Bit Parts

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, dismissed a suit against Blockbuster Inc. filed over an acquisition agreement for rights to exploit the film “Rhapsody.” The district court previously ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over California-based defendant Bruder Releasing Inc. (BRI), which served as the agent for the rights agreement. (See, Entertainment Law & Finance, March 2005, p. 8.) In its latest ruling, the district court decided that BRI was an indispensable party without which Miele's suit couldn't proceed. Miele v. Blockbuster Inc., 04-CV-1228-BD. The district court explained, “If the court determines that the Acquisition Agreement is invalid, such a decision would impair the ability of the BRI Defendants to distribute the Rhapsody motion picture and soundtrack without giving them an opportunity to defend their interests. It also would foster future litigation, as any judgment entered in this case would not be binding on the BRI Defendants”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether representations by Women in Film to a financial donor of $100,000 were false when made. The Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson Association Inc. v. Women in Film, 03-56311. Reversing summary judgment for the donor, the appeals court noted in an unpublished opinion: “A jury might conclude that the endowment fund was held in liquid form with nothing paid out of it because of the pendency of this dispute rather than any intention to do so at the time the gift was obtained, that the $10 million [grant from the Entertainment Industry Council] was hoped for and anticipated, that the disappointment was subsequent to the gift, and that Women in Film intended when it received the gift [from the plaintiff] to obtain such substantial additional contributions as it could.”

Music Royalties/Synchronization Licenses

The New York Appellate Division, First Department, upheld a lower court ruling from 2003 that members of the Ronettes were not entitled to royalties from synchronization uses of the group's recordings in such home-use media as videocassettes and DVDs. Greenfield v Philles Records Inc., 5637. The appellate division noted that the New York Court of Appeals had determined in Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 780 N.E.2d 166 (2002), “that the 1963 agreement between plaintiffs and Philles Records was 'susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation': that defendants alone were entitled to license and retain all profits from synchronized audio-visual media (such as movies, DVDs, videocassettes), inasmuch as plaintiffs failed to retain their rights thereto in the agreement, and that the calculation of damages for royalties should be limited to 'sales of records, compact discs and other audio reproductions.'”

Public Performances/Station Owner Liability