 USC 1983, failed because there was no statement of a constitutional violation.  The summary judgment decision dismissing her earlier case was affirmed on appeal.  Nor did defendants act under color of state law.  The defendants were private attorneys who represented plaintiff in federal court in a copyright action.  Leave to amend was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Vimeo Decision Modified; Leave To Appeal Granted

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC, 2013 ILRC 3345, No. 09-cv-10101 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 31, 2013).

Upon further review of the record, the Court agreed with defendants that Vimeo is entitled to summary judgment with respect to five videos for which the only evidence of employee interaction was that the user's account had been "whitelisted."  "It is simply unrealistic to infer that a Vimeo employee watched" those videos.  Also upon further review, the Court found that for two videos, the infringing nature of the videos was not objectively "obvious" and therefore Defendants did not have "red flag" knowledge of the videos' infringing content.  However, the Court found that 18 of the videos still should go to a jury.

The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add additional videos, including both pre- and post- 1972 sound recordings.

Lastly, the Court granted Vimeo's motion to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal: (1) Are the DMCA's safe-harbor provisions applicable to sound recordings fixed prior to Feb. 15, 1972, (2) and does a service provider's mere viewing of a user-generated video containing third party copyrighted music automatically give rise to a triable issue of fact as to the service provider's knowledge of infringement under the DMCA?

Label Fails To State Copyright Claim; Leave To Amend Granted

Tufamerica, Inc. v. The Orchard Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01816 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 18, 2011) [Doc. 16].

Plaintiff is the owner of the record label Tuff City Music Group and owns the rights to thousands of musical recordings and compositions. In September 2006, TufAmerica licensed defendant's predecssor the right to market a large number of musical tracks by way of digital downloads (the “License”). The License obligated defendant's predecessor to pay TufAmerica various types of payments in exchange for digital distribution rights to hundreds of songs. In late 2007, defendant assumed its predecessor's obligations under the License. While TufAmerica received various payments from Digital and Orchard, it never received any payment of mechanical royalties.

Defendant argued that the License preempted plaintiff's copyright case. The Court agreed:

TufAmerica fails to state a facially plausible claim under the Copyright Act because it concedes that its copyright claim is governed by the License, not the Copyright Act. While TufAmerica subsequently argues that the License does not govern mechanical royalties, a “claim for relief ‘may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.’” As a result, Orchard’s motion to dismiss is granted.

Because TufAmerica’s claim under the Copyright Act was dismissed, the court lacked pendent jurisdiction over the New York State common law claim of unjust enrichment.

However, because the License did not unambiguously preempt a claim under the Copyright Act's compulsory license provision, leave to amend the Complaint was granted.

Leave To Amend Pleading In Patent Case

Touchtunes Music Corp. v. Rowe Int'l Corp., 07 Civ 11450, 5/18/10 NYLJ "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. decided May 11, 2010).

Defendant moved pursuant to Rule 15 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. for leave to file an amended answer containing an additional counterclaim of patent infringement. Motion granted.

The patent at issue relates generally to source code concerning how advertisements are assembled and executed on a jukebox or other electronic device.

Motion to Amend Granted to Producer

Moman v. Sony BMG Entertainment, No. 604392/04, 2/5/09 N.Y.L.J. Decision of Interest (Sup.Ct., N.Y. Co. decided Jan. 20, 2009).

The court granted Plaintiff record producer leave to amend his complaint to add an additional cause of action for breach of a third-party beneficiary contract between defendant Sony and Willie Nelson in 1983. Producer argued the 1983 contract surfaced during settlement discussions, and stated that he would receive $225,000 advance royalty payment on his services for CBS Records for co-producing a single Nelson album. Sony argued the 1983 contract was merely a Letter of Direction (LOD) and was not an "open mutual account." It also argued the six year statute of limitations period expired on the claim. The court rejected Sony's argument that the breadth of a 1990 judgment audit of the CBS books and records would have also encompassed royalties from the 1983 LOD. The court noted that Producer claimed he was unaware of the 1983 LOD until 2007 when his current attorney and manager received a copy from Sony.