"Gimme Some Lovin'" Guitar Riff Claim Dismissed

Parker v. Winwood et al., No. 16-cv-684 (M.D. Tenn. 10/17/2017) [Doc. 99].

In a copyright infringement action concerning the guitar riff in the classic rock song Gimme Some Lovin' performed by the Spencer Davis Group, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiff's song was governed by the 1909 Act, under which the general rule was that the publication of a work with proper notice was necessary to obtain statutory copyright protection.  The Court found that "Although Defendants proffer evidence that the work was distributed as a phonorecord prior to 1978, the Copyright Act specifically states that the distribution of phonorecords prior to 1978 is not considered a publication under copyright law. See 17 U.S.C. § 303. Even if the work-at-issue had been published, however, Plaintiffs would not be foreclosed from bringing an infringement suit so long as they made the requisite deposit. The right to sue is not destroyed for failure to make a prompt deposit after publication."  Accordingly, the motion to dismiss was denied.

Nonetheless, there were other basis to dismiss.  One defendant's motion to dismiss was granted for lack of personal jurisdiction -- he was not properly served, and had no minimum contacts with Tennessee.  As to the record label owner, after rejecting the argument that the plaintiff's lacked standing, the Court nonetheless found that the claim should be dismissed because the record label's sister company owned the rights to plaintiff's song!

Turning to the meat of the claim, the Court granted the defendant musicians summary judgment:

The Court finds no dispute of material fact still exists regarding whether Defendants had a “reasonable possibility” of access to Plaintiffs’ song before they created “Gimme Some Lovin’.” Specifically, the Court finds Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show that there is a dispute regarding whether Defendants infringed Plaintiffs’ song between its release date on October 7, 1966 in the United Kingdom (ECF No. 64 ¶ 25) and the release date of “Gimme Some Lovin’” on October 28, 1966 (ECF No. 64 ¶ 25), or at any time before that date. Defendants presented evidence in the form of affidavits that the members of The Spenser Davis Group had not heard Plaintiffs’ song prior to creating "Gimme Some Lovin’.” (Mervyn Winwood Decl., ECF No. 57 ¶ 5; Stephen Winwood Dec., ECF No. 58 ¶ 4; Spenser Davis Decl., ECF No. 59 ¶¶ 3, 5.) The burden then shifted to Plaintiffs to set forth specific facts showing a triable issue of material fact. Plaintiffs only proffered inadmissible evidence to refute these facts Defendants set out in affidavit form. Plaintiffs also proffer no admissible evidence that Defendants infringed Plaintiffs’ song between its release and Defendants’ release, but rather contend it would have been possible. (ECF No. 64-6 at PageIDs 547-48.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to proffer any admissible evidence that establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants heard Plaintiffs’ song prior to creating or releasing “Gimme Some Lovin’,” the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendants Steve Winwood and Kobalt (ECF No. 54)

"We Shall Overcome" Verse Not Subject To Copyright Protection

We Shall Overcome Foundation v. The Richmond Org., No. 16-cv-2725 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 2017) (Cote, J.).

In a putative class action challenging the validity of the defendants' copyright in the folk-song "We Shall Overcome," the Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment finding that the lyrics and melody of the first verse (repeated as the 5th verse) of the song are not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright registration as a derivative work.  After going through the history of various publications and registrations of the song, the Court held that the defendants could not rely upon their copyright registration's presumption of validity because the defendants had submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption: "They have shown that the Defendants’ 1960 and 1963 applications for a copyright in the Song were significantly flawed."

The next questions was whether the changes to the most well-known verse of the Song, Verse 1/5, embody the originality required for protection by the Copyright Act.  A version of the song was in the public domain, so the issue was whether the changes claimed by the defendants were sufficient to qualify as a a protectable derivative work.  The Court held that "the Plaintiffs have shown that the melody and lyrics of Verse 1/5 of the Song are not sufficiently original to qualify as a derivative work entitled to a copyright.  As a matter of law, the alterations from the PSI Version are too trivial. A person listening to Verse 1/5 of the Song would be hearing the same old song reflected in the published PSI Version with only minor, trivial changes of the kind that any skilled musician would feel free to make. ... More specifically, the changes of “will” to “shall” and “down” to “deep” and the melodic differences in the opening measures and the seventh measure, do not create a distinguishable variation. These differences represent “variations of the piece that are standard fare in the music trade by any competent musician.”  In other words, changing "will" to "shall" was not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection.

The Court did, however, deny the motion for summary judgment on the issues of the authorship and divestment (by publication), and fraud on the copyright office; and partially granted a Daubert motion precluding expert testimony.

Illinois & Common Law Copyright Infringement Of Pre-1972 Songs

Sheridan v. iHeartMedia Inc., No. 1:15-cv- 09229 (N.D. Ill. June 5, 2017).

