Williams v. Bridgeport Music, No. CV13-6004 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2016).
After winning a trial, the Gaye Family was denied its application for attorney's fees under section 505 the Copyright Act. Also, the taxable costs requested by the Gaye Family, as the prevailing party, were reduced. As to attorney's fees, the Court underwent an analysis of the "Fogerty" & "Lieb" factors, and found that the factors did not weigh in favor of the Gaye Family as the prevailing party. "Beyond the success on the merits, little else supports their position. This case presented novel issues. How they would be determined was not, even with hindsight, something that was clear."
April 14, 2016
Federal 2nd Circuit Certifies Pre-72 Question To New York's Highest Court in Flo & Eddie Case
Flo & Eddie v. SiriusXM Radio, 15-1164cv (2d Cir. Apr. 13, 2016).
In the "Turtles" case against Sirius for common law copyright infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings under New York common-law, the Second Circuit certified the question to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals: "This case presents a significant and unresolved issue of New York copyright law: Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? Because this question is important, its answer is unclear, and its resolution controls the present appeal, we reserve decision and certify this question to the New York Court of Appeals."
The lower court had denied Sirius' motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The Circuit stated "the issue before us is whether New York common law affords copyright holders the right to control the performance of sound recordings as part of their copyright ownership." However, New York's highest court has not ruled on the issue in any prior case, and without such guidance, the Circuit was "in doubt" whether New York provides such rights under common law. Thus, the Court found that certification to the New York Court of Appeals was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court reserved decision and certified the following question for decision by the New York Court of Appeals:
"Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right?"
In the "Turtles" case against Sirius for common law copyright infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings under New York common-law, the Second Circuit certified the question to New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals: "This case presents a significant and unresolved issue of New York copyright law: Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right? Because this question is important, its answer is unclear, and its resolution controls the present appeal, we reserve decision and certify this question to the New York Court of Appeals."
The lower court had denied Sirius' motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit reviewed the matter de novo. The Circuit stated "the issue before us is whether New York common law affords copyright holders the right to control the performance of sound recordings as part of their copyright ownership." However, New York's highest court has not ruled on the issue in any prior case, and without such guidance, the Circuit was "in doubt" whether New York provides such rights under common law. Thus, the Court found that certification to the New York Court of Appeals was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court reserved decision and certified the following question for decision by the New York Court of Appeals:
"Is there a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of that right?"
March 21, 2016
Pre-72 Class Actions Stayed In Light Of Turtles' Appeals
Sheridan v. iHeartMedia, 15-cv-7574; Sheridan v. Sirius XM, 15-cv-7576 (D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2016).
In a putative class action, the owners of sound recordings made before 1972 brought copyright infringement and unjust enrichment claims under New Jersey law against defendants for broadcasting their recordings without receiving authorization or compensation. Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of three similar actions currently before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 9th and 11th Circuits. The court granted the stay. "Most importantly, the Court finds that staying this case until the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled on related cases will more likely than not simplify the issues presented here and promote judicial economy."
In a putative class action, the owners of sound recordings made before 1972 brought copyright infringement and unjust enrichment claims under New Jersey law against defendants for broadcasting their recordings without receiving authorization or compensation. Defendants moved to stay the case pending the resolution of three similar actions currently before the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 9th and 11th Circuits. The court granted the stay. "Most importantly, the Court finds that staying this case until the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled on related cases will more likely than not simplify the issues presented here and promote judicial economy."
March 17, 2016
Rapper Can't Use "Rolls Royce" Name Or Images
Rolls-Royce Motor Cards v. Davis, No. 15-0417 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2016).
On an unopposed motion for default judgment, the Court entered a permanant injunction restraining the defendant rapper from using the name "Rolls Royce Rizzy" and using Rolls Royce imagery. Plaintiff brought claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, and was awarded default judgment on those claims. However, Plaintiff was not awarded default judgment on its claim for unfair competition under New Jersey common law.
