FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T MARCH 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 62 6

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cv -2 03 73 -PAS

SAREGAMA INDIA LTD.,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll an t,

ver su s
TIMOTHY MOSLEY, a.k .a. Tim

ba la nd , AFTERMATH ENTERTAINMENT, G UNIT RECORDS, INC.,

na m e am en de d p er DE #6 6 Am en de d C om

pl ai nt , INTERSCOPE RECOR DS, UNIVERSAL MUSIC GR OUP, et al .,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 25 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and RESTANI, Ju dg e. *

MARC US, Cir cu it Ju dg e:

Thi s cas e co nc ern s a co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t act io n br ou gh t by Sare ga m a In di a

L td. (“ Sare ga m a”) ag ai ns t th e Defen da nt s fo r co pyin g, or di gi ta ll y sa m pli ng, a por

tio n

of th e In di an so ng , “ Bag ho r Mei n Bah ar Hai” (“ BMB H”), in th e hi p- ho p so ng , “ Pu t

You on th e Gam e” (“ PYOG”). S a r e ga m a, an In di an m us ic pr od uc ti on an d

di st rib ut io n co m

pa ny, cl ai m s th a t i t own s a co pyrig ht in th e so un d reco rd in g of

BMB H pu rs ua nt to a 19 67 ag reem en t (th e “ Agr eem en t” ) be twee n th e In di an fil m

pr od uc er, Sh ak ti Fi lm s ( “Sh a k t i” ), an d Sare ga m a’s pr ed eces so r in in te res t,

Gram op ho ne Co m

pa ny of In di a, Ltd

. (“ Gram op ho ne ”). A t th e co re of it s cl ai m ,
Sare ga m a sa y s th at th e D efen da nt s’ di gi ta l sa m pl in g of BMB H in fri ng ed on it s

al le ge d so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht

. Sare ga m a ap pe al s th e di s tri ct co ur t’s gr an t of

fin al su m m ary jud gm en t i n t he Defen da nt s’ fav or

.
The si ngle ques ti on be fo re us is whe th er th e Agr eem en t co nf erre d on Sare ga m a

a co pyrig ht in th e so un d reco rd in g of BMB H th at Sare ga m a co nt in ue s to own to da y

.
Afte r cl os el y ex am in in g th e Agr eem en t, we ho ld th at th e Agr eem en t un am bi gu ou sl y

co nf erre d on Sare ga m a on ly a two -y ear ex cl us iv e rig ht , or co pyrig ht , to re-r eco rd an y

Honora ble J ane A . Restani, J udg e, United States Court of I nterna tional Trade , sitti ng by * desig nation.

2pr e-re co rd ed so ng co ve red by t h e A g r e e m en t -- a rig ht th at be cam e no n- ex cl us iv e,

an d th us ceas ed be in g a co pyrig ht , at th e co nc lu si on of th e Agr e e men t ’s two -y ear

te rm

. Thu s, ev en if BMB H were co ve red by th e Agr eem en t (a qu es ti on we ne ed no t

de c i d e), Sare ga m a wou ld no t cu rren tl y own a co pyrig ht in th e BMB H so un d

reco rd in g an d th us la ck s st at ut or y st an di ng to br in g th is co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t

act io n. W e, th eref

or e, a f f i r m t he di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

fo r th e Defen da nt s.

I.

The es se n t i a l f

a c ts su rro un di ng th is co pyrig ht di sp ut e are th es e. Si nc e th e

res ol ut io n of th is la wsu it tu rn s o n t he in te rp ret at io n of th e Agr eem en t, we de ta il it s

pr ov is io ns at s om e le ng th

.
On Apr il 24 , 19 67 , Sh ak ti an d Gram op ho ne , Sare ga m a’s pr ed eces so r in

in te res t, en te red in to an ag reem en t reg ard in g th e pr od uc ti on an d d is tri bu ti on of th e

m us ic al so un dt rack s acco m pa nyin g Sh ak ti ’s fil m s. By it s te rm s, th e Agr eem en t to ok 1

effe ct on Ja nu ary 15 , 19 67 an d was to la st fo r two y ears , un ti l Ja nu ary 15 , 19 69

. (DE

Both Shakti and Sare g ama a re c ompanies loca ted and incor porate d in I ndia. As 1 Sareg ama e x plains it, in March 1995, Gra mophone transf

err ed all of its copy

rig hts to Gramco Music Publis hing Priva te L td. (“Gr amco” ), and, a fter G ramc o merg ed into Gra mophone in J une 2000, all of Gra

mco’s asse ts, including a

ny copy rig hts, were transfe rre d to Gramophone

. Appellant B r. at 4. I n Marc h 2000, Gra mophone cha ng ed its name to “Sar eg ama I ndia L td.” I d. Sareg ama is, there fore , the succ essor in intere st to both Gramco and G ramophone . I d. Thus, in descr ibing the A g ree ment, this opini on ref ers to “G ramophone ” and “ Sareg ama” intercha ng eably , g iven that any

rig hts the Ag ree ment confe rre d on Gra mophone cur rently belong to Sareg ama.

318 7- 2 ¶ 2.) B efo re t he Agre em en t’s t erm in at io n a nd up on writ te n n ot ic e, ho wev er,

Gramo p h o n e c ou ld ex te nd th e te rm of th e Agr eem en t fo r an ad di ti on al y ear, un ti l

Ja nu ary 15 , 19 70

. (Id

. ¶ 12 .) The Agr e e men t al so pr ov id es th at it s te rm s are 2

go ve rn ed by Ind ia n l aw. (Id . ¶ 15 .) 3

Acco rd in g to th e Agr eem en t, th ere are two m ean s by whi ch Sh a k t i w o u ld

su pp ly m us ic to Gramo p h o ne

. Und er th e fir st , Sh ak ti wou ld su pp ly Gram op ho ne

wit h art is ts an d m

us ic ia ns who wou ld ren de r ne w pe rfo rm an ces of th e m us ic al wor ks

fro m Sh ak ti ’s fil m s fo r th e pu rp os e of crea ti ng ne w so un d reco rd in gs

. The 4

Agr eem en t pr ov id es th at Gram op ho ne ret ai ne d crea ti ve c o n t ro l ov er th es e ne w

reco rd in gs

. 5

There is no evidence of such wr itten notice, and thus no indication that Sare g ama 2 extended the term of the Ag ree ment for a nother y ear

. The g overning

law is I ndian copy

rig ht law as laid out in the I ndian Copy rig ht Act of 3 1957 (“I CA”), whic h was a mended in 1999. This opinion cites to and quotes fr om the amende d version of the I CA.

Clause 2 of the A g ree ment, which desc ribes the f irst method, rea ds this way : 4

[S hakti] shall . . . s upply [Gramophone] at [i ts] own expense with artistes and musicians etc ., to perfor m musical and/or other

works fr om [ its] films for the purpose of

making g ramophone rec ords, and the a rtistes and musicians etc ., shall attend at [Gramophone ’s] studi o or such other place as may

be appointed by [Gramophone] and shall at such plac e and time r ecor d such works a s [Gramophone] shall select . . . .
(DE 187- 2 ¶ 2.)
Clause 3 say s that “[Shakti] shall at the re quest of [Gramophone] supply the ar tistes and 5 musicians etc., to re peat a ny work until a per fec t master matrix thereof sha ll, in the opinion of

4U nde r the se co nd m ean s, Sh ak ti wou ld pr ov id e Gram op ho ne wit h pr e-re cord ed

so ng s, or so un d reco rd in gs , whi ch Gram op ho ne co ul d th en re-r eco rd to m an uf act ur e

reco rd s. Unl ik e wit h th e ne w rec or di ng s, Gram op ho ne was no t gi ve n crea ti ve

6

co nt r o l o v er th e pr e-re co rd ed so ng s. Sh ak ti , th eref or e, ag reed to in de m

ni fy

Gram op ho ne ag ai ns t an y su bs eq ue nt act io ns by th ird pa rti e s c l a i mi ng rig ht s in th e

pr e-re co rd ed so ng s. 7

Pu rs ua nt to Cl au se 7, Sh ak ti a ss ig ne d to Gram op ho ne it s reco rd in g rig ht s in

bo th th e ne w reco rd in gs an d pr e
- r e co rd ed so ng s. As Cl au se 5 de sc rib es , th es e 8

