Black Keys' Sue Over Commercial

Dan Auerbach; Patrick Carney dba McMoore McLessT Publishing v. Della Femina/Rothschild/Jeary Partners; Della Femina & Gianettino Inc.; Valley National Bancorp; Valley National Bank, Index No. 1:11 CV 4902 (S.D.N.Y. filed 7/15/2011).

The Black Keys (in the author's opinion, the pride of Akron, Ohio!) bring a copyright infringement action for defendants' unauthorized use of their song "Tighten Up" in a television commercial. Plaintiffs allege defendants incorporated significant portions of the copyrighted recording without first obtaining plaintiffs' consent or a license.

Attorney's Fees Denied In Copyright Case

Canal+ Image UK Ltd. v. Lutvak, 10 Civ. 1536 (RJH), NYLJ 1202498072915, at *1 (SDNY, Decided June 8, 2011).

The Court had previously dismissed the action for copyright infringement and breach of contract. Defendants, a lyricist and a songwriter, moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) for an award of attorney's fees under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §505. The Court denied the motion.

Artist Has Label's Claims Dismissed; Judgment On Counterclaims

Alistair Records, Inc., v. Adams, 603695/09, NYLJ 1202497369670, at *1 (Sup., NY, Decided May 20, 2011).

Defendant recording artist's motion for an order amending the caption to reflect the correct name of plaintiff record label, "Alistair Records, LLC" is granted. Defendant artist's motion for entry of a default judgment on his breach of contract counterclaim against plaintiff label is granted ($6,000). Artist's motion for entry of a default judgment on his counterclaim for rescission is denied and that counterclaim is severed and dismissed. Artist's remaining counterclaims continue.

Artist's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (seeking injunction and $750,000) is granted. Record label failed to submit any evidentiary facts to controvert the claims in artist's motion.

Manager's Suit Against Band Not Stayed By Parallel State Proceeding

Tramposch v. Winter, 10 Civ. 8286 (TPG), NYLJ 1202496374985, at *1 (SDNY, Decided May 25, 2011).

Plaintiff brought an action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, etc. Plaintiff was the manager of the band "Red Jumpsuit Apparatus" until the band terminated the relationship in January 2010. According to plaintiff, prior to his termination, he and the band had a series of disputes regarding payment of commissions and repayment of loans made by plaintiff to the band. Defendants, members of the band, moved to stay the action pending resolution of a parallel proceeding brought by defendants against plaintiff in California. The Court denied the motion.

Plaintiff was not served with the complaint in the California state proceeding until AFTER he had commenced the Federal proceeding in New York (diversity jurisdiction). The Court found that there was no basis to abstain from hearing the federal case.

Bay City Rollers' Royalty Suit Not Time-Barred

Faulkner v. Arista Records LLC, 07 Civ. 2318 (LAP), NYLJ 1202495926616, at *1 (SDNY, Decided May 23, 2011).

Plaintiffs, all former members of 1970s-era musical group the Bay City Rollers, brought this action alleging that they were owed tens of millions of dollars in unpaid royalties from their record company, Defendant Arista Records, LLC ("Arista"). Plaintiffs claim these royalties pursuant to a 1981 agreement; accordingly, Arista argues that even if it owes Plaintiffs accrued royalties from the time period prior to 2001, the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs counter that Arista acknowledged its debt in a writing, thereby satisfying Section 17-101 of New York's General Obligations Law, which restarts the statute of limitations to revive the debt.

Section 17-101 of New York's General Obligations Law ("Section 17-101") codifies and restricts the common-law rule that an acknowledgement of a debt is sufficient to refresh the obligation, thereby restarting the running of the statute of limitations. To restart the running of the statute of limitations under Section 17-101, an acknowledgment or promise must be in writing, be signed by the debtor party, recognize an existing debt and contain nothing inconsistent with an intention on the part of the debtor to pay it.

Plaintiffs and Arista have each moved for partial summary judgment on Arista's affirmative defense that the statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs' claim. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and denied Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment.

LimeWire Settlement

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/051211limewire

"Limewire and the four major labels have now reached an out-of-court settlement for $105 million, according to information confirmed by the RIAA"

Copyright Case Dismissed As Time Barred

Brand v. RMM, Universal Music Group, NYLJ 1202491912221, at *1 (SDNY, Decided April 18, 2011).

Plaintiff sued alleging that defendants infringed the copyright to his rap vocals by adding them to a song by recording artist Tito Nieves. The Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment -- the claim was time-barred.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant infringed his copyright when it "used, sold and manufactured without his permission his rap vocals." Although styled as an infringement claim, the gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that he is the owner of the rap lyrics on Nieves' song.

The Court cited cases that a claim involving a dispute over copyright ownership accrues when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury upon which the claim is premised. A defendant's express assertion of adverse ownership or a plain and express repudiation of plaintiff's ownership such as registering the copyright in defendant's own name, distributing the work with copyright notice identifying defendant as the owner, or exploiting the work for years without paying royalties to plaintiff will trigger the accrual of the statute of limitations. If a plaintiff does not sue within three years from the date his copyright claim accrues, his complaint is time-barred. 17 U.S.C. §507(b).

In this case, the song was first released in 1991. The back of the CD cover listed defendant as the copyright owner. The song was released again in 1997 on another CD, which also listed defendant as the copyright owner on the back cover. Plaintiff never received royalties from either CD. The Court held that given this history, Plaintiff reasonably should have know of the injury upon which his claim was premised by 1991 or at the latest by 1997, thirteen years before he filed the complaint. Because Plaintiff's ownership claim was time-barred, his infringement claim also failed as a matter of law.