Opinion ID: 622978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: East Coast's and Hudson's liability for the infringement.

Text: Having determined that there is no genuine dispute that copyright infringement occurred at the Long Beach Roscoe's, we next turn to the question of whether East Coast and Hudson can be held liable for vicarious infringement. East Coast and Hudson aver that the Long Beach Roscoe'sas well as the attached Sea Bird Jazz Lounge, where the infringing performances actually occurredare owned by an independent corporate entity called Shoreline Foods. East Coast and Hudson insist that Shoreline was the proper defendant in this action. To impose vicarious liability on a defendant for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant exercises the requisite control over the direct infringer and that the defendant derives a direct financial benefit from the direct infringement. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 729 (9th Cir.2007). A defendant exercises control over a direct infringer when he has both a legal right to stop or limit the directly infringing conduct, as well as the practical ability to do so. Id. at 730. We agree with the district court that East Coast and Hudson are jointly and severally liable for the infringement. Overwhelming evidence showed that East Coast and Hudson exercised control over both the Long Beach Roscoe's and the Sea Bird Jazz Lounge, and derived a financial benefit from the musical performances in the lounge. The Sea Bird Jazz Lounge displays on its premises a liquor license owned by East Coast and signed by Hudson. Hudson, who is the president of both East Coast and Shoreline, testified that he has managerial authority over the Long Beach Roscoe's, including the power to hire and fire employees and the power to prevent acts from appearing at the Sea Bird Jazz Lounge. The manager of the Long Beach Roscoe's, Cuahtemoc Rodriguez, testified that his paychecks were issued by East Coast Foods and that he bought alcohol for both the restaurant and the lounge area. By contrast, the only evidence that East Coast and Hudson proffer to demonstrate that they are not proper defendants is Hudson's unsubstantiated and self-serving declaration that he has never owned the Long Beach Roscoe's. Because no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether East Coast and Hudson controlled and derived financial benefit from the infringing performances at the Sea Bird Jazz Lounge, the district court properly held that Hudson and East Coast were liable for copyright infringement.