[Gramophone], have be en obtained.” (DE 187- 2 ¶ 3.)
Clause 4, which de scribes this sec ond means, provide s: 6
Notwithstanding the provisions in Cl auses 2 a nd 3 here of [Shakti] shall at [i ts] own expense alter

natively and subjec t to the consent of [Gramophone ] suppl y [Gramophone] with sound tracks or re corde d tapes of [its] musical and/or other works and [Gra

mophone] shall uti lise such sound trac ks or re corde d tapes for the purpose of

re- rec ording there from and the subsequent manuf actur e of g ramophone

rec ords as re fer

red to in the a

bove-me ntioned clause s provided they are in the opinion of [Gramophone] suit able f or such pur

pose.
(DE 187- 2 ¶ 4.)
Specifica lly , “[Shakti] ag ree [d] to indemnify [Gramophone] and kee p [Gramophone] 7 indemnified fr om and ag ainst all actions, claims and da mag es in which [Gramophone ] m ay be incurre d by

rea son of such re -re cording and subseque nt manufac ture, issue a nd sale of g ramophone rec ords derive d from sound trac ks or re corde d tapes supplied by [S hakti] as afor esaid.” (DE 187- 2 ¶ 4.)
Clause 7, which de scribes this assig nment, explains t he ter ms this way : 8

[S hakti] hereby

ag ree [s] that [i t] assig n[s] [i ts] g ramophone rec ording rig hts in all works to be rec orded or re- rec orded unde r the provisions of this Ag ree ment to [ Gra mophone], and here by ag ree [s] further

to indemnify

and kee p

5reco rd in gs rig ht s were to be ex cl us iv e fro m Jan ua ry 15 , 1 96 7 to Ja nu ary 1 5, 19 69

. Sp eci fic al ly, Cl au se 5 pr o v i d e s th at , d ur in g th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm , S ha kt i

was pr oh ib it ed fro m al lo win g an y th ird pa rty to r eco rd th e ne w r eco rd in gs or to rereco rd th e pr e-re co rd ed so ng s -- th at is , S ha kt i was ba rr e d f r o m g r an ti ng reco rd in g
rig ht s t o a ny thi rd pa rty. 9

indemnified [Gramophone] in the case of such wor ks as af oresa id from and ag ainst all actions, claims and da mag es which [Gra mophone] may incur by rea son of the re cording , issue and sale of such wor ks.
(DE 187- 2 ¶ 7.)

I n conjunction with this assignment of r ecor ding r ights, the A g ree ment provides that “[Gramophone] shall be the owne r of the or igina l plate within the meaning of The [I ndian] Copy rig ht Act of 1957, a

nd any extensions or modi fica tions thereof of eac h title recor ded or r erec orded unde r the provisions of this Ag ree ment at the time when suc h plate shall be ma de.” (DE 187- 2 ¶ 10.) Unde r the I CA, a “pla te” include s:

any stereoty pe or othe r plate, stone, bloc k, mould, matrix , transfe r, neg ative, duplicating equipment or other device used or intende d to be used for printing or repr oducing copies of a

ny work, a nd any matrix or other a

ppliance by

which sound rec ording for the a coustic pre sentation of the wor k are or ar e intended to be made.

I CA, ch. 1, § 2(t).

Clause 5 delinea tes the re cording rig hts’ exclusivi ty like so: 9

[S hakti] shall not during the said per iod of two y ear (s) a llow any of [its ] musical and/or other

works to be r ecor ded or r e-r ecor ded by any of [its ] artistes and musicians etc ., or fr om any film sound tracks or r ecor ded tape s or other means for any other pe rson, firm or c orpora tion whatsoever car ry ing on a business simil ar to or in c ompetition with t hat of [Gramophone ] i n all or any of its branc hes.
(I d. ¶ 5.)

6The Agr eem en t al so pr ov id es Gram op ho ne wit h a br oa d se t of rig ht s bu t on ly

wit h res pe ct to ne w reco rd in gs

. Sp eci fic al ly, Cl au se 10 co nf ers on Gram op ho ne th e

so le rig ht to pr od u c e , rep ro du ce, se ll , us e, an d pe rfo rm th e ne w reco rd in gs

. 1 0

Not ab ly, Sh ak ti di d no t co nf er on Gram op ho ne th es e e x p a n s i v e rig ht s wit h res pe ct

to pre -rec or de d s on gs

.
In ad di ti on to de li ne at in g th e rig ht s co nf erre d, th e Agr eem en t a l s o de sc rib es

th e ro y al ty pa y m en ts Gram op ho ne was to m ak e to Sh ak ti fro m th e sa le s of th e reco rd s

Gram op ho ne m an uf

act ur ed

. The ro y al ty pa y

m en ts fo r ne w reco rd in gs an d th os e fo r

pr e-re co rd ed so ng s a r e l a id ou t in se pa rat e pr ov is io ns -- Cl au se 6 de sc rib in g th e

ro y al ty pa y m en ts fo r ne w reco rd in gs , an d Cl au se 8 de sc ribi ng th os e fo r pr e-re co rd ed 11

so ng s. Cl au se 6 fu rth er pr ov id es th at , if aft er th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm , Sh ak ti

1 2

Clause 10 say s that “[Gramophone] shall also be entitled to the sole rig ht of production, 1 0 repr oduction, sale, use a

nd perf ormanc e (inc luding br oadca sting) thr oug hout the world by any and eve ry means wha tsoever of

the re cords of

the works pe rfor

med by the ar tistes and musicians etc. unde r this Ag ree ment.” (D E 187-2 ¶ 10.)
As Clause 6 explains: 1 1
“[Gramophone] during the said per iod of two y ear (s) a nd there afte r while the re cords r ecor ded or r e-r ecor ded under the provisions of this Ag ree ment rema in on sale by [Gramophone] shall pay

to [ Shakti] a roy alty

on nett [si c] sales made in any part of the world of a ll recor ds of the per formanc e of the artistes and musicians etc. a s afor esaid . . . .”
(DE 187- 2 ¶ 6.)
As Clause 8 explains: “I n consideration of the assig nment set out in Clause 7 here of 1 2 [Gramophone] shall pay

to [ Shakti] a Copy

rig ht roy alty

on nett [si c] sales made in a ny part of the world of the w orks re corde d or re -re corde d under the provisions of this Agr eeme nt . . . .” (DE

7were to gr an t reco rd in g rig ht s t o an y th ird pa rty, Gram op ho ne wou ld no lo ng er be

bo un d to pa y ro y al ti es on t h e n e w r e co rd in gs

. In ad di ti on , Cl au se 10 sa y s th at , 1 3

whe n th es e ro y al ty pa y m en ts on bo th ne w reco rd in gs an d pr e-re co rd ed so ng s were

to be co m e du e, Gram op ho ne was en ti tl ed to co nf er on t h i r d p a rti es th e ab il it y to

m an uf act ur e an d se l l t h e r eco rd s Gram op ho ne reco rd ed or re-r eco rd ed un de r th e
Agr eem en t. 1 4

Afte r th e pa rti es en te red in to th e Agr eem en t, in ei th er 19 69 or 19 7 0 , Sh ak ti

187-2 ¶ 8.)
Specifica lly , Clause 6 say s: 1 3

[I ]f [ Shakti] shall at any

time after

the conc lusion of the said period of two y ear (s) allow [it s] artistes or musicians etc. or a ny of them to rec ord any

works re corde d

or re -re corde d under the provisions of this Agr eeme nt or permit the re cording of such works f

rom any film sound track or r ecor ded tape or other me ans, for any other pe rson, firm or c orpora tion whatsoever , [Gramophone] shall be no longe r bound by this section and shall not have to pa y any roy alty whatsoeve r to [S hakti] under this sec tion . . . .
(DE 187- 2 ¶ 6.)

Clause 10 details that: 1 4
“[Gramophone] shall in its absolute discretion be entitled to authorise a ny other persons, fir

ms or corpor ations in any part of the world to manufa cture , sell and/or cata logue rec ords of a ll or any of the titles rec orded or

re- rec orded unde r the provisions of this Agr eeme nt when roy alties shall become pay able to [Shakti] as mentioned in Clauses 6 and 8 he reof .”
(I d. ¶ 10.)

