Film Festival Temporarily Enjoined From Screening Aretha Franklin Documentary

Franklin v. Nat'l Film Preserve, No. 15-cv-1921 (D. Colo. filed 9/4/2015) [Doc. 14].

The Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Telluride Film Festival from screening a documentary film about Aretha Franklin, which consisted primarily of previously unreleased footage from a 1972 concert.  The deed granting the film producer rights in the footage required Ms. Franklin's consent to use the footage, which defendant did not obtain.

The Court found that Ms. Franklin has a strong interest in her rights of publicity, and to the use of her name/likeness.  She also had a federal statutory right to prevent bootlegging.  17 USC 1101(1).  The Court found that the film, which essentially recreated the entire concert experience, was not a fair use, and that a TRO would preserve the status quo.

Beatles Rights Holders Did Not Interfere With Film's Release By Asserting Copyright Claims

Ace Arts, LLC v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing, No. 13-cv-7307-AJN (S.D.N.Y. filed Sep. 26, 2014).

This action arises from the use of eight Beatles songs in a documentary film, "The Lost Concert."  Plaintiff alleges that defendants (publisher and record label) interfered with the US distribution of the film by asserting copyright claims regarding those songs.  According to the allegations in the complaint and certain judicially noticeable documents (e.g., copyright registrations), the Beatles first performance in the US took place in 1964, twelve songs were played, and defendant had copyright registrations for 8 of the songs.  The concert was preserved on a certain video tape.  In 2009, a production company acquired the video tape and produced The Lost Concert film, which consists of the concert footage and other sequences and interviews.  Plaintiff was granted distribution rights by the producers.  In 2009, the producers approached Sony ATV for a synch license.  Plaintiff's allege that at Apple's request, Sony refused to grant the producers a synch license, and instead Sony granted Apple an exclusive synch license for Apple's distribution of certain Beatles material on iTunes.  Nonetheless, the producers and distributor believed that there was no legal obstacle to distributing the film and arranged for a premier and distribution in the USA and UK.  Sony ATV sought an injunction against the producers in the UK alleging that the film would infringe Sony's copyrights.  The US premier was then cancelled after Sony ATV made a claim to the distributor's partner.  Eventually, the plaintiff commenced the action seeking a declaration, inter alia, that neither Sony ATV nor Apple has rights that would be infringed by exploitation of the film in the USA, and that Sony ATV "misused its copyrights."

First the Court denied the defendants' request to stay the US federal action pending resolution of the UK action.  The Court found no exceptional circumstances to justify abstention.

Second, the Court found that the controversy was ripe for a declaratory judgment claim.

Third, the Court analyzed plaintiff's anti-trust claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Court found that, as alleged, the agreements between Sony ATV and Apple -- in particular their efforts to enforce Apple's exclusive synch license by preventing the US distribution of the film -- did not constitute horizontal restraints on trade that are a per se violation of the Sherman Act.  Nor was there an anti-trust violation under the "rule of reason" because the allegations concerned a routine dispute between business competitors that is not cognizable under the Sherman Act.

Fourth, the Court considered the tortious interference with contract and economic relations claims, which was based on the allegation that Sony ATV and Applied conspired to interfere with the distribution contract by stating that the film infringed on Sony ATV's copyrights.  The Court found that plaintiff failed to adequately plead breach of the contract because it was possible that the distribution contract was lawfully terminated.  The complaint did not identify which section of the contract was breached, "a particularly damaging omission in light of the provisions in the contract suggesting that [the distribution partner] had the right to suspend working on, distributing or exhibiting all or any portion of the film for which the partner received a demand or claim.  Further, plaintiff failed to allege the use of "wrongful means."  Sony ATV steadfastly  maintained that it owns the rights to the song, and it did not assert copyright claims in bad faith.  The bare legal conclusions of malice were insufficient.

Fifth, the Court considered plaintiff's unfair competition claim under New York common law.  The Court rejected an extension of the common law claim (which has two theories: for palming off and misappropriation) to include "commercial immorality."

Finally, the Court considered Plaintiff's claim under NY GBL sec. 349.  The Court found that defendants' alleged conduct was not consumer-oriented.  It was not a standard-issue consumer oriented transaction that section 349 was designed to protect.

Monster's 3rd Party Claims Against DJ Dismissed In Beastie Boys Case

Beastie Boys v. Monster, No. 12-cv-6065 (S.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 4, 2013) [Doc. 51].