On an unopposed motion for default judgment, the Court entered a permanant injunction restraining the defendant rapper from using the name "Rolls Royce Rizzy" and using Rolls Royce imagery. Plaintiff brought claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, and trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, and was awarded default judgment on those claims. However, Plaintiff was not awarded default judgment on its claim for unfair competition under New Jersey common law.
March 10, 2016
Beastie Boys & UMG Awarded Attorney's Fees In TufAmerica Copyright Action
TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond et al., No. 12-cv-3529 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 9, 2016).
The Court awarded the Beastie Boys and their label, UMG, attorney's fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act, after they successfully defeated plaintiff's infringement claims at summary judgment. The question at summary judgment was whether Plaintiff had standing (they did not), and the Court found that awarding fees furthered the objectives of the Copyright Act by deterring the filing and pursuit of lawsuits in which chain of title has not been properly investigated by the plaintiff. The court reduced the Beastie Boys' lawyer's fees by 10% for some vague billing entries and duplicative work; 15% was reduced from the label's lawyer's fees based on vague and sparse entries. Beastie Boys and UMG were also awarded costs. The totals were:
The Court awarded the Beastie Boys and their label, UMG, attorney's fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act, after they successfully defeated plaintiff's infringement claims at summary judgment. The question at summary judgment was whether Plaintiff had standing (they did not), and the Court found that awarding fees furthered the objectives of the Copyright Act by deterring the filing and pursuit of lawsuits in which chain of title has not been properly investigated by the plaintiff. The court reduced the Beastie Boys' lawyer's fees by 10% for some vague billing entries and duplicative work; 15% was reduced from the label's lawyer's fees based on vague and sparse entries. Beastie Boys and UMG were also awarded costs. The totals were:
- Beastie Boys: approx. $591k fees, approx. $11k costs
- UMG: appox. $234k fees, approx $8k costs
New Service Grandfathered For Pre-1998 Royalty Rates
SoundExchange v. Muzak, No. 15-cv-476 (D.D.C. filed Mar. 8, 2016).
The Court held that Muzak, a grandfathered "preexisting subscription service" under 17 USC 114, enjoyed a favorable royalty rate -- not subject to the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard -- for its SonicTap service even though that service was not offered at the relevant statutory date. Interpreting the statute, the Court found that Congress intended to permit preeexisting subscription services to expand their offerings. This ruling was also consistend with the legislative history and findings by the Register of Copyrights.
The Court held that Muzak, a grandfathered "preexisting subscription service" under 17 USC 114, enjoyed a favorable royalty rate -- not subject to the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard -- for its SonicTap service even though that service was not offered at the relevant statutory date. Interpreting the statute, the Court found that Congress intended to permit preeexisting subscription services to expand their offerings. This ruling was also consistend with the legislative history and findings by the Register of Copyrights.
March 8, 2016
Elvis Denied US Discovery of Sony Music For Litigation in Germany Adverse To Arista Music
In re Elvis Presley Enters. LLC, No. 15-mc-386 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2016).
Elvis Presley Enterprises LLC is party to a litigation in Germany against Arista Music, and sought to serve a subpoena in the USA on Arista's affialiate, Sony Music, to obtain documents that it claims are relevant to the proceedings in Germany. The Court exercised its discretion and denied the application pursuant to 28 USC 1782. Weighing in favor of Sony's opposition to the discovery were: Arista is a wholly-owend subsidiary and thus has access to the documents and information held by Sony, the procedural posture of the case in Germany (it was on appeal), the timing of the section 1782 application, and the discovery requests were burdensome.
Elvis Presley Enterprises LLC is party to a litigation in Germany against Arista Music, and sought to serve a subpoena in the USA on Arista's affialiate, Sony Music, to obtain documents that it claims are relevant to the proceedings in Germany. The Court exercised its discretion and denied the application pursuant to 28 USC 1782. Weighing in favor of Sony's opposition to the discovery were: Arista is a wholly-owend subsidiary and thus has access to the documents and information held by Sony, the procedural posture of the case in Germany (it was on appeal), the timing of the section 1782 application, and the discovery requests were burdensome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