8rel eas ed th e In di an fil m , “ Arad ha na ,” whi ch feat ur ed th e ro m an ti c du et , BMB H. In 1 5

2 0 0 5, Ja y ceo n Tay lo r (a.k .a. “ The Gam e”) rel eas ed an al bu m en ti tl ed “ The

Doc um en ta ry ,” whi ch feat ur ed th e so ng , P Y O G

. As th e pr od uc er of PYOG,

Defen da nt Tim ot hy Mo sl ey (a.k .a. “Ti mb a la nd ”) in cl ud ed in th is so ng an

ap pr ox im at el y

on e-s eco nd lo op ed sn ip pe t fro m th e so un d re co rd in g o f BMB H. 1 6

The sa m pl ed po rti on of BMB H i s pe rfo rm ed by a fem al e vo cal is t (DE 1 82 -2

at 2) an d co ns is ts of th ree no te s -- D, B fla t, an d G -- whi ch fo rm a de sc en di ng ch or d

kn own as a G m in or arp eg gi o (DE 17 8- 4 ¶ 11 ). In BMB H, th is sn ip pe t is lo op ed fo ur

ti m es in fo ur se pa rat e se ct io ns of th e so ng -- at 0: 21 , 0: 38 , 1: 49 , an d 2: 52

. (DE 17 8- 4
¶ 12 -1 3; DE 18 2- 2 at 2.) In PYOG, th is s ni pp et is lo op ed th ree ti m es an d, aft er an

i n t e r ve ni ng D no te , is lo op ed twi ce ag ai n, an d th is lo op ap pe ars in fo ur se pa rat e

se ct io ns of t he so ng -- at 1: 08 , 2: 03 , 3: 08 , and 3: 47 . (DE 17 8- 4 ¶ 14 -1 5.)

On Aug us t 27 , 20 07 , Sare ga m a co m m en ced th is la wsu it ag ai ns t th e

Defen da nt s i n th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of New

1 7

Sareg ama a lleg es that the film was r elea sed in 1969, wher eas the Def endants a lleg e that 1 5 it was rele ased in 1970.

Acc ording to Sareg ama’ s expert, the snippet’s prec ise duration is 1.131 seconds. ( DE 1 6 182-2 at 3.)

The De fenda

nts are T imothy

Mosley (a.k.a . “Timbaland” ), G-U nit Records, I nc., 1 7 Despe rado Ente rtainment I nc., WB Music Corp., Unive rsal Music & Video Distribution I nc., Universa l Music Group, I nterscope Records, a nd After math Entertainment.

9Yor k, al le gi ng co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t in vi ol a t i o n of st at e an d fed eral la w an d

se ek in g da m ag es an d in

jun ct iv e rel ie f. So on th erea fte r, on th e Defen da nt s’ m ot io n,

th e cas e was tra ns ferr ed to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct

of Fl or id a, whe re th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Defen da n t s ’ moti on to di sm is s wit h

le av e fo r Sare ga m a to re-p le ad

.
On Nov em

be r 4, 20 08 , Sare ga m a fil ed an am en de d co m pl a i n t, al le gi ng th is

ti m e th at it own ed th e co pyrig ht in th e m us ic al co m

po si ti on an d so un d reco rd in g of

BMB H an d th at th e Defen da nt s ha d in fri ng ed on b ot h co pyrig ht s by di gi ta ll y

sa m pl in g a po rti on of BMB H in PYOG. Sare ga ma al so su ed fo r co m m on la w 1 8

co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t, un fai r co m pe ti ti on , an d a vi ol at io n of th e Fl or id a Decep ti ve

an d Unf ai r Trad e Prac ti ces Act (“ FDUTPA”), Fl a

. S t a t

. § 50 1.2 01 , et se q. The

Defen da nt s ag ai n m ov ed to di sm is s, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d in pa rt, di sp os in g

The diff ere nce be tween a

copy rig ht in a musical composition and a copy rig ht in a 1 8 sound rec ording has bee n aptly explained this way :

A s o u n d rec ording as copy rig htable subject matter must be distinguished from the copy rig hted literary , musical or drama tic work embodied in the sound rec ording and fix ed on a phonorec ord. When a copy rig hted song is rec orded o n a p h o n orec ord, there are two separ ate copy rig hts: one on [si c] the musical composition and the other in the sound rec ording . The sound re cording is the ag g reg ation of sounds c apture d in the recording while t he song o r t an gi b l e medium of ex pression embodied in the

rec ording is the musical composition. Thus, the rig hts of an owner of a copy rig ht in

a sound rec ording do not extend to the song itself. A copy rig ht in the rec ording and in the song are separ ate a nd distinct and by

statute are trea ted diffe rently

.
T.B. H arms Co. v. J em Recor ds, I nc., 655 F . Supp. 1575, 1576 n.1 (D.N.J. 1987) (citation omitted).

10of Sare ga m a’s co m m on la w co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t an d un fai r co m pe ti ti on cl ai m s on

pr eem pt io n gr ou nd s. Sare ga m a th en vo lu nt ari ly di sm is se d it s FDUTPA cl ai m an d it s

m us ic al co mp os it io n co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t cl ai m , le av in g th e so un d reco rd in g

co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t cl ai m as S areg am a’s on ly caus e o f act io n.

Sare ga m a an d th e Defen da nt s th en fil ed cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t,

an d on Decem

be r 23 , 20 09 , th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Sare ga m a’s m ot io n an d gr an te d

th e Defen da nt s’ on two in de pe nd en t gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, th e co ur t fo un d t h at th e
Agr eem en t co nf

erre d, at m os t, a two -y ear ex cl us iv e li cen se , whi ch be came n on
ex cl us iv e th erea fte r, to ex pl oi t Sh ak ti ’s p re-r eco rd ed so ng s, an d t ha t Sa reg am a h ad

no t of fere d an y pr oo f ei th er th at th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g ha d be en crea te d du rin g

th e Agr eem en t’s two -ye a r t e rm or th at Sare ga m a ha d ob ta in ed th e so un d reco rd in g

co pyrig ht th ro ug h ot he r m ean s. Sa r e g a ma I n d ia Ltd

. v. Mo sl ey , 68 7 F. Su pp

. 2d

13 25 , 13 26 -2 7 (S.D. Fl a. 20 09 ). The di st ric t co ur t al so fo un d th at BMB H an d PYOG

were no t su bs ta nt ia ll y si m il ar an d th at th e Defen da nt s’ di gi ta l sa m pl in g of BMB H in

PYOG was n ot , th eref

or e, le ga ll y

act io na bl e. Id . at 1 32 7.

Si nc e we affi rm th e di st r i c t c ou rt’s su m m ary jud gm en t or de r be cau se th e
Agr eem en t di d no t co nf

er on Sare ga m a a so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht th at Sare ga m a

co nt in ue s to own to da y , we ha ve no oc cas io n t o ad dr es s th e is su e of su bs ta nt ia l

si m il ari ty. In ot he r wor ds , be cau se we ho ld th at Sare ga m a do es no t own a co pyrig ht

11in th e fir st in st an ce, we ne ed no t face th e qu es ti on of whe th er th is co pyrig ht ha s be en

in fri ng ed

. II

.
W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng su m m ar y jud gm en t de no vo

.
Acev ed o v. Fi rs t Uni o n Nat’l Ban k, 47 6 F.3 d 86 1, 86 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ). “ In

c o n d uc ti ng ou r rev ie w, we ap pl y th e sa m e le ga l st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co ur t.

. . . [ a n d th us ] rev ie w t he fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no n- m ov in g pa rty a n d

dr aw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in hi s favo r.” Id

. Su m m ary jud gm en t is on ly pr op er

whe n “ th e pl ead in gs , de po si ti on s, an swe rs to in te rro ga to rie s, an d ad m is si on s on fil e,

to ge th er wit h th e affi da vi ts , if an y , sh ow th at th ere is no ge nu in e is s u e a s t o an y

m at eri al fact an d th at th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to a jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.”

