Opinion ID: 4531500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Licenses, Royalties, and the 2011 Termination

Text: Because there is no evidence that Phil was aware that Don was listed as sole author of Cathy’s Clown in the copyright renewal, licenses, or 2011 Termination, they are not evidence of 13The same point could be made for Don’s argument regarding the copyright termination and renewal registration; Don and Phil were listed as co-authors in the original copyright registration. 14Although the dissent states that Don expressly repudiated Phil’s authorship “well before” 2011, Dissent, Slip Op. at 36, the dissent never actually identifies the conduct it believes to constitute repudiation. Assuming that the 1980 Release and the precipitating conduct is not enough, see supra n.11, and that it also cannot be the 2011 Termination, see Dissent, Slip Op. at 35–36, the dissent must be relying on the Reba McEntire cover in 1990. But of course, this action would not repudiate Phil’s ownership if it was not actually adverse to Phil’s status or adverse to his interest. See Brownstein v. Lindsay, 742 F.3d 55, 72 (3d Cir. 2014) (“It follows that, if an action is not hostile to an author’s rights, it may not be plain that his authorship rights have been repudiated.”). So this brings us back to the initial question of what transpired between the brothers precipitating the 1980 Release and whether Don actually challenged Phil’s status rather than simply demanding credit and royalties. As discussed, we could agree with Don on this point only by accepting his version of events wholesale based only on a letter that has never been discovered and a phone call that he himself claims never occurred. The dissent attempts to avoid this conclusion by simply stating that “it cannot be the case that one can avoid the accrual of a claim based on a dispute over co-authorship by agreeing to give up the right to claim to be a co-author.” Dissent, Slip Op. at 37. Respectfully, that misses the point. It is not that Phil has “avoid[ed] the accrual” of his claim; it is that a reasonable juror could find that Don never contested that Phil actually co-authored the song. No. 19-5150 Everly v. Everly Page 22 express repudiation. See Wilson v. Dynatone Pub. Co., 892 F.3d 112, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2018) (copyright registration did not repudiate authorship claim because nominal authors did not have reasonable notice of the nature of the registration); Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 654–55 (copyright registration does not constitute constructive notice of copyright ownership). Don argues that the registration and licenses may be taken into consideration in the totality of the circumstances, but seemingly concedes that, at least, registration alone would not constitute constructive notice. See Appellee Br. at 24 n.6.15 Further, the language of the 2011 Termination itself belies Don’s claim, as it states that he is the “author of, or one of the authors of [Cathy’s Clown].” R. 1-6 at PageID 31 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find that a genuine factual dispute exists as to whether Don expressly repudiated Phil’s authorship of Cathy’s Clown.