Opinion ID: 4531500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reba McEntire Cover

Text: The Reba McEntire cover, and the credit Don publicly received, arguably support Don’s claim that any potential ambiguity about his repudiation of Phil’s authorship status was put to rest no later than 1990. There is no dispute that when Reba McEntire covered Cathy’s Clown, Don was listed as the sole author in the record sleeve, liner notes, press materials, and sheet music. When he received the Robert J. Burton Award, he did so as sole songwriter. There is also no dispute that Phil was aware that Don received and accepted this public recognition, and the evidence in the record suggests that Phil found it troubling. This public recognition omitting any credit to Phil may ordinarily have constituted a public repudiation of his authorship and triggered the statute of limitations. See Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227, 1231 (9th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging that the “movie credits plainly and expressly repudiated authorship, by listing Aalmuhammed far below the more prominent names, as an ‘Islamic technical consultant’”); see also Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2011) (finding “no question” that putative author was aware of dispute regarding her rights when book was published without listing her as an author). There is no dispute that Don was openly claiming sole public credit for the song and that Phil was aware he was doing so. Cf. Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 654 (no express repudiation as a matter of law when plaintiff testified he was not aware of published works displaying contrary copyright notice). However, accepting Phil’s version of the facts about the nature of the 1980 Release, it is possible that the right to receive public credit (in addition to simply financial compensation) was included in the bundle of rights that he voluntarily transferred to Don to settle other copyright disputes. In this unusual situation in which Phil has introduced a plausible alternative explanation for Don’s actions, Don’s receiving sole credit would not be adverse to Phil’s claim No. 19-5150 Everly v. Everly Page 21 of authorship. Just as a tenant cannot adversely possess an owner’s property, Don could not have repudiated Phil’s authorship if he took credit for the work pursuant to Phil’s voluntary grant of the right to do so. See Gaiman, 360 F.3d at 655 (comparing co-ownership in copyright to cotenancy in real property). If Don never challenged Phil’s status as an author, there would be nothing adverse about his receipt of the award. Don’s argument about the BMI award is further complicated because Don and Phil jointly received two BMI awards for the original version of the song in 1961 and 1975.13 Accordingly, it could therefore be argued that Don’s claim of sole authorship—the declaratory relief sought here—is inconsistent with many years of conduct by the brothers. This history presents a genuine factual dispute as to authorship that must be resolved by a factfinder. Finally, Don’s argument that his receipt of songwriter royalties repudiated Phil’s authorship as a matter of law is unconvincing because the receipt of royalties undoubtedly falls within the scope of the 1980 Release and, under defendants’ interpretation of that assignment, does not show that Don repudiated Phil’s authorship.14