Lati m er v. Ro ari ng Toyz, In c., 6 0 1 F

. 3d 12 24 , 12 32 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.
W he n th e on ly qu es ti on a co ur t m us t de ci de is a qu es ti on of la w, su m m ary
jud gm en t m ay be gr an te d. See Co ok ex rel

. Est at e of Tess ie r v. Sh eri f f o f Mo nr oe

Cn ty., 40 2 F.3 d 10 92 , 1 12 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ A s um m ary ju d g men t s ho ul d no t be

gr an te d un le ss th e fact s are so crystal li zed th at no th in g rem ai n s bu t qu es ti on s of

la w.”). The in te rp ret at io n of a co nt ract , or ag reem en t, pr es en ts a qu es ti on of la w, se e

All ia nc e Met al s, In c., of Atl an ta v. Hin el y In du s., In c., 22 2 F.3 d 89 5, 90 0 (1 1t h Ci r.

1220 00 ), as do es th e de te rm in at io n of whe th er a co nt ract is am bi g u o us , se e Ork in

Ext erm in at in g Co

. v. FTC, 84 9 F.2 d 13 54 , 13 60 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 88 ). And whe n a

co nt ract is un am

bi gu ou s, th e pa ro l ev id en ce rul e ba rs ou r co ns id erat io n of ex tri ns ic

ev id en ce. Id . at 1 36 2.

“ To m a ke ou t a pr im a faci e cas e of co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t, a pl ai nt iff m us t

s h o w t h at (1 ) it own s a va li d co pyrig ht in th e [wo rk ] an d (2 ) de fen da nt s c o p i e d

pr ot ect ed el em en ts fro m th e [wo rk ]. ” Pet er Lett eres e & Ass oc s., In c. v. W or ld In st

.
of Sci en to lo gy Enter s., In t’l, 5 33 F.3d 12 87 , 13 00 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Sare ga m a th us

be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th at it o w n s th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht

.
Bec au se we co nc lu de th at Sare ga m a do es no t cu rren tl y own a va li d co pyrig ht in th e

BMB H so un d reco rd in g, we ha ve no oc cas io n to de ci de wh e t h e r t h e Defen da nt s

co pi ed pr ot ect ed el em en ts fro m BMB H

. Th e r e fo re, we on ly ad dr es s th e co pyrig ht

own ers hi p i ss ue

.

“ In it ia l own ers hi p of a co pyrig ht ed wor k is de te rm in ed b y th e la ws in th e

wor k’s cou nt ry of or ig in .” Lah iri v. Univ ers al Mu si c & Vid eo Dis tri b., Inc., 513 F.

Su pp

. 2d 11 72 , 11 76 n.4 (C.D. Cal

. 20 07 ); acco rd Ita r-Tas s Ru ss ia n News Age nc y

v. Ru ss ia n Kur ie r, In c., 15 3 F.3 d 82 , 90 (2 d Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ). As th e pa rti es al l ag ree,

in as m uc h as BMB H was crea te d in In di a, o u r i n te rp ret at io n of th e Agr eem en t an d

ul ti m at e d et erm in at io n o f whe th er Sa reg am a own s a co pyrig ht in th e BM BH so un d

13reco rd in g is go ve rn ed by In di an co pyrig ht la w, as la id ou t in th e In di an Co pyrig ht Act

of 19 57 (“ ICA”)

. W e ad d th at , al th ou gh th e ICA go ve rn s th e is su e of co pyrig ht

own ers hi p, Sare ga m a st il l m us t m eet th e st at ut or y st an di ng req ui rem en t co nt ai ne d in

th e Co pyrig ht Act of 19 76 , 17 U.S.C. § 50 1( b) , whi ch pr ov id es th at on ly th e le ga l or

be ne fic ia l own er of an “ ex cl us iv e rig h t ” h as st an di ng to br in g a co pyrig ht

in fri ng em en t act io n in a Uni te d St at es co ur t. See 17 U.S.C. § 50 1( b) ; Ita r-Tas s, 15 3

F.3 d a t 9 1.

To be gi n wit h, un de r th e ICA, th e in it ia l own er of th e co pyrig ht in a w o r k i s

th e “ au th or ” o f th at work . ICA, ch. 4 , § 17

. W he n th e wor k i s a s ou nd reco rd in g, 1 9

th e ICA pr ov id es th at th e “ pr od uc er” of th e so un d reco rd in g is t ha t reco rd in g’s

“ au th or

. ” I d

. ch

. 1, § 2( d) (v ). The pr od uc er of a so un d reco rd in g is , th eref or e, th e

in it ia l own er of th e co pyrig ht in th at so un d reco rd in g. Howev er, ab se nt an ag reem en t

to th e co nt rary, th e pr od uc er of a fil m is co ns id ered th e in it ia l co pyrig ht own er of th e

m us ic fro m th at fil m

. Lah iri , 51 3 F. Su pp

. 2d at 11 76 (in te rp ret in g th e S u pr em e

Co ur t of In di a’s de ci si on in In di an Perf or mi n g Ri gh ts So ci et y Ltd

. v. East In di an

Mo ti on Pi ct ur e Ass ’n & Oth ers , A.I.R. 19 77 S.C. 14 43 ). Thu s, a fil m ’s pr od uc er 2 0

The I CA defines a

“sound re cording ” as “ a re cording of sounds from whic h such 1 9 sounds may

be produc ed re g ardle ss of the medium on which such r ecor ding is made or the method by

which the sounds ar e produc ed.” I CA, ch. 1, § 2(xx ).
The Supreme Court of I ndia held: “[U]nless there is a contr act to the c ontrary , a 2 0 composer w ho composes a ly ric or music f

or the fir st tim e for

valuable c onsideration for a

14ge ne ral ly owns th e co pyrig ht in th e so un d re co rd in gs tak en fro m th at fil m

.
Sect io n 14 of th e ICA de sc rib es wha t it m ean s, un de r I n d i a n la w, to own a

co pyrig ht in a so un d re co rd in g t hi s way:

Fo r th e pu rp os es of t h i s Act, “ co pyrig ht ” m ean s th e ex cl us iv e rig ht

su bjec t to th e pr ov is io ns of th is Act, to do or au th or is e th e do in g of an y of th e fo ll owi ng act s in res pe ct of a wor k or an y su bs ta nt ia l pa rt th ereo f,

na m el y :-

. . . . (e) i n t he cas e o f so un d re co rd in g, -
(i) to m ak e an y

ot he r so un d re co rd in g e m bo dyin g i t;
(ii ) to se ll or gi ve on hi re, or of fer fo r sa le or hi re, an y co py of th e so un d

reco rd in g reg ard le ss of whe th er su ch co py ha s be en so ld o r gi ve n on hi re o n e arl ie r oc cas io ns ;
(ii i) t o c om m

un ic at e th e so un d re co rd in g t o t he pu bl ic

. ICA, ch

. 3, § 14 (em

ph as is ad de d)

. As th e ICA m ak es cl ear, to own a co pyrig ht in a

so un d reco rd in g is to ha ve th e ex cl us iv e rig ht to pe rfo rm on e, two , or al l th ree of th e

act s li st ed in se ct io n 14 (e). In ot he r wor ds , th eo ret ic al ly th ere co ul d be th ree se pa rat e

cinematog raph f

ilm does not acquire a

ny copy rig ht either in re spect of [the] film or its sound trac k . . . and that under

proviso (b) to Section 17 of the Act, the owne r of the f ilm, at whose instance the composition is m ade, be comes the f irst owner of

the copy rig ht in the composition.” L ahiri, 513 F . Supp. 2d at 1176 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed) ( altera tions and emphasis in orig inal). Section 17(b) of the I CA provides that, “subjec t to the provisions of clause ( a), in the

case of . . . a c inematog raph f ilm made, for va luable conside ration at the instanc e of a ny person, such per son shall, in the absenc e of a ny ag ree ment to the contra

ry , be the f

irst owner of

the copy rig ht therein.” I CA, ch. 4, § 17(b)

.
15own ers of a so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht : (i) on e own er who ha s th e ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to

m ak e an y ot he r so un d reco rd in g em bo dyin g [th e or ig in al so un d rec o r di ng ]”; (ii ) a

se co nd own er who ha s th e ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to se ll or gi ve on hi re, or of fer fo r sa le or

hi re, an y co py of th e so un d reco rd in g” ; an d (ii i) a th ird own er who ha s th e ex cl us iv e
rig ht “ to co m

m un ic at e th e so u n d reco rd in g to th e pu bl ic .” To po ss es s an y of th es e

ex cl us iv e ri gh ts is th us to be a co pyrig ht own er i n t he su bjec t s ou nd reco rd in g. Cf

.
Dav is v. Bl ig e, 50 5 F.3 d 90 , 98 (2 d Ci r. 20 07 ) (d es cri bi ng co pyrig ht own ers hi p as a

“ bu nd le of d is cret e ri gh ts ”).

