agreed to submit and we've examined the briefs if you wish to have oral argument will allow you to do so when your case is called but if you if you wish to submit we're more than happy had to do that now not not expressing any kind of view with regard to the merits of the case but i know you've come a long way and i'm told it is still snowing in albany and so rather than delay your journey back i'm giving you this opportunity to express your desires through the court is the briefs well above on both sides are well done the issues are fairly well presented and mr silvers always we're grateful for your willingness to come before the court and be of service to us in the oral argument so with that will be in the matter after good afternoon may it please the court my name is lead to rosario and i'm here with my client venus dots and in this matter in this cases involving a claim for declaratory leak relief regarding ownership broadcast music and get as your honors may be aware has agreed to resolve this matter with my client so they are not here today basically iran is this case involves a request for declaratory relief on ownership of copyright of the renewal term of copyright under section three of four of the copyright act on behalf of my client it should be distinguished from the merchant versus levy case because this is not a case where the  or put it of owner of copyright was not credited on the copyrights on the label copy or other places on bridge astray sions with the performing rights societies or others indeed my client was credited the problem however was that the defendants credited my client's name and properly in a number of cases often as very nice dops and or otherwise as being as douvres and instead as being as dots and and created two distinct accounts for her compositions that broadcast music inc independent from an account that she created in one nine hundred seventy four when the songs were originally written as a result of that diverted from her unbeknown to her because she was not aware of the other two the existence of the other two accounts at some point in time and i believe two thousand and nine a she did become aware that there was some issues regarding her claims my client that her name was and properly listed and b m i properly credited her change the spelling of her name and a limited the two erroneous accounts that were there existing for her some time subsequent to that she became aware that the g r r l music can be music and others and it into an agreement with universal music publishing and asserting that the copyrights that were hers were belong to them and that universal was collecting with regard to that in a dispute are regarding their right to collect her royalties for the very first time in march of two thousand and fifteen mr singh q on behalf of these defendants made roughly two thousand and fifteen your behind did not receive any royalties from the couple she received royalties your honor for her from b m i she did receive payments from b m i in fact she received a check for them but not being a music publisher she wasn't necessarily aware of all of the different places that were able to use were supposed to come from but she did receive checks and she thought that the matter had actually been resolved and wh commences because it was at that point was she found out and i guess sometime in late two thousand and twelve or two thousand and thirteen that the universal music publishing was now claiming rights and collecting royalties and at that point when a conversation entered into to try to resolve that dispute the jr ellingham be music representative for the first time stated that the works were works made for hire so that's what brought on the lawsuit at that time your honor there was a there was a kind of a back and forth but the lawsuit was instituted and my client specifically sought relief declaratory relief that she was the owner of both her writer share the music publishing share and the administration rights with regard to the copyrights which there is a dispute in this case really as to whether or not if there were some rights that pursuant to the statute of limitations somehow unearthed to the benefit of the robinson defendant says i'll call them there's a great question as to what those rights were was it the publishing rights was it the administration rights was it was there a work made for hire so wasn't until that point in time that those issues became clear and ripe and that there was a reason for declaratory relief regarding ownership of the  fact that there were improper registrations whether they are fraudulent or just negligent with regard to who the who who she who that person was that she became aware of that at least in two thousand and nine and two thousand and ten right when the co should pay you well she because that the not paying is not part of your claim the claim your claim is that she was an author hers are writer and that she was not listed appropriately and therefore she was entitled to  royalties and she did receive a and so when a claim accrues not when someone says i'm not going to pay you otherwise it would the claim would not accrue until there was a conflict about it but the claim accrues when you have all the necessary facts from which you time when b m i made the corrections and when he acknowledged that her name was spelled incorrectly and that the two fraudulent accounts that were set up there were fraudulent accounts that were set up as alleged by my client in the complaint to actually divert money so that she wouldn't be aware that she was entitled to look at her actual the copyright office in two thousand and ten well that's when that's the point in time when these things happen at the copyright office sharon or there may have been an incorrect spelling of her name but clearly her name was indicated on your right office was there some kind of indication that b m i was the only party that might be of which might be misinformed with regard to who had an interest in these songs i'm not so sure that they were the only ones but they were against she well it wasn't until it but it wasn't until she was under the impression that the dispute words were saw of once that the situation was corrected that the b m i did something doesn't fall into something a question she should ask who else owns  the second possible point of accrual is registration the complaint alleges that the copyrights were registered by gambian music in one nine hundred seventy four that's public notice for more than forty years and this court is held on many many occasions that you need predictability