well here wilson versus diane in turn publishing it and this matter involves their claim for ownership of the copyrights in the master recording of a song called sure enough that they recorded in one nine hundred seventy three and  the underlying musical caught their rights to the underlying musical composition both claims are related to their were new all rights under section three zero four of the copyright act and not the original term of copyright which would have started to accrue in  seventy three in addition to however your honour's this case involves a claim for an accounting and plaintiffs appellants here stated a claim for an accounting based upon two separate issues one that if they were determined to be the co authors of the copyrights that they were entitled to an accounting of monies that they were owed for the use of those copyrights in two new recordings that were released in two thousand and thirteen that sampled you well that means they took a portion of the original recording and use that in the composition and used it in new recordings that were very successful one by justin timberlake and another by an artist called j cole which sold your honor and the accounting claim however is based upon whether or not they're determined by the court to be owners of those copyrights but also for them to receive compensation a fact a work made for hire i alleged in my complaint however though that the recording was actually made before my clients ever met james brown and james brown they met with james brown they were out of a recording contract at that moment they had just been released from a contract with paramount and they had a meeting with james brown they had already recorded the song sure enough which is the master that's in dispute here when they met james brown's company  brown james brown and his company subsequently took that recording in added his famous horns to the recording and they commercially released that recording and polydore at the time they have a company called people records and polydore which is the predecessor of universal filed a copyright registration my claim is that because the recording was in existence before james brown added anything to him before the copyright registration was filed that in fact a cannot legally be a work made for hire and as such my clients were new all rights under section three zero four kicked in or vested in two thousand one after the spiled the first copyright registration were guarding the composition before the mast a recording was ever released by james brown's company no it was no claim that the original composition was a work made for hire no your honor not at all not at all just a master recording so with regard to that my clients filed a copyright registration and subsequent to that a company acting on behalf of well i guess it's a predecessor company of warner chappell filed a copyright registration after the song which was commercially released which under the copyright law at that time meant it was defective so that copyright registration actually has no force in effect because it was filed after the musical composition was actually commercially released so i alleged in my complaint that the only valid copyright registration was the one that was initially filed by my clients before the news before the song was the original song was actually released so if we jump forward to the renewal term in two thousand and one my clients filed a prior to filing this lawsuit seeking relief they filed a renewal or simply not have sued for infringement with respect to the initial term exactly and none the less the renewal term even if one is signed away the original terms of that one had no claim with respect to infringements of the original terms a whole new ballgame would arise when the when the renewal term vested in the in the original yes your honor it's a new estate free and clear of all claims from the past so  my clients were somehow on notice that someone else was claiming their rights that argument is faulty for two reasons first because it only relates to the original term of copyright actions taken during the original time a copyright could not put someone on notice during the renewal term that someone is claiming their rights it's impossible it's an impossibility secondly there's an issue about a payment of royalties and in the complaint i allege that my clients had not received  ts during the time period and this is where the gary frederick enterprises versus mar repair to his case becomes very relevant because in that case this circuit through the case back to the district court because an allegation that no royalties have been paid is not definitive of ownership there is all kinds of reasons why world he's may not be paid including the fact that there were maybe no royalties earned which i would  the district court room don the proposition from our corn case ownership claim accrues only ones but in the quantum case that was fine for the facts of the corn case which did not involve a new estate in the in the renewal term that was an issue of whether new events in the original term would give rise to a new opportunity to claim ownership exactly and furthermore there's another very important factual distinction that needs to be made in this particular case were guarding the renewal rights and that is that my clients were already did authors their names were on the label copy their names were on the registration there's never been a dispute that they are the authors of either the master recording or the musical composition so they're credited and i draco nian application of the three year statute of limitations are under merchant vs levy levy to renew all rights cases or cases where people's names are actually appearing on the records on the copyright registration is not a political bill and should not be applied those present different facts