NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0044n.06 F iled: Janu ary 14, 2008 Case No. 06- 6164 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT BRIDGEP ORT MUSIC, INC., et al., P lai nt iffs- App e lla nt s,

v. RONDOR MU SIC INT’L, INC., d/b /a IRVINGMUSIC, INC., Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT CO UR T F OR

THE M ID DL E DI STRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEF OR E: BA TC HELD ER , C OLE, and G RI F F IN , C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Kendr ick J eru D avis i s a song writer a nd pe rf or me r who pe rf

or ms und e r the name “ Jer

u th e Da ma ja ,” do e s b us ine ss a s “ Pe rv e rt e d A lc he mis t Music, I nc.,” a

nd rec ords m usic under the label name “Knowsa vag e R ecor ds.” I n 1994, J eru e ntere d an exclusive-ser

vices a g ree ment with Rondo r M u s ic International, I nc. (d/b/a Irving Music, I nc.), which g ave Rondor c o-owne rship in Jeru’s c opy rig hts, as well as his publishing re venues, a nd g ave Ron do r e xclu siv e a

uth or ity ov e r t ho se c op y ri g hts , amon g oth e r t

hin g s. I n September 1999, Jeru re l ea s ed an a lbum tit led “He roz4Hire.” O n that album, J eru

re c or de d a

so ngtit le d “ What ADa

y ,” in whic h h e sampl e d a no the r a rt ist ’s so ng, ti tl ed “I t Wa s A Go od Da y (R e mix) ,” that w a s o wn e d b y B ri dg e po rt

Mu sic , Inc . Th ere is n o d isp ute a bo ut t his sampling or

that “What A Day” infri n ges o n Br idge port’s copy rig ht in “I t Was A Good Day (Remix ). ” Prior to relea se of “ Her oz4Hire,” one Mark Spier of Songwr iter Service s contac ted2

Br idge port on beha lf of Knowsavag e, seeking consent to use the sample. Br idge port’s administrator of copy rig hts, J ane Pete rer , proposed that Jeru could sample in e x chang e for an 8.9% share in the “What A Day” copy

rig ht and a ck n o wl ed gm ent on the “H eroz4Hire” label. Spier a nd Petere r neg otiated an ag ree ment, but the ag ree ment was never signe d and Br idge port was not compensate d, despite publication of He roz4Hire and the indisputable sampling of “I t Was A Good Day

(Remix ).” Th is c a se is o ne of

47 6 s e pa rate c a se s th at w e re se ve re d f ro m a single (enor

mou s) c a se initiated May

4, 2001. Br idge port is the plaintiff; claiming copy rig ht infring ement and se eking decla ratory judgme nt of copy

rig ht infring ement, monetary compensation, and equitable justice. The de fe nd ants inc lud e d So ng wr ite r S ervic e s ( vo luntari ly dis mis se d) , Pe rv e rt e d A lc he mis t Mu sic (d ism iss e d f

or la c k of se rv ic e of pr oc e ss) , Kn ow sava g e Re c or ds (d e e me d li a ble on e ntr y of de fa ult jud g me nt) , a

nd Ron do r ( d/b /a

I rv ingMu sic , Inc .) . Jer

u w a s n ot n a me d a s a

de fe nd ant. Af te r d isc ov e ry , Ro nd or

(t he on ly re main ingde fe nd ant) mov e d f or summa ry jud g me nt, claiming that “[t] he evide nce is und i s puted that Rondor neve r eng ag ed in any of the purpor

ted

c on du c t th a t is a lle g e d to gi ve ri se to B ri dg e po rt ’s c la ims .” Th e mot ion wa s r e fe rr e d to a

ma g istrate judge , who considered the evidenc e and arguments, and conc luded that “Rondor is simply the wrong de fe nd ant fo r B ri dg e po rt to su e on thi s lim ite d c la im. ” Th a t is, “ ba se d on the undi sp ut ed fa cts, Br idge port ca

nnot show that Rondor has any connec tion whatsoever

with the album “He roz4Hire.” Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a do pte d th e ma g istra

te ’s re c omm e nd a tio n a

nd g ra nte d s umm ary

jud g me nt. After car efully revie wingthe re cord, the law, and the arguments by counsel, we conc lude that the district court’s opinion c orre ctly sets out the applicable law and corr ectly applies that law to the fac ts contained in the re cord. The issuance of a full written opinion by t h i s court would ser

ve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM

.