and certainty in the copyright area so anyone once you know is claiming a copyright can see that just ration has your last name just that but not as an owner she keeps she's nurturing what does setting aside whether she actually knew but the stand your views the standard is reasonable objective standard when once someone knows and it's out there on notice by the file and you're saying that she should have known had she looked and she would know that she was not listed as a no ok on the third accrual point i believe comes as a result of nonpayment of royalties she alleges in her complaint that she's never received music publishing five well in two thousand and nine and full force in two thousand and eight so we have all these public uses of which he admits knowledge more than three years before the commencement of the action that's another  record point and i think the final accrual point which is that one judge hellerstein said you really don't even have to try to see beyond this as as the court noted in two thousand and ten the plaintiff alleges she conducted her own investigation  i records and copyright office records and found out that she was clearly not an owner of the copyright so she actually knew in two thousand and ten that she was an unknown or so even if you ignore all the other is nothing to do with ownership or royalties so she knew from one to three years before she brought the lawsuit that she wasn't an owner and can con and can commonly all the state law claims that are dependent on the co on a ship of copyright claims f which was of concern to you your view is different yes i'm almost positive honor andrew bart on behalf of universal music publishing i just want to make a couple of quick notes first off i think that there's been a lot of confusion in the plane of submission about what rights are involved here we're talking about copyrights and the copyright certificates on ambiguously as the plaintiff admitted she found out identify only one copyright owner so the fact that there is a listing of other authors and the spelling as judge asked about the spelling of some of the names on the other authors doesn't affect the critical issue which is who is the copyright owner that has been always in the name of gabbie music and even after the plaintiff discovered that fact she did nothing to bring a claim saying that that claim of ownership had been erroneous from the beginning and that in all of that alone is the spaza give and trying to circumvent all of that the plaintiff deals a lot with issues of b m i payments and b payments as this court is aware is a completely different issue from the issue of copyright as an author there is a certain share of public performance money that is available to you directly through a performing rights society whether or not you're a copyright owner or not and so trying to clarify whether mr hodson gets the right or a share of monies from b m i is a completely separate consideration from whether or not there is a copyright back to the very friedrich decision and a whole slew of decisions and the state this court has a very flexible standard for when a copyright claim accrues but the constructive notice from the public filing is certainly one of those elements which is sufficient and in a case like this where the plaintiff has already admitted that no later than two thousand and ten she saw those copyright filings i think that's the end of the story and i don't think that there needs to be any further discussion of what the spellings were or what happened with b honor i think it's very important here to distinguish this case because we have a case that's involving renewal rights and while there may have been a claim that accrued upon the filing of the copyright registration which i w when you file copyright registration there is a place to list claimant but there is no requirement that all the copyright claimants be listed on that apart portion of the form and indeed when a copyright claimant typically files that world who's making that claim yet but it does the rest of it is all that ultimately the world can rely on yes your honor but it doesn't know it doesn't the copyright registration form does not explicitly state whether or not that relates to all honor but now we are in the renewal term which commenced in two thousand and two when the law is very clear that without a re in agreement transferring a right in that renewal term it doesn't automatically inert to the benefit of whoever claimed ownership on the copyright registration which is why the renewal term issues are very significant in this case and distinguish it in is why gary frederick is the is the case that is really relevant here in that case the law it was held that just because the payment  publisher while t s was not made to the renewal owner during that time period it was not dispositive as to whether or not the statute of limitation should apply or that there was an express repudiation of copyright significantly works did that again repeatedly all the way up until two thousand and ten those facts are inconsistent with the claim by gambian music that they own to her rights particularly as a work made for hire which is surely just one question question implicitly well i said i was asking for a declaration of ownership of copyright so my position your honour's would be that i didn't have to explicitly state regarding the renewal term the copyrights are indeed in fact alternative so there was no decision that could be made other than with respect to the renewal term at this point in time so once the renewal term kicked in and there's no way in the agreement my client's rights vested in two thousand two were guarding her renewal term copyrights the law is clear on so for it so this didn't so the question of where we are today in the facts that happen in two thousand and ten to two thousand and fifteen are become  significant and not what the copyright registration said in one nine hundred seventy four right and the do the derivative works are very important in terms of the factual analysis also claimed plaintiff in this action filed an affidavit under rule fifty sixty requesting discovery in order to get to the bottom of the facts to determine whether or not there was a statute of limitations claim in this case and your honor we would see iran as we would state that that is very significant in terms of being able to actually determine factually if the statute of limitations is apply cobol and we were not allowed the opportunity to do that at the district court level and met a team submitted to hear from us and thank you very much