Source: https://www.gtlaw.com/he/insights/2016/12/new-yorks-landmark-ruling-on-pre1972-sound-recordings-brings-digital-music
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:26:02+00:00

Document:
On Dec. 20, 2016, the New York Court of Appeals issued its decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.,1 holding, by a 4-2 vote, that New York law does not recognize a public performance right in sound recordings fixed before Feb. 15, 1972. Flo & Eddie dealt a setback to recording artists and record companies seeking royalty payments from digital music services that perform their sound recordings over the internet. However, the full impact of the Court’s decision remains to be seen.
The Copyright Act only protects sound recordings created on or after Feb. 15, 1972. Sound recordings created before that date (“pre-1972 sound recordings”) are not subject to federal copyright protection.6 Rather, pre-1972 sound recordings are governed by an amalgam of state laws, both statutory7 and at common law.8 The scope of those state law copyrights has not been well-defined. For instance, it was clear that state laws protected against copying (i.e., reproducing) pre-1972 sound recordings.9 However, whether state law copyrights included a right of public performance had not come into question—at least until recently.
Flo & Eddie is a corporation owned by two of the original members of the band The Turtles—best known for its hit song “Happy Together”—and the owner of copyrights in the band’s sound recordings. Beginning in August 2013, Flo & Eddie sued Sirius XM Radio in putative class actions in New York, California, and Florida, alleging that Sirius infringed Flo & Eddie’s state law copyrights in its pre-1972 sound recordings by broadcasting them in digital media (via satellite or the internet) without authorization.10 Sirius, in response, asserted that its broadcasts of The Turtles’ recordings did not amount to infringement, because pre-1972 recordings did not enjoy a right of public performance under state law.
On the legislative front, the Court of Appeals’ opinion invited stakeholders to turn their attention to the New York legislature for any changes that might be warranted to the scope of copyright in pre-1972 sound recordings. Given the decline in revenue that artists and record labels are facing, one might expect that the recording industry will be sending their representatives to Albany in full force. Not to be outdone, one might also expect that users of sound recordings—both digital music services and traditional broadcasters—will follow suit, in an effort to obtain exemptions and other statutory limits on the public performance right akin to those present in federal law. Finally, Flo & Eddie is bound to have caught the eye of Congress and the United States Copyright Office, which has explored bringing pre-1972 sound recordings within the ambit of the federal Copyright Act for the past several years.29 After this most recent decision, those efforts may well intensify.
One thing is certain: 2017 will bring a flurry of new developments for old recordings.
1 Appeal No. 172 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2016) (slip op.) (Flo & Eddie III). up.
2 17 U.S.C. § 106(1)-(6). up.
3 Id. §§ 106(4), 114(a). up.
4 See Pub. L. No. 104-39 § 2, 109 Stat. 336 (1995) (DPRA); 17 U.S.C. § 106(6). up.
5 See generally DPRA § 3; 17 U.S.C. § 114. up.
6 17 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(7), 301(c). up.
7 See, e.g., Cal. Civ. Code 980(1)(2). up.
8 See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 540, 559-61 (2005). up.
10 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-5784 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2013); Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-5693 (C.D. Cal. 2013); Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 13-cv-23182 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 3, 2013). up.
11 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 62 F. Supp. 3d 325, 338-44 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Flo & Eddie I). As no appellate court in New York had spoken on this precise issue, it was necessary that Judge McMahon attempt to predict how the Court of Appeal would rule on this question. Id. at 338-39. up.
12 Id. at 338, 352. up.
13 Id. at 339-41. up.
14 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 821 F.3d 265, 270-71 (2d Cir. 2016) (Flo & Eddie II). up.
15 Id. at 272. up.
16 Flo & Eddie III, slip op. at 1-2. up.
17 Id. at 12. up.
18 Id. at 23. up.
19 Id. at 24-31. up.
20 Id. at 31-34. up.
21 Id. at 35. up.
22 Id. (Rivera, J., dissenting). up.
23 Id. (Fahey, J., concurring). up.
24 Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 2014 WL 4725382 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2014). up.
25 See Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., No. 15-55287 (9th Cir.). up.
26 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 2015 WL 3852692, at *4-5 (S.D. Fla. June 22, 2015). up.
27 Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 827 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2016). up.
28 See Flo & Eddie III, slip op. at 35 (citing Flo & Eddie II, 821 F.3d at 270 n.4, 272). up.
29 See, e.g., United States Copyright Office, Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings (Dec. 2011), available at https://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound/pre-72-report.pdf. up.

References: v. 
 § 106
 § 2
 § 106
 § 3
 § 114
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.