The Beastie Boys sued Monster Energy drinks under Lanham Act for the allegedly unauthorized publication of a promotional video that used as its soundtrack a remix including songs originally composed and recorded by the Beastie Boys.  Monster brought third-party claims for breach of contract and fraud against a DJ, who originally made the remix (with the Beastie Boys' permission) and furnished it to Monster.  After discovery, the Court granted the DJ summary judgment dismissing the third-party claims.

First, the Court found that there was no binding agreement between the DJ and Monster.  "...[A] reasonable
juror could not find an offer, sufficiently clear acceptance, or consideration, e.g., a legal duty which Monster incurred to Z-Trip, let alone all three."  Second, the Court found that there was no fraud.

"In sum, if Monster is liable to the Beastie Boys, it may not shift legal responsibility for such lapses to Z-Trip.  Any such liability on Monster’s part would arise instead because Monster left these matters in the hands of an employee insensitive to the legal issues presented by making derivative use of, and commercially exploiting, the Beastie Boys’ original work. In musical terms, Z-Trip can now, therefore, rest at least “as cool as a cucumber in a bowl of hot sauce,” because Monster’s Third-Party Complaint against him has “got the rhyme and reason but no cause.” Beastie Boys, So Watcha Want (Capitol Records 1992). It is therefore dismissed, with prejudice."

The Court, in a separate order, further urged the parties to settle the case rather than to go to trial.  [Doc. 53].

Happy Birthday Class Action

Good Morning To You Productions Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-4040 (S.D.N.Y. filed June 13, 2013).

Plaintiff brings a class action on behalf of licensees of the song "Happy Birthday to You" (from June 13, 2009-present), seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant does not have the right to collect licensing fees for use of the song, "Happy Birthday To You."  Plaintiff claims that the song is in the public domain and dedicated to public use.

Black Keys Sue For Unauthorized Use Of "Howlin'" In Casino Ads

Carney et al. v. Chesky Records, Inc., No. 13-cv-0405 (S.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 17, 2013) (Batts, J.)

The Black Keys sued in New York federal court  "to put an immediate stop to, and to obtain redress for, Defendant's blatant and purposeful infringement of the copyright in Plaintiffs' musical composition entitled 'Howlin' For You'."  (Complaint, para. 1).  Defendants allegedly created and publicized commercial advertisements for casinos which prominently feature significant portions of the composition without authorization.  Plaintiffs' claims are for copyright infringement, false designation of origin (under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act), and common law unfair competition.

Black Keys Sue Over Song In Commercials

Daniel Auerbach et al. v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-05386 (C.D. Cal. filed 06/21/12) [Doc.1]

The Black Keys sued the Home Depot, and in a related action Pizza Hut, for the alleged unauthorized use of the single "Lonely Boy" (released 2011) in commercials.  The sole cause of action is for copyright infringement.

Helm Claim Has No "Weight"

Helm v BBDO Worldwide, Inc.

2012 NY Slip Op 01573

Decided on March 1, 2012

Appellate Division, First Department (New York)

Plaintiff's claim under New York Civil Rights Law § 51, which prohibits the use of a person's "name, portrait, picture or voice" for advertising or trade purposes without written consent, was properly dismissed. By contract, plaintiff broadly granted his record company the "exclusive and perpetual right to use and control" plaintiff's sound recordings and the "performances embodied therein," which included the recording that was licenced to and used by defendant in a third-party television commercial. Although plaintiff claims that he never gave written consent for the use of his voice, as it is embodied in that recording, for the instant advertising purpose, he unambiguously authorized defendant to license the recording in the contract (see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]).

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.

Copyright Case Over Lil' Wayne Movie Dismissed

Crump v. QD3 Entertainment, Inc., 2011 WL 446296 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011) (Jones, J.).

The lawsuit stems from the use of three copyrighted musical compositions in a documentary film entitled The Carter. The film focused on the life of Dwayne Carter, a hip hop and urban musical artist who is known by his stage name “Lil' Wayne.”

Defendants moved for summary judgment. As a procedural matter, the court focused on Plaintiff's failure: to oppose the filing of a motion for summary judgment pre-discovery, to file a Rule 56(f) affidavit, and to describe any potentially discoverable facts that make a motion for summary judgment premature.

In its legal analysis, the Court found that "the only issue is whether the agreement with another Young Money entity (Young Money Entertainment, Inc.) was sufficient to grant a nonexclusive license in the Defendants." The Court determined that the language of the subject agreement and uncontested facts clearly established that Defendants received a non-exclusive license to use any performance by Dwayne Carter of his copyrighted musical compositions, including “Pussy Monster,” “La La,” and “Lollipop.” In sum, Defendants met their burden of establishing that they received a grant of a nonexclusive license from Dwayne Carter and Young Money Publishing to use the three musical compositions at issue here in The Carter. The undisputed facts presented by both parties demonstrated that the clear intent of the parties was to grant the nonexclusive license. Summary judgment granted to Defendants.

Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Granted in Nina Simone Action

Stroud Productions & Enterprises, Inc. v. Castle Rock Entertainment Inc., No. 07 Civ. 8638, 8/17/2009 NYLJ "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2009) -

Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue to California granted. 28 USC 1404(a). The outcome of a California action will be dispositive to the sole issue in this case, to wit: whether the license pursuant to which Defendants used a Nina Simone song in a film was valid.

Notably, the moving party was plaintiff - in such instance, the SDNY requires plaintiff to demonstrate, in the time since the action was filed, there has been a change of circumstances that warrants transfer of venue.

Paul Simon Settles Clock Suit

The New York Post reported that Paul Simon has settled his copyright infringement suit against defendants' unauthorized use of plaintiff's composition, "Bridge Over Troubled Water", in connection with defendants' sale of clocks throughout the United States.

Prior post.

Smackdown

Alleged unauthorized use of composition and sound recording as "theme" for professional wrestler (WWE), John Cena.

The Royalty Network Inc. v. Sony BMG, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. et al, No. 08 cv 8828 (S.D.N.Y. complaint filed 10/15/08)

Ono/EMI Withdraw All Claims Against Premise Media

Article:

"Yoko Ono and EMI Records have withdrawn all claims filed against Premise Media. The dismissal follows failed attempts by Yoko Ono in federal court and EMI Records in state court to enjoin Premise Media’s documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” because it uses a 15-second clip of a John Lennon song."

Prior Posts.

A Clockwork Orange

Paul Simon v. Rhythm USA Inc.; Rhythm Watch Co. Ltd., No. CV-6440 (S.D.N.Y. filed 7/18/08):

Alleged copyright infringement arising from defendants' unauthorized use of plaintiff's composition, "Bridge Over Troubled Water", in connection with defendants' sale of clocks throughout the United States.

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Lennon Case

Lenon v Premise Media - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIAL - Upload a doc

Read this doc on Scribd: Lenon v Premise Media - PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIAL

Commentary from the Wall Street Journal

Patry agrees with court's analysis.

Judge Stein Promises Quick Ruling in 'Imagine' Case

From the tipster wire:

"A judge has promised a fast decision in a lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono to get the song "Imagine'' taken out of a movie challenging the concept of Darwinian evolution after a lawyer for the film's distributors warned the litigation could wreck the movie's political message."

[Article.]

Would an injunction "muzzle" the film producer's free speech? They argue that the film is asking if John Lennon was right, and concludes he was wrong. "Why would you ask somebody for permission to criticize their work?'' their attorney asked. "It's not likely it's going to be granted.''

Lennon's attorney responded: "fair use is not about destroying the other person's market. It's about carving very, very limited exceptions to a copyright proprietor's monopoly.''

So, readers - is it FAIR USE?

Notably, Judge Stein only required plaintiffs post a $20,000 bond to cover any losses suffered by the film's producers as a result of an injunction. What standard to judges apply to determine potential damages resulting from a wrongful preliminary injunction in setting the bond?

'Fair Use Project" to Represent Expelled in 'Imagine' Suit

From the tipster wire:

Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project to Represent Filmmakers in Lawsuit Brought by Yoko OnoPublication

STANFORD, Calif., May 1 , 2008—The Fair Use Project of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society today announced that it is signing on to defend Premise Media’s right to use a clip of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in its documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” for the purposes of commentary and criticism. The film, released in the United States on April 18, 2008, is about alleged discrimination against people who support alternative theories of evolution such as intelligent design. The song is played for roughly 15 seconds to illustrate and criticize the ideas suggested in it—that the world might be a better place without religion. Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono Lennon and sons Sean and Julian, along with EMI Blackwood Music, filed suit on April 22, 2008 claiming that Premise Media’s unauthorized use of “Imagine” violates copyright and trademark law. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that Premise Media, C&S Production LP, Premise Media Distribution LP, and Rocky Mountain Pictures misappropriated the composition in violation of the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, and New York state law. On the same date, EMI Records Ltd. and Capitol Records LLC filed suit against the same defendants in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging violation of their rights in the sound recording under New York state law.

