Cameo Clips

Defamation/Personal Jurisdiction

The sale of two copies of a book in and the shipment of a third copy into New Hampshire didn't establish personal jurisdiction over the book publisher, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has decided in an unpublished opinion. Christian v. Barricade Books Inc., 02-408. Tonya Christian, daughter of one-time Charles Manson follower Linda Kasabian, filed a defamation and invasion of privacy suit over comments made about Christian in the book 'Sharon Tate & the Manson Murders,' published by Barricade Books, which principally does business in New Jersey. The district court noted, however, that Christian failed to show that the two books sold in New Hampshire damaged her reputation or that 'Barricade has an ownership interest in the national book chains, wholesalers or jobbers who distributed the book in New Hampshire. [Christian] does not argue that they were acting as Barricade's agents. Nor does she suggest that Barricade engaged in joint marketing efforts with them or otherwise exercised any control over where they would offer books for sale.'

Sound Recordings/Restorations

Capitol Record had no rights in classical music recordings made in the 1930s, a Manhattan federal court has ruled. Capitol Records Inc. v. Naxos of America Inc., 02-7890. Capitol filed suit over Naxos' release of performances of Pablo Casals, Edwin Fischer and Yehudi Menuhin, alleging that its affiliate EMI Records owned the exclusive rights to the original shellac recordings from which Naxos had made and released digitally improved copies. Under the artist agreements, the copyrights were controlled by English law. As pre-1972 recordings, in the United States the performances were covered by state common law, rather than federal copyright law. Thus, Capitol relied on a hybrid copyright/unfair competition claim under New York law. Granting summary judgment for Naxos, the district court stated, 'The English copyrights in the agreements have long since expired, there is ambiguity concerning Capitol's chain of title and the agreement with Casals, and Capitol appears to have waived or abandoned any interests it had in the original recordings.' (EMI had told the curator of Yale University's Historical Sound Recordings Collection that it disclaimed the rights in the sound recordings.) In addition, the court noted that Capitol had failed to pursue other companies selling restorations of the recordings and that there was no clear evidence of how royalties were paid to the artists. Finally, the court emphasized, 'The quality and nature of the restorations stand as evidence to the fact that Naxos did not aim to simply duplicate the original recordings and capitalize on Capitol's efforts. Instead, Naxos worked to create a new product with superior sound.'

Television Show Ideas/Insurance Coverage

An insurer was obligated to defend Paxson Communications (PAX) against a lawsuit alleging that PAX and a co-defendant stole an idea for a cable-TV shopping program, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, has decided. National Casualty Co. v. Paxson Communications Corp., 370. The causes of action in the underlying suit by Interactive Holdings Corp. (IHC) included misappropriation, copyright infringement and unfair competition. That suit was settled, with PAX also paying, per a joint defense agreement, the damages and expenses incurred by IHC-suit co-defendant Channel Space Entertainment Inc. (CSE). The intellectual property policy that PAX had obtained from National Casualty stated that it covered damages and costs incurred in a monetary judgment or settlement arising out of trademark and copyright infringement, misappropriation of ideas under implied contract and unfair competition. But the insurance policy did not cover materials or services provided by independent contractors. National Casualty sued for a declaration that it had no duty to defend PAX because IHC was an independent contractor. Ruling for PAX, the appellate division noted, 'The allegations contained in the IHC complaint do not assert an existing independent contractor arrangement, but merely an incipient and unconsummated relationship as evidenced by the unexecuted draft agreement between the parties. The materials and services provided by IHC to PAX were only in contemplation of some future arrangement.' The appellate division also held that National Casualty was responsible for indemnifying CSE.

The materials and services provided by IHC to PAX were only in contemplation of some future arrangement.' The appellate division also held that National Casualty was responsible for indemnifying CSE.A probate court's final order barred the executor of the wife of the late composer/arranger Nelson Riddle from claiming royalties earned from Riddle's premarital work, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, has held in an unpublished opinion. Riddle 1984 Trust v. Ezor, B154066.

