Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decision of Note: <b>Copyright Damages Based on Each Work</b>
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided that, under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), statutory copyright damages for a single defendant should be based on the amount of works infringed, rather than the amount of infringements of those works. Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 03-2014.
The plaintiffs, children of the late composer Guillermo Venegas-Lloveras, sued over Sonolux Record's use of two of Venegas-Lloveras' songs on at least 16 albums. After Sonolux defaulted, the first district judge awarded the plaintiffs $1.6 million in statutory damages, based on $100,000 for each of the album uses. A second district judge denied Sonolux's motion to set aside the default judgment but reduced the award to $200,000.
Upholding the second district judge's decision and referring to the award by the first district judge, the 1st Circuit acknowledged, “The current statute represents a departure from the case law interpreting the statute under the earlier Act of 1909. … Indeed, problems with the old statute no doubt led to the revision.”
But also noting that both district judges had found the infringements to be willful (thus allowing for a maximum of $150,000 per infringement), the appeals court vacated and remanded the $200,000 award.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided that, under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 504(c), statutory copyright damages for a single defendant should be based on the amount of works infringed, rather than the amount of infringements of those works. Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 03-2014.
The plaintiffs, children of the late composer Guillermo Venegas-Lloveras, sued over Sonolux Record's use of two of Venegas-Lloveras' songs on at least 16 albums. After Sonolux defaulted, the first district judge awarded the plaintiffs $1.6 million in statutory damages, based on $100,000 for each of the album uses. A second district judge denied Sonolux's motion to set aside the default judgment but reduced the award to $200,000.
Upholding the second district judge's decision and referring to the award by the first district judge, the 1st Circuit acknowledged, “The current statute represents a departure from the case law interpreting the statute under the earlier Act of 1909. … Indeed, problems with the old statute no doubt led to the revision.”
But also noting that both district judges had found the infringements to be willful (thus allowing for a maximum of $150,000 per infringement), the appeals court vacated and remanded the $200,000 award.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.