Opinion ID: 784350
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pollock and the Amazed defendants

Text: 21 In his sworn declaration, Pollock stated that his job as a managing producer in BMG's Special Products division has nothing to do with the publishing company, Careers BMG Music Publishing, Inc., or working creatively with songwriters at all. Although he conceded that he had received a CD recording of Lover, Pollock denied that he had ever listened to the song and asserted that he never conveyed the CD to anyone at any time, much less anyone who contributed creative ideas or material to Amazed or Heart. Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 1346, 1355-56 (C.D.Cal.1984); see also Tisi, 97 F.Supp.2d at 547-48 (finding no proof of access where plaintiff alleged that he sent unsolicited tapes to record companies, including the company that released records containing the allegedly infringing song, but there was no evidence that plaintiff's song was conveyed to anyone with creative input into the allegedly infringing song). In fact, Jorgensen conceded at his deposition that he had no knowledge that Pollock did anything with the CD that Jorgensen sent to him. Pollock stated that he did not have any relationship with the writers of Amazed, and Jorgensen has submitted no evidence to the contrary. Cf. Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579, 583 (4th Cir.1996) (A court may infer that the alleged infringer had a reasonable possibility of access if the author sent the copyrighted work to a third party intermediary who has a close relationship with the infringer. An intermediary will fall within this category, for example, if she supervises or works in the same department as the infringer or contributes creative ideas to him. (emphasis added)); Moore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 944 (8th Cir.1992) (finding access where intermediary was in a position to provide suggestions to the alleged copiers); Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350, 354 (4th Cir.) (jury could infer access where intermediary with access to plaintiff's drawings had a close relationship to the alleged infringers), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1038, 121 S.Ct. 2000, 149 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2001); Tomasini v. Walt Disney Co., 84 F.Supp.2d 516, 522 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (finding no relationship between recipient of plaintiff's work and alleged infringers). 22 Jorgensen's claim against the Amazed defendants was properly dismissed because he has not offered any evidence to rebut Pollock's assertions. The most that Jorgensen offers to show a nexus between Pollock and the Amazed songwriters is his global assertion that anything and everything can very well happen. Such speculation does not give rise to a triable issue of access. See Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 584 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir.1978) (holding that plaintiff's mere speculation did not support a finding of access where defendant offered uncontroverted evidence of a lack of access); Towler, 76 F.3d at 582-83; Segal v. Paramount Pictures, 841 F.Supp. 146, 150 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd, 37 F.3d 1488 (3d Cir.1994) (table); Novak v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 752 F.Supp. 164, 169 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Meta-Film, 586 F.Supp. at 1355 (plaintiff's tort[u]ous chain of hypothetical transmittals was insufficient to avoid summary judgment on the question of access). Jorgensen has not adduced proof of a reasonable possibility that the paths of [the Amazed song-writers] and the infringed work crossed. Towler, 76 F.3d at 582. Bare corporate receipt of Jorgensen's work, without any allegation of a nexus between the recipients and the alleged infringers, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of access. 5 See Jorgensen I, 2002 WL 1492123, at -5; Dimmie, 88 F.Supp.2d at 146-47; Tisi, 97 F.Supp.2d at 547-48. 23