An Illinois judge dismissed a class action against iHeartMedia Inc. to start paying royalties for pre-1972 sound recordings. The judge ruled that any copyright protection afforded by the state’s common law is extinguished when a song is published. The judge said that Illinois’ common law would only protect unpublished songs and once a song was sold or broadcast, “no common-law copyright protection is available for those recordings.”

No Common Law Right of Public Performance In Pre-72 Sound Recordings; Issue Is For Legistlature

Flo & Eddie, Inc. v Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 2016 NYSlipOp 08480 (N.Y. 12/20/2016).

New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, holds that "New York common-law copyright does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings," answering in the negative the Second Circuit's certified question in the Flo & Eddie (Turtles) case against Sirius satellite radio concerning alleged common law copyright infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings.  In a lengthy majority opinion authored by Justice Stein, the Court discussed the historical treatment of sound-recordings at both the federal and state level, analyzed prior decisions in both New York state court and the 2nd Circuit, and ultimately held that "New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of pre-1972 sound recordings" and that the state legislature should decide "whether recognizing a right of public performance in sound recordings is a good idea.

In addition to prior decisions, the Court addressed the practice of interested stake-holders in the music industry.

Indeed, it would be illogical to conclude that the right of public performance would have existed for decades without the courts recognizing such a right as a matter of state common law, and in the absence of any artist or record company attempting to enforce that right in this state until now. The absence of a right of public performance in sound recordings was discussed at the federal level for years and became acutely highlighted in 1971, upon enactment of the Sound Recording Amendment, and again in 1995, upon enactment of the DPRA. At those times, all interested parties were placed on notice of the statute's limited rights for post-1972 sound recordings. Although parties do not lose their rights merely by failing to enforce them, the fact that holders of rights to sound recordings took no action whatsoever to assert common-law protection for at least the past four decades — when the absence of a comprehensive federal right of public performance for sound recordings was clear — supports our conclusion that artists and copyright holders did not believe such a right existed in the common law.

***

Simply stated, New York's common-law copyright has never recognized a right of public performance for pre-1972 sound recordings. Because the consequences of doing so could be extensive and far-reaching, and there are many competing interests at stake, which we are not equipped to address, we decline to create such a right for the first time now. Even the District Court here, while finding the existence of a common-law copyright of public performance in sound recordings, acknowledged that such a right was "unprecedented," would upset settled expectations, and would "have significant economic consequences" (62 F Supp 3d at 352). Under these circumstances, the recognition of such a right should be left to the legislature.

Notably, the Court did not foreclose the plaintiffs' claims under other common-law theories of recovery, like unfair competition.

Finally, we note that sound recording copyright holders may have other causes of action, such as unfair competition, which are not directly tied to copyright law. Indeed, in the present case, plaintiff prevailed in the District Court on its causes of action alleging unfair competition and unauthorized copying of sound recordings. The Second Circuit concluded that defendant had copied plaintiff's recordings, but postponed the questions of fair use and unfair competition until after our resolution of the certified question (821 F3d at 270 n 4, 272). Thus, even in the absence of a common-law right of public performance, plaintiff has other potential avenues of recovery.

The concurring opinion, by Justice Fahey, agreed that the issue should be determined by the legislature but accepted the Second Circuit's invitation to opine on how to define "public performance" and stated

To that end, while I agree with the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority that the common law of this state does not recognize a right of public performance, I would answer the pertinent part of the certified question in the negative with this caveat: "public performance" does not include the act of allowing members of the public to receive the "on-demand" transmission of particular sound recordings specifically selected by those listeners.

Lastly, Justice Rivera dissented: "New York's broad and flexible common-law copyright protections for sound recordings encompass a public performance right that extends to the outer boundaries of current federal law, and ceases upon preemption by Congress."

"We Shall Overcome" Putative Class Action Survives Dismissal

We Shall Overcome Foundation v. Richmond Org., No. 16-2725 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2016).

In a putative class action challenging the Defendants' copyright in the song "We Shall Overcome" on the basis that the lyrics of the first verse is virtually indistinguishable from a song in the public domain, the Court denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the copyright claims, but did dismiss the state-law claims as pre-empted.  The Court found that the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged: (1) that the first verse in the copyrighted work “We Shall Overcome” lacks originality (thereby rebutting the certificate of registration); (2) fraud on the copyright office by deliberately omitting from their application for a copyright in a derivative work all reference to the public domain spiritual or the publications of “I Shall Overcome” and “We Shall Overcome” as antecedents to the Song; and (3) divestment of copyright protection, under the 1909 Act, by publishing the work without including notice of copyright.  However, the state-law claims were dismissed as pre-empted (Those claims are for money had and received, violation of New York General Business Law § 349, breach of contract, and rescission for failure of consideration).

Pre-72 Sound Recordings Question Heading To Florida Supreme Court

Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM, No. 15-13100 (11th Cir. Jun. 29, 2016).