that need to be understood in another way and certainly not on the twelve b six motion when somebody has a recording that dates back some thirty  activity with an old old recording like that in one wouldn't be hounding around looking suing people making claims when there's nothing to make a claim about exactly your honor and in this particular case my clients came forward very timely manner within the three year statute of limitations wow regarding their ownership interest and because this case also involves that their ownership interest in the justin timberlake song suit and tie and the j cole song chaining day because that's those are the events that triggered them to stand up and say hey wait a minute that's our song we are entitled to be paid for that  those that are presented to to this panel below the argument that was made it was simply that for renewal term claim such as that as you hear it different statue of limitations rule applies and in effect mr starr was argu that where there is uncertainty regarding an heiress claim that for the duration of that uncertainty the statute of limitations is deemed not to run and that it only starts to run once that person's status  clarified here there is no such uncertainty the rule that this court announced in kwan that applied in merchant that apply recently in the simmons case just a couple of years ago is that ownership original term although it did for a variety of reasons but the claim accrued in two thousand and one when the renewal term began and the reason it accrued in two thousand and one is because the same as assert the same assertions of ownership that existed during the original term continued during the renewal term so for example the assertion of rights on the recording there was a renewal copyright filed by universal music group it was claimed as a renewal as a work for hire there were no payments of royalties made from that point forward on the master side there had been registration for performance income had alluded to during the original term but the receipt for those monies for the performance continued during the renewal term the same usage continued during the renewal term there was no difference the fact that there were these uses so from our perspective this boils down to very simple analysis of whether the claims accrued records reasoning is that the is that this plane was became untimely forty years ago  meyer did make that point but he also made the point very clearly that even measuring from two thousand and one there was a claim that accrued in two thousand and one upon the renewal terms commencement with what result i'm sorry on or with what result the result being that the claim accrued in two thousand and one it was time barred as of two thousand and four given out to one time then years later it starts to show up nowadays most that you'd have limitations run from when the time it starts to show  when the initial thing was done and in a way that's what we were asking here into five thousand and one they may have owned this but it didn't make any difference for it was no damage and the injury from it doesn't manifest itself until many years later in this case the act of infringement that is that that is referred to is not something that occurred in two thousand and one it's something that occurred with the non payment of royalties arising from the temper lake and the other use so the so that in this case the suppose that automobile accident didn't happen even though some other things might have happened in consequential ones previous to that the that the plaintiff might not even of know about understood in the copyright ownership contacts and these are claims of on copyright ownership the claim accrues at the time of repudiation of the claimants ownership rights and the question of when that repudiation occurred is the issue here  it would respect of a composition that's correct your honor but on the composition side the publisher continued to receive publishing income did not account to the writers did not pay the writers although this is all in the complaint of the fact case was resolved on the motion to dismiss but the fact that there were no payments made is a lead in the complaint that there were no payments made was there but the question of whether were  any payments due because payments to you had been made isn't there and if it isn't there that isn't it will be six issues it may be even its summary judgment you c compositions their composition and the recording in the in the j cole and justin timberlake works that was a saw argument and whether the rule applied in stone should apply here just because it's a room renewal term case it's a very different argument than what your honor is talking about it's a very good point it's a good point it's something that we we can talk about in a more developed record the copyright owner is under an obligation to a person who is a copyright owner by virtue of having created the work having been created to work with that person is under obligation to be constantly monitoring say when the renewal term arises to be monitoring the copyright registry regularly to see if anybody is claiming a copyright in the plaintiff's work i would argue your honor that at the commencement every new all term that it is it is incumbent upon somebody who is going to claim that they own the renewal term in opposition to somebody else to actually do something about it that's a funny argument given that the law says that it goes to the composers even if they you you've reserved three minutes yes your honor i also want to make sure that the court is aware that the accounting claim is also a significant claim here particularly with respect to the master recording the plaintiff said palance alleged originally in their responses to the motion to dismiss that as artists they were entitled to receive compensation for the