Source: http://jgreenbergerlaw.com/blog/tag/Authors
Timestamp: 2019-10-18 07:05:06
Document Index: 645091529

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 106', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 501', '§ 411', '§ 411']

Authors — "On The Cover Songs" — Jordan Greenberger, Esq.
"We Shall Overcome" Verse Not Subject To Copyright Protection
September 11, 2017 / Jordan Greenberger
We Shall Overcome Foundation v. The Richmond Org., No. 16-cv-2725 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 2017) (Cote, J.).
In a putative class action challenging the validity of the defendants' copyright in the folk-song "We Shall Overcome," the Court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment finding that the lyrics and melody of the first verse (repeated as the 5th verse) of the song are not sufficiently original to qualify for copyright registration as a derivative work. After going through the history of various publications and registrations of the song, the Court held that the defendants could not rely upon their copyright registration's presumption of validity because the defendants had submitted sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption: "They have shown that the Defendants’ 1960 and 1963 applications for a copyright in the Song were significantly flawed."
The next questions was whether the changes to the most well-known verse of the Song, Verse 1/5, embody the originality required for protection by the Copyright Act. A version of the song was in the public domain, so the issue was whether the changes claimed by the defendants were sufficient to qualify as a a protectable derivative work. The Court held that "the Plaintiffs have shown that the melody and lyrics of Verse 1/5 of the Song are not sufficiently original to qualify as a derivative work entitled to a copyright. As a matter of law, the alterations from the PSI Version are too trivial. A person listening to Verse 1/5 of the Song would be hearing the same old song reflected in the published PSI Version with only minor, trivial changes of the kind that any skilled musician would feel free to make. ... More specifically, the changes of “will” to “shall” and “down” to “deep” and the melodic differences in the opening measures and the seventh measure, do not create a distinguishable variation. These differences represent “variations of the piece that are standard fare in the music trade by any competent musician.” In other words, changing "will" to "shall" was not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection.
The Court did, however, deny the motion for summary judgment on the issues of the authorship and divestment (by publication), and fraud on the copyright office; and partially granted a Daubert motion precluding expert testimony.
September 11, 2017 / Jordan Greenberger/
Originality, Derivative Work, Fraud On The Copyright Office, Expert, Authors, Divestment, Publication, Registration, Evidence, Copyright, Class Action
Royalties Dispute Between Co-Authors Of Song Not Preempted
August 14, 2014 / On the Cover Songs
McCants v. Tolliver, 2014-Ohio-3478 (Ohio. Ct. App., 9th Dist. Aug. 13, 2014).
An Ohio appellate court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's breach of contract claim as pre-empted by the Copyright Act. The dispute concerned a royalty-split between co-authors of a song, later licensed to the Blacked Eyed Peas, pursuant to an alleged oral agreement. Although the dispute did concern a song and recording, there was no "extra element" because "Th[e] alleged promise to split the proceeds is 'qualitatively different' than that of a copyright infringement claim."
McCants does not argue that Tolliver could not reproduce, perform, or distribute the song. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Instead, McCants argues that he should be compensated according to the alleged agreement between the parties. Because McCants’ claim for breach of contract is qualitatively different than that of a copyright infringement claim, his claim is not preempted by the Copyright Act and the court erred in finding that it was preempted.
August 14, 2014 / On the Cover Songs/
Authors, Black Eyed Peas, Breach of Contract, Co-Author, Copyright, Ohio, Preemption, Royalties
11th Circuit Clarifies Author's Standing When Publisher Registers Copyright As Author's Assignee
January 23, 2014 / On the Cover Songs
Smith v. Casey, No. 13-12351 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2014) (decision here).
At issue in this appeal is whether the author of a musical composition who assigned his rights in exchange for royalties may rely for purposes of standing to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act on a registration his publisher filed. The 11th Circuit found that the lower court erred in concluding that the estate lacked statutory standing to sue for copyright infringement.
The basic facts are this. Around the same time a song called "Spank" was recorded, Harrick Music, Inc. (Harrick Music), a publishing company affiliated with the record label Sunshine Sound, registered a copyright for the musical composition “Spank,” identifying Smith as composer and itself as claimant. Harrick Music checked a box on the registration indicating the song was not a composition made for hire. In the ensuing years, Smith acquiesced in Harrick Music’s administration of the “Spank” composition copyright, but, he alleged, the company never remitted a cent to him. According to the complaint, neither did Sunshine Sound. Under Smith's Recording Agreement with Sunshine and the form songwriter’s agreement attached to it,
however, Smith was owed percentage royalties for the song’s exploitation in exchange for assigning his rights to it. So on November 28, 2011, shortly before his death, Smith through counsel sent a cease-and-desist letter revoking Harrick Music’s authority to administer “Spank.” And Smith also filed with the Copyright
Office four Notices of Termination, seeking to formally record his revocation. Despite this, the defendants continued to commercially exploit the composition, and thereafter Smith's estate sued for infringement of the composition (not the sound recording).
Two defendants (not Sunshine or Harrick) moved to dismiss, and the district court concluded Smith lacked statutory standing to pursue his copyright claim and sua sponte dismissed that count with prejudice as to all of the defendants. Harrick Music, not Smith or his estate, had registered the copyright, the district court noted, and registration was a necessary precondition to filing suit for infringement.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit first examined sections 411 and 501 of the Copyright Act: "The 1976 Copyright Act’s legislative history explains that Congress intended 'beneficial owner,' as the term is used in § 501(b), to 'include . . . an author who had parted with legal title to the copyright in exchange for percentage
royalties based on sales or license fees.'" Continuing,
Under this definition, the estate has a sufficient ownership interest for standing under § 501(b). According to Smith’s allegations, he never signed any agreement giving Harrick Music the right to exploit the “Spank” copyright. But even were we to treat Smith’s agreement to permit Sunshine Sound to execute the form songwriter’s contract appended to his Recording Agreement as acquiescence to its terms for the “Spank” composition, Smith still would only have assigned his rights to the musical composition in exchange for royalties. Thus, he has at least a beneficial interest that satisfies § 501(b) of the Copyright Act.
