Bit Parts

Film Award Screeners/Copyright Infringement

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion by Warner Bros. Entertainment for a default judgment against an official screener of films submitted last year for Academy Award consideration. Warner Bros. Entertain- ment Inc. v. Caridi, CV 04-582 SVW (JWJx). The screener had been involved in the unauthorized distribution of the motion pictures “The Last Samurai” and “Mystic River,” including for Internet downloading purposes. In issuing its judgment, the district court awarded the film studio a permanent injunction, maximum statutory damages for willful infringement of $150,000 for each of the films and $9,600 in attorney fees.

Film Investments/Punitive Damages

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed and remanded an $8 million punitive damage award handed down against a film production whose affiliated producer misappropriated some of the more than $1 million in funds that the plaintiff had invested for a motion-picture project. StreetScenes L.L.C. v. ITC Entertainment Group Inc., B168835. The jury had awarded the plaintiff investor approximately $9 million, to include out-of-pocket damages but mostly for lost profits. The court of appeal later reduced the lost-profits award as too speculative. The latest appellate ruling was based on the refusal of the trial court to subsequently lower the $8 million punitive damages award against the production company. According to the court of appeal, an award of punitive damages about seven times the final compensatory award violated due process. The court of appeal noted in its unpublished opinion, “[T]his unextraordinary fraud case concerned misrepresentations by a corporate agent to experienced investors in an inherently risky project. While the speculative nature of the project should not (and did not) foreclose imposition of punitive damages, neither does it demand the kind of substantial award exceeding ratios representing the constitutional maximum in cases of 'extreme reprehensibility' resulting in death or substantial injury.”

Musical Compositions/Copyright Infringement

A Manhattan federal district court allowed a contributory copyright-infringement claim to proceed against Jelly's Jams L.L.C for purportedly granting Motown Records the rights to manufacture and distribute an album that contained the plaintiffs' two allegedly infringed songs. James v. Universal Motown Records Inc., 03 Civ. 4487 (LAK). But the district court found that the plaintiffs' misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

Follow-Ups

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing by No Limit Films of the appeals court's controversial ruling that sampling any portion of a pre-existing sound recording constitutes infringement of the original work. Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, 02-6521. Also clarifying its prior ruling with several amendments, the appeals court panel stated, “Since the district judge found no infringement [which the appeals court reversed in its initial decision], there was no necessity to consider the affirmative defense of 'fair use.' On remand, the trial judge is free to consider this defense and we express no opinion on its applicability to these facts.”

The Supreme Court of Tennessee declined a discretionary appeal to review a suit over a songwriter's reclamation of rights to compositions that included “Real Live Woman,” which became a hit for country artist Trisha Yearwood. Child Bride Music v. Jackson, M2002-02789-SC-R11-CV. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, had ruled that Carl Jackson, who obtained a songwriting deal with Famous Music for Bobbie Cryner, was bound by the reclamation clause in Cryner's contract with Famous. (Jackson wasn't a party to the Cryner/Famous agreement but had signed a separate agreement with Famous that assigned him 50% of the copyrights that Cryner had given Famous.)

Film Award Screeners/Copyright Infringement

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion by Warner Bros. Entertainment for a default judgment against an official screener of films submitted last year for Academy Award consideration. Warner Bros. Entertain- ment Inc. v. Caridi, CV 04-582 SVW (JWJx). The screener had been involved in the unauthorized distribution of the motion pictures “The Last Samurai” and “Mystic River,” including for Internet downloading purposes. In issuing its judgment, the district court awarded the film studio a permanent injunction, maximum statutory damages for willful infringement of $150,000 for each of the films and $9,600 in attorney fees.

Film Investments/Punitive Damages

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reversed and remanded an $8 million punitive damage award handed down against a film production whose affiliated producer misappropriated some of the more than $1 million in funds that the plaintiff had invested for a motion-picture project. StreetScenes L.L.C. v. ITC Entertainment Group Inc., B168835. The jury had awarded the plaintiff investor approximately $9 million, to include out-of-pocket damages but mostly for lost profits. The court of appeal later reduced the lost-profits award as too speculative. The latest appellate ruling was based on the refusal of the trial court to subsequently lower the $8 million punitive damages award against the production company. According to the court of appeal, an award of punitive damages about seven times the final compensatory award violated due process. The court of appeal noted in its unpublished opinion, “[T]his unextraordinary fraud case concerned misrepresentations by a corporate agent to experienced investors in an inherently risky project. While the speculative nature of the project should not (and did not) foreclose imposition of punitive damages, neither does it demand the kind of substantial award exceeding ratios representing the constitutional maximum in cases of 'extreme reprehensibility' resulting in death or substantial injury.”

Musical Compositions/Copyright Infringement

A Manhattan federal district court allowed a contributory copyright-infringement claim to proceed against Jelly's Jams L.L.C for purportedly granting Motown Records the rights to manufacture and distribute an album that contained the plaintiffs' two allegedly infringed songs. James v. Universal Motown Records Inc., 03 Civ. 4487 (LAK). But the district court found that the plaintiffs' misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

Follow-Ups

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted a petition for rehearing by No Limit Films of the appeals court's controversial ruling that sampling any portion of a pre-existing sound recording constitutes infringement of the original work. Bridgeport Music Inc. v. Dimension Films, 02-6521. Also clarifying its prior ruling with several amendments, the appeals court panel stated, “Since the district judge found no infringement [which the appeals court reversed in its initial decision], there was no necessity to consider the affirmative defense of 'fair use.' On remand, the trial judge is free to consider this defense and we express no opinion on its applicability to these facts.”

The Supreme Court of Tennessee declined a discretionary appeal to review a suit over a songwriter's reclamation of rights to compositions that included “Real Live Woman,” which became a hit for country artist Trisha Yearwood. Child Bride Music v. Jackson, M2002-02789-SC-R11-CV. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville, had ruled that Carl Jackson, who obtained a songwriting deal with Famous Music for Bobbie Cryner, was bound by the reclamation clause in Cryner's contract with Famous. (Jackson wasn't a party to the Cryner/Famous agreement but had signed a separate agreement with Famous that assigned him 50% of the copyrights that Cryner had given Famous.)