Alt ho ug h In di an la w un do ub te dl y go v ern s th e de te rm in at io n of in it ia l

co pyrig ht own ers hi p, th ere is no gu id in g cas e la w reg ard in g whi ch co un try’ s la w

g o v e r n s th e is su e of co pyrig ht tra ns fer. See Ita r-Tas s, 15 3 F.3 d at 91 n.1 1 (“ In

de ci di ng th at th e la w of th e co un try of or ig in de te rm in es th e own ers hi p of co pyrig ht ,

we co ns id er o nl y

in it ia l o wne rs hi p, an d h av e n o o ccas io n to co ns id er ch oi ce o f la w

is su es co nc ern in g as si gn m en t of rig ht s.”) ; Fi lm s by Jo ve , In c. v. Bero v, 15 4 F. Su pp

.
2d 43 2, 47 7 n.4 2 (E.D.N.Y. 20 01 ) (n ot in g th at th e Seco nd Ci rcu it in Ita r-Tas s di d no t

reac h th e tra ns fer ch oi ce-o f-l aw is su e). W e as su m e wit ho ut de ci di ng th at In di an la w

go ve rn s th e as si gn m en t is su e, si nc e In di an co pyrig ht la w of as si gn m en t is st rik in gl y

16si m il ar to U.S. co pyrig ht la w. W e wou ld reac h th e sa m e res ul t un de r ei th er In di an 2 1

or Am eri can law.

Und er th e I C A , th e as si gn m en t of co pyrig ht own ers hi p is de sc rib ed in th es e

te rm s:

The own er of th e co pyrig ht in an ex is ti ng wor k or th e pr os pe ct iv e own er of th e co pyrig ht in a fu tu re wor k m ay as si gn to an y pe rs on th e co pyrig ht ei th er who ll y or pa rti al ly an d ei th er ge ne ral ly or su bjec t t o l i mi t at io ns
an d e it he r fo r th e who le ter m of t he co pyrig ht or a ny part th ereo f:

Pro vi de d th at in th e cas e of th e a s si gn m en t of co pyrig ht in an y fu tu re
wor k, th e as si gn m en t sh al l ta ke effe ct on ly whe n th e wor k co mes in to

ex is te nc e.
ICA, ch

. 4, § 18 (1 ). The ICA m ak es cl ear th at , w h e n so m e bu t no t al l of th e 2 2

We also ref

rain fr om deciding this transfer choice -of- law question bec ause the parties 2 1 have ne ither fully

briefe d nor conte sted this issue. See Clark v. Crosby , 335 F.3d 1303, 1313 n.10 (11th Cir. 2003) (de clining to a ddress a n issue in part bec ause the parties ha d not briefe d the issue in detail). Sare g ama a ssumes that I ndian copy rig ht law g overns, without explicitl y stating that Americ an copy

rig ht law does not. The D efe ndants, on the other ha nd, arg ue in terms of both I ndian and Ame rica

n law, without asser

ting whic h country ’s law g overns. See Appellee Br . at 25 (“U nder both I ndian and U.S. law, a transfe r of c opy

rig ht interest must be made e x pressly and in writing .”).
The U.S. Copy

rig ht Act similarly

define s a “tra

nsfer of copy rig ht ownership” a s “an 2 2 assig nment, mortg ag e, exclusive license, or any other c onvey ance , alienation, or hy potheca tion of a copy rig ht or of any

of the e x clusive rig hts comprised in a c opy rig ht, whether

or not it is li mited in time or place of ef

fec t, but not including a none x clusive license .” 17 U.S.C. § 101; see also 2 Wil liam F. Patry , Patry

on Copy rig ht § 5:101, at 5-190 (2010) ( “A c opy rig ht owner ma

y transfe r copy rig ht ownership by

assig nment or exclusive license, the two being sy nony mous.”). 17 U.S.C. § 201(d) furthe r provides:
(1) The owner ship of a copy rig ht may be tra nsfer red in whole or in part by any means of c onvey ance or by opera tion of law, and ma y be beque athed by

will or pass as pe rsonal prope rty by the applica

ble laws of intesta te succ ession.

17e x c l u si ve rig ht s th at co m pr is e a co pyrig ht are as si gn ed , bo th th e as si gn or an d t h e

as si gn e e a r e co pyrig ht own ers wit h res pe ct to th e ex cl us iv e rig ht s th at th ey ho ld

. Sp eci fic al ly, se ct io n 1 8 o f th e ICA p ro vi de s:

W he re th e as si gn ee of a co pyrig ht be co m es en ti tl ed to an y rig ht

c o mp ris ed in th e co pyrig ht , th e as si gn ee as res pe ct s th e rig h t s s o
as si gn ed , an d th e as si gn or as res pe ct s th e r i g h t s no t as si gn ed , sh al l be tre at ed fo r th e pu rp os es of th is Act as th e o wne r of co pyrig ht an d th e pr ov is io ns of t hi s Act sh al l h av e effe ct acco rd in gl y

.
Id . § 1 8( 2)

.
Thu s, if th e in it ia l own er of a so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht were to as si g n o n l y

th e fir st of th e t h r e e e xc lu si ve rig ht s th at co m pr is e th is co pyrig ht -- na m el y , th e

ex cl us iv e rig ht “t o mak e an y ot he r so un d reco rd in g em bo dyin g [th e or ig in al so un d

reco rd in g]” -- th e as si gn ee wou ld be a so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht own er wit h res pe ct

to th is fir st ex cl us iv e rig ht , whi le th e as si gn or wou ld rem ai n a co pyrig ht own er wit h

res pe ct t o t h e r em ai ni ng two ex cl us iv e rig ht s -- na m el y , t he ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to se ll

(2) Any of the e x clusive rig hts comprised in a c opy rig ht, including a

ny subdivision of any

of the rig hts specified by section 106, may

be tra nsfer red a s provided by

clause (1) a

nd owned se para tely . The owne r of a ny particula r exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that rig ht, to all of the protec tion and

reme dies ac corde d to the copy rig ht owner by

this ti tle.
17 U.S.C. § 201(d). Ther efor e, under both I ndian and Ame rica n copy rig ht law, to own any exclusive right c omprised in a copy rig ht is to be a copy

rig ht owner, a

nd there can be multipl e copy rig ht owners in a sing le work. Mor eover , under both c ountries’ law s, a copy rig ht owner c an assig n one, seve ral, or a ll of its ex clusive rig hts, and this assignment c an be subje ct to temporal or g eog raphic limit ations.

