Zappa v Rykodisc Decision
/
Gail Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc., 08 Civ. 396 (WHP), NYLJ 1202512134305, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. decided August 17, 2011)
Zappa/Ryko Dispute Update
/
A reader emailed us asking for an update on earlier postings (January 2008) about a dispute between the Estate of Frank Zappa and the Rykodisc label.
The docket sheet indicates that after some initial scheduling issues, defendant Rykodisc filed a motion to dismiss and for a more definitive statement in June 2008 (Docket no. 17). On Sept. 3, 2008, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Lanham Act claims (i.e., trademark claims), but denied the motion for a more definitive statement (Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(e)). (Docket no. 25). Unfortunately, the order refers to an August hearing for its reasoning, the transcript of which is not available.
Thereafter, defendant answered the amended complaint, and the parties are now litigating issues concerning leave to serve interrogatories.
[Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc.; case no. 08-cv-00396-WHP (S.D.N.Y. filed 1/15/08)]
Zappa Update
/
As previously reported by OTCS, the sole trustee of Frank Zappa's family trust (and Zappa's wife) filed suit in SDNY against Rykodisc for copyright and trademark infringement. According to the complaint:
Upon Zappa's death in 1993, the Trust acquired all rights and interest in Zappa's sound recordings. The Trust and Rykodisc entered into an agreement in 1994 granting the label certain un-released recordings. After a certain period, Rykodisc had an option to exploit those recordings retained by the Trust but submitted to the label for exploitation. (If Rykodisc did not exercise its option, the Trust could seek 3rd party exploitation, but Rykodisc would have a matching right.) Rykodisc was also granted the rights to exploit album artwork and images for the sound recordings it acquired, but it was restricted from altering the artwork.
However, according to Plaintiff, Rykodisc breached the agreement by asserting it had acquired more rights than it did, licensing various recordings for digital and vinyl distribution -- thereby diminishing the "integrity" (sound quality) of the recordings--, releasing masters it did not have the rights to, issuing misleading advertisements with regards to various compilations (e.g., "Best of..."), altering the artwork, and failing to pay mechanical royalties. Thus, in addition to breach of contract, Plaintiff brought numerous copyright and trademark claims, and a claim for accounting.
On each of its willful copyright infringement claims, the Trust seeks maximum statutory damages ($150,000).
[Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc.; case number 08-cv-00396-WHP; filed 1/15/08]
Upon Zappa's death in 1993, the Trust acquired all rights and interest in Zappa's sound recordings. The Trust and Rykodisc entered into an agreement in 1994 granting the label certain un-released recordings. After a certain period, Rykodisc had an option to exploit those recordings retained by the Trust but submitted to the label for exploitation. (If Rykodisc did not exercise its option, the Trust could seek 3rd party exploitation, but Rykodisc would have a matching right.) Rykodisc was also granted the rights to exploit album artwork and images for the sound recordings it acquired, but it was restricted from altering the artwork.
However, according to Plaintiff, Rykodisc breached the agreement by asserting it had acquired more rights than it did, licensing various recordings for digital and vinyl distribution -- thereby diminishing the "integrity" (sound quality) of the recordings--, releasing masters it did not have the rights to, issuing misleading advertisements with regards to various compilations (e.g., "Best of..."), altering the artwork, and failing to pay mechanical royalties. Thus, in addition to breach of contract, Plaintiff brought numerous copyright and trademark claims, and a claim for accounting.
On each of its willful copyright infringement claims, the Trust seeks maximum statutory damages ($150,000).
[Zappa v. Rykodisc, Inc.; case number 08-cv-00396-WHP; filed 1/15/08]
Zappa Attacka
/
The estate of Frank Zappa has filed suit in the Southern District of New York against the Rykodisc label for alleged copyright and trademark infringement arising out of the labels alleged unlawful use of Zappa recordings.
OTCS notes that Rykodisc was (and may still be) Zappa's label! What's going on here? Did Rykodisc not watch where the huskies go?
[Adelaide Zappa; The Zappa Family Trust UTD November 15, 1990 v. Rykodisc Inc. filed; 1/15/2008; case number 1:08-cv-00396-AJP ]
OTCS notes that Rykodisc was (and may still be) Zappa's label! What's going on here? Did Rykodisc not watch where the huskies go?
[Adelaide Zappa; The Zappa Family Trust UTD November 15, 1990 v. Rykodisc Inc. filed; 1/15/2008; case number 1:08-cv-00396-AJP ]