In "The Turtles" appeal from a decision granting Sirius XM summary judgment on the common law copyright infringement claim concerning the public performance of pre-1972 sound recordings, the 11th Circuit deferred its decision pending a determination of the state-law question by Florida's highest court.  The lower court had decided, in favor of Sirius, that Florida common law does not recognize an exclusive right of performance.  On appeal, the 11th Circuit discussed an old (1943) Florida Supreme Court case involving magic tricks and found that the case "indicates that there is at least a significant argument that Florida common law may recognize a common law property right in sound recordings."  However, the 11th Circuit also indicated that the old magic trick case indicated that "publication" of the intellectual property could result in termination of the common law copyright.

Neither the Supreme Court of Florida nor any of the Florida District Courts of Appeal have addressed whether Florida common law would recognize copyright protection for sound recordings, and if so, whether the sales to the public of Flo & Eddie’s sound recordings or the public performance thereof would constitute a publication or dedication to the public which would terminate the copyright protection in whole or in part.

Accordingly, the 11th Cir. certified the following questions to the Florida Supreme Court.

Because Florida law is not clear on these matters, we certify to the Supreme Court of Florida the questions of whether Florida common law copyright extends to pre-1972 sound recordings and, if so, whether it includes an exclusive right of public performance and/or an exclusive right of reproduction. We also certify the question of whether Flo & Eddie has forfeited any common law copyright by publication. Additionally, to the extent that Florida recognizes a common law copyright in sound recordings including a right of exclusive reproduction, we certify the question of whether the backup or buffer copies made by Sirius constitute infringement of Flo & Eddie’s common law copyright.

Lastly, to the extent that Florida does not recognize a common law copyright in sound recordings, or to the extent that such a copyright was terminated by publication, the 11th Circuit certified the question of whether plaintiff nevertheless has a cause of action for common law unfair competition / misappropriation, common law conversion, or statutory civil theft.

Happy Birthday Lyrics Not Owned By Warner

Marya v Warner/Chappell, No. 13-cv-4460 (C.D. Cal. filed 9/22/14) [Doc. 244].

After collecting royalties for years, a Court found that Warner/Chappell lacked copyright ownership in the lyrics to the world's most famous song, "Happy Birthday."  The Court found that because the current publisher's alleged predecessor "never acquired the rights to the Happy Birthday lyrics, Defendants, as Summy Co.’s purported successors-in-interest, do not own a valid copyright in the Happy Birthday lyrics."

The melody of the song is the same as one called "Good Morning," which was published in a songbook and subject to copyright protection under the 1909 Act until 1949.  Both parties agree the melody entered the public domain years ago.  The origins of the "Happy Birthday" lyrics is less clear, as those lyrics did not appear in the same songbook as "Good Morning."  Subsequent publications of the lyrics noted that the tuen for "Happy Birthday" was the same as "Good Morning," but did not credit an author of the lyrics.  The decision then explains the alleged chain of title to the lyrics of "Happy Birthday."

Plaintiffs, bringing a declaratory judgment action, alleged that Defendants do not own the copyright in the lyrics to Happy Birthday, and thus should not have been collecting royalties for licensing the song (and should be compelled to return collected royalties).  The Court was facing cross-motions for summary judgment.

First, the Court found that a 1935 registration was not subject to a presumption of validity.  There was a facial and material defect in the registration, nameley that it did not state that the lyrics were being copyrighted.  Thus, there was no presumption that the lyrics were registered.

Next, the Court examined: who wrote the lyrics to Happy Birthday?  The Court found there was conflicting evidence, and therefore a material question of fact for trial.

Then, the Court examined whether, whoever wrote the lyrics, any copyright in the work was divested by publication before the 1935 registration?  Under the 1909 Act, general publication without notice of copyright divested the author of common law and federal copyright protection.  Again, the Court found a question of material fact whether the alleged authors granted their publisher the right to generally publish the song.

Next, the Court examined whether the alleged author abandoned her interest.  Although the plaintiffs had found an article where the alleged author said that she had resigned herserlf to the fact that the song was the publics, the Court found questions of fact on this issue again a ground to deny summary judgment.

Then, the Court examined the alleged transfers in interest of the song lyrics, and three old agreements between the alleged authors and their publisher.  The court found that Defendants had no evidence a transfer occurred, whether by oral statement, by writing, or by conduct. "Defendants ask us to find that the Hill sisters eventually gave Summy Co. the rights in the lyrics to exploit and protect, but this assertion has no support in the record. The Hill sisters gave Summy Co. the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to th e lyrics. Defendants’ speculation that the pleadings in the Hill-Summy lawsuit somehow show that the Second Agreement involved a transfer of rights in the lyrics is implau sible and unreasonable. Defendants’ suggestion that the Third Agreement effected such a transfer is circular and fares no better. As far as the record is concerned, even if the Hill sisters still held common law rights by the time of the Second or Third Agreement, they di d not give those rights to Summy Co."