18or gi ve n on hi re, or of fer fo r sa le o r h i r e, an y co py o f th e so un d reco rd in g” an d th e

ex cl us i v e rig ht “ to co m

m un ic at e th e so un d reco rd in g to th e pu bl ic .” In th is li gh t,

pu rs ua nt t o 1 7 U .S.C. § 50 1( b) , bo th th e as si gn or an d th e as si gn ee wou ld ha ve

st at ut or y st an di ng to br in g a co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t c l a i m b ecau se bo th wou ld be

“ le ga l or be ne fic ia l own er[s ] of an ex cl us iv e rig ht un d e r a co pyrig ht .” 17 U.S.C. §

50 1( b)

. I t f

ol lo ws, ho wev er, th at each co ul d on ly br in g a co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t

cl ai m ba se d u po n t he in fri ng em en t o f th e ex cl us iv e ri gh t(s ) eac h h ol ds

.
The ICA fu rth er la y s ou t wha t is req ui red fo r a c o p yr ig ht as si gn m en t to be

va li d t hi s way:
(1 ) No ass ig nm en t o f th e co pyrig ht in an y wor k sh al l be val id un le ss it is in writ in g s ig ne d b y

th e as si gn or or b y

hi s d ul y au th or is ed ag en t.
(2 ) The as si gn m en t of co pyrig ht in an y wor k sh al l id en ti fy su ch wor k,

an d s h a l l s pe ci fy th e rig ht s as si gn ed an d th e du rat io n an d te rri to ria l

ex te nt of s uc h a ss ig nm en t.
(3 ) The as si gn m en t o f co pyrig ht in an y wor k sh al l al so sp eci fy th e
am ou nt of ro y al ty pa y ab le , if an y , to th e au th or or hi s le ga l he irs du rin g th e cu rren cy of th e as si gn m en t an d th e as si gn m en t sh al l be su bjec t to

rev is io n, ex te ns io n or te rm in at io n on te rm s m ut ua ll y ag reed up on by th e pa rti es

.
Id

. ch

. 4, § 1 9

. I n th is li gh t, reg ard le ss of whi ch ex cl us iv e rig ht , or rig ht s, a 2 3

The U.S. Copy

rig ht Act similarly

provides that “[a] transfe r of c opy rig ht ownership, 2 3 other than by

opera tion of law, is not valid unless an assig nment of conve y ance , or a note or memorandum of the transfe r, is in writing a nd signe d by

the owner

of the rig hts convey ed or suc h

owner ’s duly

authorized ag ent.” 17 U.S.C. § 204(a)

.
19co pyrig ht own er tra ns fers , su ch as si gn m en t m us t be do cu m en te d in a si gn ed writ in g

th at cl earl y de li ne at es th e rig ht be in g tra ns ferr ed an d a n y l i m it at io ns th e co pyrig ht

own er s eek s t o i m

po se

.
II I.
App lying th es e pr in ci pl es of In di an co pyrig ht la w to th e fact s of th is cas e, we

be gi n by ob se rv in g th at , as th e pr od uc er of th e fil m , “ Arad ha na ,” Sh ak ti is th e in it ia l

own er of th e co pyrig ht in th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g. Sare ga m a, ho wev er, ba se s it s

co pyrig ht own ers hi p cl ai m on th e Agr eem en t. The refo re, th e res ol ut io n of th e cas e 2 4

tu rn s on whe th er, th ro ug h th e Agr eem en t, Sh ak ti as si gn ed to Sare ga m a an y of th e

th ree ex cl us iv e rig ht s co m pr is ed in a so un d re co rd in g c op y rig ht an d, if so , wh et he r

Sare ga m a co nt in ue s t o h ol d t hi s ex cl us iv e ri gh t t od ay

.
Sare ga m a cl ai m s th at , th ro ug h th e Agr eem en t, Sh ak ti tra ns ferr ed to Sare ga m a

a co pyrig ht in an y so un d reco rd in g crea te d du rin g th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm
--

w h e t he r th es e so un d reco rd in gs were ne w reco rd in gs , as de sc rib ed in Cl au se 2 , o r

pr e-re co rd ed so ng s, as de sc rib ed in Cl au se 4. The Defen da nt s, on th e ot he r ha nd , sa y

th at , a lt ho ug h th e Agr eem en t co nf erre d on Sare ga m a ex pa ns iv e r i g h t s w it h res pe ct

Sareg ama a lternatively

claims to be the initial owner of the copy rig ht in the BMB H 2 4 sound rec ording beca

use “the 1967 Ag ree ment could re asonably be interpr eted to indicate that [S are g ama], as the ‘a

uthor’ and c rea tor of the subjec t sound recor ding, w as the owne r by virtue of being the ‘produc er’ of the wor k.” Appe llant Br. a

t 14. Not only

is this arg ument without merit, but Sareg ama a lso raises it for the f irst time on appeal. We, ther efor e, dec line to consider it. See Har

rison v. Be nchmar

k Elecs. Huntsville, I nc., 593 F .3d 1206, 1214 n.8 (11th Cir. 2010).

20to ne w reco rd in gs , as fo r pr e-re co rd ed so ng s, th e Agr eem en t on ly co nf erre d a de fin ed

an d li m it ed rig ht to m an uf act ur e an d se ll reco rd s -- th at is , th e rig ht to ex pl oi t th e pr ereco rd ed so ng s. The Defen da nt s fu rth er arg ue th at , what ev er ri gh ts th e Agr eem en t

co nf erre d on Sare ga m a, th ey were on ly ex cl us iv e fo r th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm ,

an d t ha t t he re i s n o e vi de nc e BM BH is ev en co ve red by the Agre em en t.

Afte r care fu ll y e x a mi ni ng th e la ng ua ge of th e Agr eem en t, we co nc lu de th at ,
th ro ug h th e Agr eem en t, Sh ak ti as si gn ed to Sare ga m a th e fir st of th e ex cl us iv e rig ht s

th at co m pr is e a so un d reco rd in g cop y rig ht -- the ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to m ak e an y ot he r

so un d reco rd in g em

bo dyin g [ t h e o rig in al so un d reco rd in g].” Howev er, th is rig ht

be cam e n on -ex cl us iv e at th e en d o f th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm , o n Ja nu ary 1 5,

19 69

. Tod ay , th eref

or e, Sare ga m a do es no t co nt in ue to ho ld th is ex cl us iv e rig ht , an d

th us do es no t co nt in ue to own a so un d re co rd in g c op y rig ht

. Aga in , th e Agr eem en t con te m pl at es two di ffer en t k in ds of so un d reco rd in gs :
(1 ) ne w reco rd in gs an d (2 ) pr e-re co rd ed so ng s. Thu s, as a t h r e s h ol d m at te r, if th e

BMB H s ou nd reco rd in g were co ve red by the Agre em en t, i t wo ul d co ns ti tu te a pr ereco rd ed so ng

. It wou ld n o t c o n st it ut e a ne w reco rd in g, si nc e th ere is no ev id en ce

th at BMB H was crea te d by Sare ga m a us in g Sh ak ti ’s art is ts an d m us ic ia ns , as Cl au se

2 req ui res

. In th is li gh t, on ly th e pr ov is io ns in th e Agr eem en t co nf erri ng an d li m it in g
rig ht s in pr e-re co rd ed so ng s -- Cl au se s 10 , 7, 5, an d 6 -- are rel ev an t to ou r an al y si s.

21In in te rp ret in g th e Agr eem en t, we fir st lo ok to th os e pr ov is io ns th at pu rp or t to

co nf er rig ht s on Sare ga m a. Cl au se 10 pr ov id e s t h a t , w it h res pe ct to bo th ne w

reco rd in gs an d pr e-re co rd ed so ng s, Gram op ho ne is en ti tl ed to au th or iz e th ird pa rti es

“t o m an uf

act ur e, se ll , an d/ or cat al og ue ” an y reco rd s reco rd ed or re-r eco rd ed un de r

th e Agr eem en t, bu t on ly whe n ro y al ti es be co m e pa y a b l e

. (DE 18 7- 2 ¶ 10 .) If

ex cl us iv e, th is pr ov is io n co ul d arg ua bl y co rres po nd wit h th e se co nd ex cl us iv e rig ht

th at co m pr is es a so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht -- na m el y , th e ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to se ll or
gi ve on hi re, or of

fer for sa le or hi re, any co py of th e so un d reco rd in g.” ICA, ch

. 3,
§ 14 (e)( ii ). Howev er, no t on ly do es Cl au se 10 m ak e no refe ren ce to an y “ rig ht ”

--

sp eak in g on ly in te rm s of act s Sare ga m a can au th or iz e ot he rs to pe rfo rm -- bu t m or e

im po rta nt ly, th ere is al so no th in g in th e Agr eem en t in di cat in g th at th is rig ht , if it can

ev en be c a l le d th at , is ex cl us iv e. Cl au se 10 , th eref or e, do es no t co nf

er a so un d 2 5

reco rd in g c op y rig ht on Sare ga m a.