The final order, which categorized the assets of Nelson's estate as community or separate property, had been based on a settlement between Naomi Riddle and her late husband's children. After Naomi died, Warner Music Group and EMI/Capitol sent Nelson's royalties to Naomi's executor from sales of recordings created before the marriage. Naomi's executor then claimed that Nelson had used 'extensive efforts during the marriage to prolong and enhance the sale potential of the pre-marriage works, ' such that the resulting royalty payments were substantially attributable to his efforts during marriage and, as such, constituted, to some extent, community property.' The trial court, however, granted summary judgment for Nelson's executor on a request for return of the royalties.

Affirming, the court of appeal noted, among other things, 'Because [Naomi's executor] succeeded to Naomi's interests, he is bound by the [final order] judgment with respect to those interests in the same manner as if he were a party.'

Copyright Infringement/Assignment of Claims

A copyright owner can assign an accrued cause of action for infringement by itself to a third party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled. Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., 01-56069. Nancey Silvers, who wrote the script for the CBS movie 'The Other Woman' as a work for hire, received an assignment from the TV movie's producers of 'all right, title and interest in and to any claims and causes of action against Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Columbia Tri-Star and any other appropriate persons or entities with respect to the screenplay 'The Other Woman' ' and the motion picture 'Stepmom.” Silvers then sued Sony alleging that the 'Stepmom' was similar to 'The Other Woman.' Sony moved to dismiss, arguing that Silvers lacked standing to file suit. The district court denied the motion. Affirming, the appeals court noted, 'Simply stated, the accrued causes of action may be assigned without transferring any other copyright right to the assignee. ' The all-inclusive language of the assignment precisely and clearly specified what rights Silvers obtained. ' Nothing in the language of [17 U.S.C.] Sec. 501 specifies or suggests that the legal or the beneficial owners are the exclusive plaintiffs in copyright infringement cases.' The appeals court also concluded that there was no risk of Sony being subjected to multiple lawsuits if Silvers were allowed to proceed with her action.

Copyright Infringement/Personal Jurisduction

The issuance of mechanical licenses and a synchronization license by a Texas music publisher for the use of songs in sound recordings and a movie didn't constitute purposeful availment that would give the district court specific personal jurisdiction over the publisher in a copyright infringement suit in Tennessee, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has held. 02-5165 through 02-5175 Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Still N The Water Publishing , 327 F.3d 472. The music publisher's knowledge that the records and movie would be distributed nationally was insufficient to show purposeful availment, the appeals court determined. In addition, neither did the mechanical licenses nor the publisher's affiliations with the performing rights societies ASCAP and BMI specify an affirmative obligation to distribute or license the songs nationally or in Tennessee. Also, that the music publisher expected its compositions to be sold on the Internet wasn't enough for jurisdiction, considering there was no assertion that the publisher maintained a Web site of its own (or one sufficiently interactive for use by Tennessee residents). But Florida-based co-defendant DM Records did purposefully avail itself of doing or causing business to be done in Tennessee by entering into a distribution agreement with Ryco Distribution Partners for the national distribution of its records, the appeals court stated. Plus, the volume of business that DM generated through its website for at least two of the albums at issue established a prima facie case of purposeful availment, the appeals court concluded.

Defamation/Personal Jurisdiction

The sale of two copies of a book in and the shipment of a third copy into New Hampshire didn't establish personal jurisdiction over the book publisher, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has decided in an unpublished opinion. Christian v. Barricade Books Inc., 02-408. Tonya Christian, daughter of one-time Charles Manson follower Linda Kasabian, filed a defamation and invasion of privacy suit over comments made about Christian in the book 'Sharon Tate & the Manson Murders,' published by Barricade Books, which principally does business in New Jersey. The district court noted, however, that Christian failed to show that the two books sold in New Hampshire damaged her reputation or that 'Barricade has an ownership interest in the national book chains, wholesalers or jobbers who distributed the book in New Hampshire. [Christian] does not argue that they were acting as Barricade's agents. Nor does she suggest that Barricade engaged in joint marketing efforts with them or otherwise exercised any control over where they would offer books for sale.'