Premise Media contends it has the right to use the song under the fair use doctrine, which among other things permits the use of copyrighted material for the purpose of comment, criticism, and discussion. “The right to quote from copyrighted works in order to criticize them and discuss the views they may represent lies at the heart of the fair use doctrine,” said Anthony Falzone, executive director of the Fair Use Project. “These rights are under attack here, and we plan to defend them.” Falzone will serve as counsel on the case along with Stanford Law colleagues Julie A. Ahrens and Brandy Karl. The Stanford team will be joined by Roy Hardin and April Terry, partners at the Dallas office of Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP. The producers of “Expelled” spent two years interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers, and public leaders, including University of Minnesota biology professor P.Z. Myers, who does not support alternative theories of evolution. The clip of “Imagine,” which is audible for approximately 15 seconds, is used in a segment of the documentary in which the film’s narrator and author Ben Stein comments on statements made by Myers and others about the place of religion. In the documentary Stein says: “Dr. Myers would like you to think that he’s being original but he’s merely lifting a page out of John Lennon’s songbook.” This is followed by an audio clip of Lennon’s song “Imagine,” specifically, the lyrics “Nothing to kill or die for, And no religion too.” “We included the ‘Imagine’ clip not only to illuminate Ben Stein’s commentary but to criticize the ideas expressed in the song,” says Logan Craft, chairman and executive producer of Premise Media. “Yoko Ono and the other plaintiffs are trying to redefine the Constitution and the free speech protection it affords,” Craft continued. “Our movie is about freedom—the freedom to discuss alternative views of how life began on our planet, the freedom to ask reasonable questions about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory, and the freedom to challenge an entrenched establishment. Now we find that we also have to fight for our free speech rights.”

The plaintiffs in both cases have filed motions asking the court to issue a nationwide injunction against showing the film in its present form. These motions are likely to be heard in the next few weeks.

Lennon - Complaint

Below is the complaint in Lennon et al. v. Premise Media Corp., L.P. et al., No. 08-cv-3813-SHS (S.D.N.Y. filed April 22, 2008). A couple highlights:

Paragraph 20 - noting the influence of Internet bloggers

Paragraph 23 - alleging that the defendants obtained synch licenses to use other songs in the film. Does this implicate bad-faith or willfulness? If Defendants' affirmative defense is Fair Use, there is split authority on whether bad-faith precludes a fair use defense. Judge Leval (and others) argue that a defendant's bad faith has no place in fair use analysis.

Paragraph 25 - end credits list Imagine, but do not state that permission was granted. Again, how does this implicate bad-faith or willfulness? Fair use?

Paragraph 36 - seeks permanent injunction and damages on copyright claim

THIRD CLAIM - is based on The Lanham Act sec. 43(a), infringement of unregistered mark. Does Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) foreclose this claim? Dastar holds that the section 43(a) does not apply to claims arising out of a failure to attribute or credit the origin of creative work; rather, such claims are cognizable under the Copyright Act. Are Plaintiffs making such a claim? See Contractual Obligation Productions LLC v. AMC Networks Inc., No. 04-cv-2867, 4/7/08 N.Y.L.J. "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. March 25, 2008). It appears that rather than alleging that Defendants are failing to credit the origin of Imagine, Plaintiffs' claim is a sponsorship claim.

Exhibits A & B - Noticeably absent is an SR registration. Imagine is a Pre-72 work; thus, Plaintiffs include publishers of the song, but not a record label. However, state common law copyright may protect Pre-72 recordings - why do Plaintiffs omit a common law claim from their complaint?

Read this doc on Scribd: Lennon v Premise Media Corp COMPLAINT

Fair Use? - 'Imagine' Suit Over Documentary

John Lennon's heirs - Sean, Julian, and Yoko Ono - and his publisher (EMI Blackwood) brought suit in the S.D.N.Y. against the filmmakers behind "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" for using John Lennon's "Imagine" in the film without authorization. Plaintiffs seek an injunction and damages.

In response to the suit, defendants cited fair use. "We are disappointed therefore that Yoko Ono and others have decided to challenge our free speech right to comment on the song 'Imagine' in our documentary film," they said in a statement.

Readers: any thoughts on fair use?

[Details on case to follow when available...]

A&E Doesn't Like the Way You Count

New York Supreme Court, New York County -- Complaint filed by A&E Television for breach of an administration agreement with Signature Sound, Inc., and subsequent breach of a termination agreement by defendants, who allegedly failed failed to forward the plaintiff quarterly statements of account with pay-outs itemized as is the custom of the television music industry for the musical works for which defendant was receiving royalties.

According to Defendant's website, they are "the most active music clearance and licensing company on the East Coast. We research music rights and secure all licenses and permissions for the use of copyrighted works and recordings on television, motion pictures, commercials, corporate productions and the Internet"

[A & E Television Networks v. Signature Sound Inc. aka North Hollow Music; Elliot Schrager; filed 3/10/2008; No. 08-600711]