Cl au se 7, ho wev er, is th e m os t cri ti cal rig ht -co nf erri ng pr ov is io n fo un d in th e

en ti re Agr eem en t, an d th e on e on whi ch Sare ga m a pr im ari ly ba se s it s co pyrig ht

own ers hi p cl ai m

. Thro ug h th is cl au se , Sh ak ti as si gn ed to Sare ga m a it s “ gr am op ho ne

Although Clause 10 also confe rs a br oad, and a rg uably exclusive, set of rig hts on 2 5 Sareg ama - - “the sole rig ht of production, re production, sale, use and per formanc e (inc luding broadc asting )” - - the Ag ree ment expli citly provides that these rig hts only apply to new

rec ording s. (DE 187-2 ¶

10.) B eca

use B MBH w ould constitute a pre- rec orded song , these expansive rig hts are ina

pposite to Sareg ama’ s claim of owne rship of the B MBH sound r ecor ding copy rig ht.

22reco rd in g rig ht s in al l wor ks to be reco rd ed or re-r eco rd ed un de r th e pr ov is io ns of th is

Agr eem en t.” (DE 18 7- 2 ¶ 7.) If excl us iv e, th is as si gn m en t of th e rig ht to re-r eco rd

pr e-re co rd ed so ng s co rres po nd s wit h th e fir st ex cl us iv e rig ht th at co m pr is es a so un d

reco rd in g co pyrig ht -- th e ex cl us iv e rig ht “ to m ak e an y ot he r so un d reco rd in g

em bo dyin g [t he ori gi na l s ou nd reco rd in g].” ICA, ch . 3, § 14 (e)( i).

In de ed , Cl au se 5 sa y s th at th is re-r eco rd in g rig ht is in fact ex cl us iv e, pr ov id in g

th at Sh ak ti can no t al lo w th e pr e-re co rd ed so ng s co ve red by th e Agr eem en t to be rereco rd ed by an y th ird pa rty. The refo re, by co nf erri ng on Sare ga m a th e ex cl us iv e rig ht

to re-r eco rd pr e-re co rd ed so ng s, Cl au se s 7 an d 5 to ge th er co nf erre d on Sare ga m a a

co pyrig ht in th e so un d reco rd in g of an y pr e-re co rd ed so ng co ve red by th e
Agr eem en t. 2 6

Cri ti cal ly, ho wev er, Clau se 5 im po se s a te m

po ral li m it at io n on th is ex cl us iv e
rig ht , or co pyrig ht

. Sp eci fic al ly, Cl au se 5 li m it s th e rig ht ’s ex cl us iv it y to th e two

y ear du rat io n of th e Agr eem en t, pr ov i d i n g t h at , “ du rin g th e sa id pe rio d of two

y ear( s) ,” S h a kt i can no t al lo w th ird pa rti es to re-r eco rd an y pr e-re co rd ed so ng s

The roy alty

pay ments Sareg ama wa s to make to Shakti, under Clause 8 of the 2 6 Ag ree ment, are consistent with this copy rig ht assignme nt. See I CA, ch. 4, § 19(3) (“The assig nment of copy

rig ht in any

work shall also spec ify

the amount of roy alty

pay able, if a

ny , to the author or

his leg al heirs dur ing the curr ency of the a ssignment . . . .” ). Howe ver, the ref ere nce in Clause 8 to “ [a] work or w orks owned by [S hakti]” make it clea

r that, by confe rring only one of the three exclusive rights that c omprise a sound re cording copy rig ht, Shakti retained copy rig ht ownership intere sts in the pre-r ecor ded song s. (See DE 187-2 ¶ 8.)

23co ve red by th e Agr eem en t. (DE 18 7- 2 ¶ 5.) Thu s, it is on ly du rin g th e two -y ear te rm

of th e Agr eem en t th at Sh ak ti is ba rred fro m co nf erri ng reco rd in g rig ht s on th ird

pa rti es

.
As Cl au se 6 m ak es cl ear, aft er th e two -y ear te rm ’s ex pi rat io n, Sh ak ti is free to

co nf er t he se reco rd in g ri gh ts on pa rti es ot he r th an Sare ga m a -- an arra ng em en t t ha t

is en ti rel y in co ns is te nt wit h Sare ga m a’s co nt in ue d own ers hi p of a co pyrig h t , or

ex cl us iv e rig ht

. Thu s, Cl au se 6 sp eci fic al ly pr ov id es th at , if aft er th e Agr eem en t’s

two -y ear te rm , Sh ak ti were to a l l o w a th ird pa rty to re-r eco rd a pr e-re co rd ed so ng

co ve red by th e Agr eem en t, th e on ly pe n a l t y w o ul d be th at Sare ga m a co ul d ceas e

pa y in g S ha kt i ro y al ti es on ne w reco rd in gs

. (Id . ¶ 6.) 2 7

If, as Sare ga m a co nt en ds , Sare ga m a co nt in ue d to own a co pyrig ht in th e so un d

reco r d i n g o f pr e-re co rd ed so ng s aft er th e Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm , th e

co ns eq ue nc e of Sh ak ti gr an ti ng th ird pa rti es reco rd in g rig ht s wou ld no t be th e m ere

ces sa ti on of ro y al ty pa y

m en ts

. Rat he r, as th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed , “ th e ap pr op ria te

act io n ag ai ns t Sh ak ti ’s wro ng fu l tra ns fer of rig ht s wou ld [b e]

. . . an act io n fo r

co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t.” Sare ga m a, 68 7 F. Su pp

. 2d at 13 33 ; cf. Dav is , 50 5 F.3 d at

10 1 (“ [A]n ex cl us iv e li cen se e m ay su e ot he rs fo r in fri ng em en t, in cl ud in g th e li cen so r

Sareg ama would, howe ver, be require d to continue pay ing Shakti roy alties on pre- 2 7

rec orded song s, as dictated by Clause 8.

24if th e li cen so r in fri ng es on th e ex cl us iv e rig ht he gr an te d th e li cen se e.”). W he n read

to ge th er, Cl au se s 5, 6, an d 7 cl earl y pr ov id e th at Sh ak ti co nf erre d on Sare ga m a a two

y ear ex cl us iv e rig ht , or co pyrig ht , to re-r eco rd th e pr e-re co rd ed so ng s co ve red by th e
Agr eem en t -- a rig ht th at un am bi gu ou sl y be cam e no n- ex cl us iv e u p on th e
Agr eem en t’s t erm in at io n o n J an ua ry 15 , 19 69

.
As we se e it , Sare ga m a ha s erro ne ou sl y in te rp ret ed th e te m po ral li m it at io n in

Cl a u s e 5 as ap pl y in g on ly to Sare ga m a’s “ rig ht s to act as th e ex cl us iv e pr od uc ti on

co mp a ny au th or iz ed to reco rd Sh ak ti ’s pr eex is ti ng m us ic al co m

po si ti on s wit h

Sh ak ti ’s co nt ract m

us ic ia ns .” App el la nt Br. at 18

. Sare ga m a cl ai m s th at th e two -y ear

li m it at io n on ly ap pl ie s to Sare ga m a’s rig ht to reco rd ne w reco r d i n g s

. Howev er,

Cl au se 5 pr ov id es th at “ [Sh ak ti ] sh al l no t du rin g th e sa id pe rio d of two y ear( s) al lo w

an y of th ei r m

us ic al an d/ or ot he r wor ks to be reco rd ed or re-r eco rd ed by an y of th ei r

art is te s and m

us ic ia ns et c., or fro m an y fil m so un d trac ks or reco rd ed ta pe s or oth er

m ean s” by a th ird pa rty. (DE 18 7- 2 ¶ 5) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Cl au se 5 m ak es cl ear th at

th e te m po ral li m it at io n al so ap pl ie s to Sare ga m a’s rig ht to re
- r e c o r d pr e-re co rd ed

so ng s an d th us ap pl ie s to th e en ti ret y of th e reco rd in g rig ht s co nf erre d by Cl au se 7.

In de ed , t he in te rp ret at io n Sare ga m a h as ad va nc ed wou ld req ui re us to en ti rel y read

ou t o f th e Agr eem en t t he po rti on of C la us e 5 we ha ve un de rs co red ab ov e.