The twist was that Harrick, not Smith, had filed the registration. Nonetheless, the 11th Circuit found that "The district court’s construction of § 411(a) was too narrow. Harrick Music registered a claim to copyright in the 'Spank' composition, specifically identifying Smith as the composer and informing the Copyright Office the work was not made for hire. Nothing in § 411(a) indicates that a composer who has agreed to assign his legal interest in a composition, along with the right to register it, in exchange for royalties, may not rely on the registration his assignee files. Where a publisher has registered a claim to copyright in a work not made for hire, we conclude the beneficial owner has statutory standing to sue for infringement." (Emphasis added).
Although the 11th Circuit reversed on the standing issue, it found that the District Court properly dismissed plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim.
January 23, 2014 / On the Cover Songs/
Assignments, Authors, Declaratory Judgment, Eleventh Circuit, KC The Sunshine Band, Publishing, Registration, Revocation, Royalties, Section 411, Section 501, Standing, Termination, Work Made for Hire
Plaintiff's Award Reduced In Wu-Tang Suit
February 15, 2011 / On the Cover Songs
Coles v Wu-Tang Prods., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00789 (1st Dep't Feb. 10, 2011)
The appellate division modified the trial' court's award to plaintiff by 25% of the net royalty payments received by defendant Wu-Tang Productions.
The action was for the payment of royalties for musical compositions co-written by plaintiff. The Court found that the documentary evidence established that Wu-Tang was entitled to retain 25% of the net royalty payments it received from Careers-BMG Music Publishing, Inc. (BMG) before paying plaintiff his share. Pursuant to the agreement between plaintiff and Wu-Tang, plaintiff conveyed an undivided 50% percent interest in the copyrights in those compositions to Wu-Tang, and, with plaintiff's consent, Wu-Tang transferred 50% percent of its interest in the copyrights to BMG. Thus, Wu-Tang retained a 25% interest in the copyrights.
Additionally, the record supported the trial court's determination that plaintiff, as a lyricist of the compositions, and defendant producer of the music, regarded themselves as joint authors sharing equally in the ownership of a joint work. Thus, the court properly granted plaintiff leave to conform the complaint to the evidence presented at trial by adding a claim against the producer for his unauthorized receipt of a 50% producer's fee
February 15, 2011 / On the Cover Songs/
Appeal, Appellate Division 1st Dep't, Authors, Breach of Contract, Damages, Joint Authors, Royalties, Wu Tang
Bob Marley Recordings Are Works Made For Hire
September 27, 2010 / On the Cover Songs
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings, 08 CIV. 6143 (DLC), NYLJ 1202472502152, at *1 (SDNY, Decided September 10, 2010)
"This dispute concerns the ownership of the renewal term copyrights in certain pre-1978 sound recordings embodying the performances of Jamaican reggae artist, Bob Marley (the "Sound Recordings"). The Sound Recordings were created pursuant to exclusive recording agreements between Bob Marley and the predecessor-in-interest to defendant UMG Recordings, Inc. ("UMG"). The plaintiffs—Bob Marley's widow, Rita Marley, as well as nine of Bob Marley's children (together with Rita Marley, the "Adult Beneficiaries"), and their wholly-owned company, Fifty-Six Hope Road (collectively, the "Plaintiffs")—allege that the renewal term copyrights in the Sound Recordings reverted to them under the Copyright Act of 1909 upon Bob Marley's death in 1981. Plaintiffs also assert claims for underpayment of royalties against UMG. Plaintiffs and UMG have cross-moved for partial summary judgment. For the following reasons, UMG's motion is granted in part and Plaintiffs' motion is denied."
The Court analyzed Marley's recording agreements, distinguished a Copyright Act "author" from a common-dictionary-usage "author," and after considering various factors determined that Bob Marley's recordings are "works made for hire" under the Copyright Act of 1909.
The royalties claim concerns digital downloads - the Court found that contract ambiguities precluded summary judgment
September 27, 2010 / On the Cover Songs/
Authors, Bob Marley, Copyright Act of 1909, Digital, Renewal Terms, Royalties, Southern District of New York, Summary Judgment, UMG, Work Made for Hire
Little Drummer Boys - Where You At?
December 04, 2007 / On the Cover Songs
As Chanukah, the festival of lights, begins this evening, OTCS began to wonder - who is writing holiday songs anymore? Yes, a variety of artists each year (without fail) will release holiday albums. Usually, these consist of covers of "classics". No doubt, the writers and publishers of such "classics" make a killing (not only do people buy these albums, but they are constantly broadcast an played IN PUBLIC - triggering other copyrights).
So OTCS wonders - why don't more writers and publishers take a stab at "hit" holiday songs, ones that transcend this years holiday season and go on to the next? Surely, its a gold-mine. Imagine having YOUR song played in every mall, office lobby, and toy store for one month each year. You'd make a killing!
So, OTCS invites all aspiring authors of holiday compositions to post their songs for OTCS first annual "Little Drummer Boys - Where You At?" Competition (it's a working name...)
December 04, 2007 / On the Cover Songs/
Authors, Chanukah, Competition, Holiday Songs, Publishers