Sound Recordings/Restorations

Capitol Record had no rights in classical music recordings made in the 1930s, a Manhattan federal court has ruled. Capitol Records Inc. v. Naxos of America Inc., 02-7890. Capitol filed suit over Naxos' release of performances of Pablo Casals, Edwin Fischer and Yehudi Menuhin, alleging that its affiliate EMI Records owned the exclusive rights to the original shellac recordings from which Naxos had made and released digitally improved copies. Under the artist agreements, the copyrights were controlled by English law. As pre-1972 recordings, in the United States the performances were covered by state common law, rather than federal copyright law. Thus, Capitol relied on a hybrid copyright/unfair competition claim under New York law. Granting summary judgment for Naxos, the district court stated, 'The English copyrights in the agreements have long since expired, there is ambiguity concerning Capitol's chain of title and the agreement with Casals, and Capitol appears to have waived or abandoned any interests it had in the original recordings.' (EMI had told the curator of Yale University's Historical Sound Recordings Collection that it disclaimed the rights in the sound recordings.) In addition, the court noted that Capitol had failed to pursue other companies selling restorations of the recordings and that there was no clear evidence of how royalties were paid to the artists. Finally, the court emphasized, 'The quality and nature of the restorations stand as evidence to the fact that Naxos did not aim to simply duplicate the original recordings and capitalize on Capitol's efforts. Instead, Naxos worked to create a new product with superior sound.'

Television Show Ideas/Insurance Coverage

An insurer was obligated to defend Paxson Communications (PAX) against a lawsuit alleging that PAX and a co-defendant stole an idea for a cable-TV shopping program, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, has decided. National Casualty Co. v. Paxson Communications Corp., 370. The causes of action in the underlying suit by Interactive Holdings Corp. (IHC) included misappropriation, copyright infringement and unfair competition. That suit was settled, with PAX also paying, per a joint defense agreement, the damages and expenses incurred by IHC-suit co-defendant Channel Space Entertainment Inc. (CSE). The intellectual property policy that PAX had obtained from National Casualty stated that it covered damages and costs incurred in a monetary judgment or settlement arising out of trademark and copyright infringement, misappropriation of ideas under implied contract and unfair competition. But the insurance policy did not cover materials or services provided by independent contractors. National Casualty sued for a declaration that it had no duty to defend PAX because IHC was an independent contractor. Ruling for PAX, the appellate division noted, 'The allegations contained in the IHC complaint do not assert an existing independent contractor arrangement, but merely an incipient and unconsummated relationship as evidenced by the unexecuted draft agreement between the parties. The materials and services provided by IHC to PAX were only in contemplation of some future arrangement.' The appellate division also held that National Casualty was responsible for indemnifying CSE.

Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Still N The Water Publishing, 327 F.3d 472 New York New York

The materials and services provided by IHC to PAX were only in contemplation of some future arrangement.' The appellate division also held that National Casualty was responsible for indemnifying CSE.A probate court's final order barred the executor of the wife of the late composer/arranger Nelson Riddle from claiming royalties earned from Riddle's premarital work, the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, has held in an unpublished opinion. Riddle 1984 Trust v. Ezor, B154066.

The final order, which categorized the assets of Nelson's estate as community or separate property, had been based on a settlement between Naomi Riddle and her late husband's children. After Naomi died, Warner Music Group and EMI/Capitol sent Nelson's royalties to Naomi's executor from sales of recordings created before the marriage. Naomi's executor then claimed that Nelson had used 'extensive efforts during the marriage to prolong and enhance the sale potential of the pre-marriage works, ' such that the resulting royalty payments were substantially attributable to his efforts during marriage and, as such, constituted, to some extent, community property.' The trial court, however, granted summary judgment for Nelson's executor on a request for return of the royalties.

Affirming, the court of appeal noted, among other things, 'Because [Naomi's executor] succeeded to Naomi's interests, he is bound by the [final order] judgment with respect to those interests in the same manner as if he were a party.'