use of their of the master in that scenario your honor that would be that would cover a time period of six years but in this case the relevancy is only the three years more and the j cole and justin timberlake songs were released from where you ask for payment of know your honor just for the last three years so i just want to make that point it's very significant on the musical composition side dinah tone and want to chapel have in fact been paying my clients under that same type of a theory and there is no logical reason why the court should have dismissed my client's claim with regard to their entitle me to compensation as artists there's allegedly we i alleged in the complaint that there was no we're in agreement that said that they were transferring there were newell term rights not that there was no way in artist agreement whatsoever and the a pallies acknowledged that they claim that there is such a we're in agreement so that written agreement would entitle my client  worry with respect to this issue was of us not having raised the gary red frederick enterprises the marble case issue the issue is implicit in determining when rights accrue that is the very issue so if there is no if there's no activity and there's nothing that should trigger and in the gary frederick partners case in the nonpayment of royalties is specifically listed as some type of an implied and there has to be some fact finding to determine the legitimacy of that district court can on a motion to dismiss just make that finding with regard to the label copy that the district court used and the  registration the label copy is not conclusive because it happened during the original term of copyright and can't rip were puti it rights during the renewal term and likewise with the b m i registration and if we are given the opportunity to have a fact a proper discovery in this case it will become clear that there were no earnings for that song during that time period from you know some time you know probably in the one nine hundred eighty s all the way up until the well sure your honor with regard to that issue there's plenty of case law out there that states that the filing of the union were no will registration does not by a by a party does not imply that that party is actually the owner of the renewal term that could be the end there are cases where in fact the person who filed the renewal term it was determined that they were not the owner in that in my client's favor at the motion to dismiss stage and with regard to that issue including the filing of that registration if in fact it was not a work for hire then if there were there filing of that renewal registration is not validly establishing some type of ownership for them your adversary's argument were correct let's say a painter or composer and i i write a song that say i wrote the song because  and let's say that song just well i mean maybe it has a tiny little bit of play or none at all and two thousand and one comes along so my renewal term comes into into effect according to your adversar argument i would need to be every day or every week or every couple of months going down checking checking the records of every one does that to see as anybody has and this thing is completely dormant but i need to be constantly checking the registry to make sure that nobody has filed a claim to ownership of my songs that if ten years later somebody suddenly infringes my copyright by taking it oh no you're out of time because you should have been checking the record regularly to see whether that doesn't seem to make much sense the the the registry of of copyrights plays a different kind of a role from the registry around the country not only for this court but the ninth circuit as well these are new issues that these courts need to be deciding and i would state that these rights are essentially a pension or retirement front for these artists and that was the legislative intent of the of the renewal term and of the terminations right to give these artists and these authors a second bite at the apple to try to legitimately claim their rights and that's what my clients are trying to do in closing i'm sorry a long closing very short you know and i would say that that this court should consider their rights under the master recording the rights and in the musical composition and also importantly the accounting rights for them as artists and give mr jacobs a moment if he wants to respond  and meditation that we've had at the end thank you your honor i appreciate it the truth matter is there are there are multiple district court decisions that have recognized the notice provided when a was one point i wanted to make the other point i want to make your honor is something where does that leave you the absence of authority the absence of authority at this court is means that this court is going to have to consider that question a new there any consequence for this case no your honor because of the combination of factors that i that we have cited in the judge and on my relied upon it isn't just the registration in the copyright office it's the continuation of conduct over decades the didn't change from one decade to the next and and just in closing is this court recognizing the merchant case there is a copyright marketplace yes your honor is correct it just well you are correct that there is a function that is serve different by the trademark filing process and by the copyright following up process however there is a marketplace where people need certainty as to who owns the rights and the fact that there is a registration that somebody files to renew rights that is no not challenge for over a decade does create uncertainty when somebody can come out of the woodwork in the fashion that has occurred here and come out of the woodwork when you're talking about the undisputed or through the song and of the end of the