Sare ga m a al so m is ta ke nl y sa y s th at “ Cl au se 5 do es no t p u t a te m po ral

25li m it at io n on th e as si gn m en t of wor ks ‘to be reco rd ed or re-r e co rd ed un de r th e

pr ov is io ns of th is Agr eem en t’ se t fo rth in Cl au se 7, or th e rig ht s to co py or di st rib ut e

su ch wor ks .” App el la nt Br. at 18

. Thi s arg um en t fai ls fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, Cl au se

7 do es no t as si gn wor ks ; rat he r, it as si gn s reco rd in g rig ht s in su ch wor ks

. And

se co nd , whe th er or no t th e Agr eem en t co nf ers on Sare ga m a th e rig ht s t o co py or

di st rib u t e , t h e Agr eem en t do es no t pr ov id e th at su ch rig ht s are ex cl us iv e, m ak in g

th em irr el ev an t t o t he is su e o f co pyrig ht own ers hi p.

In ad di ti on , Sare ga m a m is in te rp ret s Cl au se 6 by read in g es se nt ia l la ng ua ge ou t

of th is pr ov is io n, to o. Sp eci fic al ly, Sare ga m a co nt en ds t h a t C l a u se 6 pr ov id es th at

ro y al ty pa y m en ts fro m Gram op ho ne to Sh ak ti can ceas e on ly if Sh a k t i “ al lo ws it s

m us ic ia ns ‘to reco rd an y wor ks reco rd ed or re-r eco rd ed un de r

. . . th is Agr eem en t.’”

Id . a t 20 (ci ti ng DE 1 87 -2 ¶ 6) (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ). Howev er, th e rem ai nd er of

Cl au se 6 pr ov id es th at ro y al ty pa y m en ts can al so ceas e if Sh ak i “ pe rm it [s ] t h e

reco rd in g of su ch wor ks fro m an y fil m so un d tra ck or reco rd ed ta pe or ot he r m ean s.”
(DE 18 7- 2 ¶ 6.) In ot he r wor ds , Sare ga m a se le ct iv el y read s Cl au se 6, fo cu si ng on ly

on th e po rti on th at hi gh l i g h t s t h e li m it ed na tu re of Sare ga m a’s rig ht to reco rd ne w

reco rd in gs , whi le ig no rin g t he po rti on co nc ern in g th e li m it ed na tu re o f Sare ga m a’s
rig ht to re-r eco rd pr e-re co rd ed so ng s. It is on ly by ig no rin g th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th is

pr ov is io n th at Sare ga m a is ab le to arg ue th at th e two -y ear li m it at io n app li es on ly to

26Sare ga m a’s rig ht to reco rd ne w reco rd in gs , an d no t to Sare ga m a’s rig ht to re-r eco rd

pr e-re co rd ed so ng s. We rem ai n u np ers ua de d.

In sh or t, by as si gn in g to Sare ga m a th e ex cl us iv e rig ht to re-r eco rd pr e-re co rd ed

so ng s, Sh ak ti as si gn ed to S a r e g a ma a co pyrig ht in th e so un d reco rd in g of al l pr ereco rd ed so ng s co ve red by th e Agr eem en t. Howev er, th is ex cl us iv e rig ht , or

co pyrig ht , by it s ex p res s te rm s, ha d a li m it ed two -y ear du rat io n. Afte r th e
Agr eem en t’s two -y ear te rm ex pi red , th e rig ht be cam e no n- ex cl us iv e an d th us ceas ed

be in g a co pyrig ht

. Sare ga m a do es no t, th eref or e, pr es en tl y own a co pyrig ht in th e 2 8

so un d re co rd in g o f an y

pre -rec or de d s on g c ov ered by the Agre em en t.

Bec au se we co nc lu de th at , t h r o u gh th e Agr eem en t, Sh ak ti as si gn ed to

Sare ga m a a two -y ear ex cl us iv e rig ht to re-r eco rd th e pr e-re co rd ed so ng s co ve red by

th e Agr eem en t -- a rig ht th at be cam e no n- ex cl us iv e on Ja nu ary 15 , 19 69 -- we ne ed

no t ad dr es s whe th er th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g was in fa c t c o v ered by th e

The district cour

t held that the Ag ree ment confe rre d on Sareg ama a two-y ear exclusive 2 8 license tha t beca

me non-e x clusive there afte r. Sare g ama, 687 F . Supp. 2d at 1326. Howeve r, beca use Clause 7 uses the word “ rig hts,” while the wor d “license ” appe ars nowhe re in the Ag ree ment, we f

ind it more acc urate to say that the Ag ree ment confe rre d a two-y ear exclusive rig ht. Cf. I CA, ch. 1, § 2(j) ( defining an “e x clusive licenc e” a s “a lice nce w hich conf ers on the licensee or on the lice nsee a nd persons a

uthorised by

him, to the ex clusion of all other pe rsons (including the owner

of the c opy

rig ht), any

rig ht comprised in the copy rig ht in a work, a

nd ‘exclusive licensee ’ shall be c onstrued ac cording ly ”). N ever theless, under

the I CA, an exclusive licensee is treated like a

copy rig ht owner. See I CA, ch. 12, § 54 (stating that an “ow ner of copy rig ht” includes “ an exclusive licensee ” for purposes of the civil remedie s chapte r of the I CA); acc ord Patry , supra, § 5:101, at 5- 190.1 - 5-191 ( “[A]n ex clusive license e is a c opy rig ht

owner and a c opy

rig ht owner is nothing more than a n owner of an e x clusive rig ht.”).

27Agr eem en t. Thi s is so be cau se , ev en if BMB H were co ve red , Sare ga m a wou ld no t 2 9

pr es en tl y ho ld an ex cl us iv e rig ht to re-re co rd th e BM BH so un d re co rd in g, an d th us

wou ld no t pr es en tl y own a co pyrig ht in th is so un d reco rd in g. Ra t he r, Sare ga m a

wou ld , at m os t, ho ld a no n- ex cl us iv e rig ht to re-r eco rd th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g,

whi ch do es no t co ns ti tu te co pyrig ht own ers hi p.

Thu s, n ot on ly is Sa reg am a u na bl e to pr ov e th e fir st ele m en t o f a p rima facie

cas e of co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t -- th at is , th at it own s a va li d co pyrig ht in th e BMB H

so un d reco rd in g -- bu t it al so la ck s st at ut or y st an di ng to br in g th is cl ai m

. See Dav is ,
50 5 F.3 d at 10 1 (“ [T]he ho l d e r o f a no ne xc lu si ve li cen se m ay no t su e ot he rs fo r

in fri ng em en t.”) ; I.A.E., In c. v. Sh av er, 74 F.3 d 76 8, 77 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ [A] pe rs on

ho ld in g a no ne xc lu si ve li cen se ha s no st an di ng to su e fo r co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t.”)

.
Mo reo ve r, be cau se th e Agr eem en t is un am bi gu ou s in co nf

erri ng on Sare ga m a on ly

a two -y ear so un d reco rd in g co pyrig ht t h a t Sare ga m a no lo ng er own s, th e pa ro l

e v i d en ce ru le ba rs ou r co ns id erat io n of al l th e ex tri ns ic ev id en ce Sare g a ma

su bm it te d. See Ork in Ext erm in at in g C o., 8 49 F.2d at 1 36 2.

3 0

I n this li g ht, we also ne ed not addr ess whethe r the Ag ree ment only cover s songs tha

t 2 9

wer e cr eate d during the two-y ear term, as Sar eg ama a

rg ues, or whe ther it only

cover s those that

wer e supplied to Sareg ama dur ing the two-y ear term, as the D efe ndants contend.
Sareg ama submitted two letters that Shakti sent to Gra mophone in 1968; a letter w ritten 3 0 by a princ ipal of Shakti in May 2009; a xerox copy

of a viny l rec ord labe l indicating tha t it contains the B MBH sound r ecor ding; a n extract from the Indian Reg ister of Copy rig hts; and testimony by Sareg ama’ s corpor ate r epre sentative -- none of w hich we c an conside r.

28W e th eref or e ho ld tha t, under th e Agr eem en t, Sare ga m a do es no t pr es en tl y own

a co pyrig ht in th e BMB H so un d reco rd in g an d co ns eq ue nt ly la ck s st at ut or y st an di ng

to bri ng th is co pyrig ht in fri ng em en t cl ai m

.
Acco rd in gl y , we AFFIR M th e di st ric t co ur t’s e n try of su m m ary jud gm en t in

th e Defen da nt s’ fav or

.

29