Bit Parts

Agent Commissions/Arbitration Awards

A Manhattan federal district court ruled that TV sports director William Webb must pay commissions to his agent from monies for TV contract renewals made after the agent won an arbitration award against Webb. Robert Lewis Rosen Associates Ltd. (RLR) v. Webb, 03 Civ 6338 (HB). The arbitrator had ordered Webb to pay RLR $355,084, including for costs of arbitration, as well as “additional payments” from contract renewals. The district court confirmed the award, then noted in its subsequent ruling: “Webb has chosen to read ambiguity into the Judgment and contends that no additional payments can ever be due because no further monies are [specifically] detailed. But because Arbitration Awards are confirmed in their entirety or specifically changed or vacated, and in this case the Court expressly denied Defendant's motion to vacate, any arguments about ambiguity or the effects of final judgment are unavailing.” … Defamation/Innocent Construction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a defamation suit by Karla Knafel over unflattering comments columnist Richard Roeper wrote about Knafel's affair with sports figure Michael Jordan. Knafel v. Chicago-Sun-Times Inc., 04-2152. The appeals court concluded: “[I]t is reasonable to read the [contested] passage as saying that although Knafel was having an affair (ie, a longer term relationship) with Jordan, by demanding so much money from him she is demeaning herself. Roeper does not say Knafel has committed the crime of prostitution but, rather, she is making herself sound like she has. The words 'sound like' imply similarity, but not identity. In short, Roeper is hard on Knafel … But his words are reasonably (and easily) subject to an innocent construction; ie, one that stops short of saying she committed a crime.”

Documentaries/Defamation

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted summary judgment in favor of director Michael Moore in a defamation suit by James Nichols, the brother of Terry Nichols (Terry was convicted for his part in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) over comments related to the plaintiff in the documentary movie “Bowling for Columbine.” Nichols v. Moore, 03-74313. The court concluded that: “Defendant's statements were factual and substantially true statements. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's defamation claim as well as his False Light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims fail … Even if Defendant's statements were false, the Court still finds summary judgment appropriate because … the Plaintiff is a public figure and he fails to meet the significant constitutional hurdle of actual malice.”

Downloading/Default Judgment

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, granted a default judgment against an individual accused of illegally downloading and uploading sound recordings. UMG Recordings Inc. v. Davito, 2:04cv479 PS. The court concluded: “Here, the grounds for default are clearly established. First, the default goes beyond a mere technicality, as Davito has not filed an answer or any responsive pleadings since the complaint against her was filed on November 18, 2004. Plaintiffs went so far as to send two warning letters prior to applying for default and, still, Davito did not respond. The defendant cannot be allowed to completely ignore this suit.”

DVD Distribution/Preliminary Injunctions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction that barred distribution and sale of a DVD of a 1976 KISS concert. KISS Catalog v. Passport International Productions Inc., 04-57077. The appeals court noted in its brief unpublished opinion: “Applying the 'limited and deferential' standard of review appropriate for preliminary injunction rulings, … we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings in granting the preliminary injunction after concluding that [plaintiffs] are likely to succeed on their copyright infringement claim.”

Tax Liability/Royalty Statements

The U.S. Tax Court upheld a tax-deficiency notice against Robert Poindexter, who argued that the notice was invalid because he allegedly had been underpaid songwriting royalties for the year at issue. Poindexter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2005-122. The tax court explained: “Petitioner's position in this case is based upon the erroneous impression that he should not have to pay income tax on his 2000 royalty income until respondent [Commissioner of Internal Revenue] forces Warner Chappell to admit petitioner is owed additional royalties for that year or at least until respondent investigates Warner Chappell. Petitioner is misinformed as to respondent's obligation and as to the authority of this Court. As the Court attempted to explain to petitioner at trial, this case is solely about determining his correct tax liability for the year 2000 …. Petitioner's claim for increased royalties from Warner Chappell has no bearing on the matters before this Court.”

Agent Commissions/Arbitration Awards

A Manhattan federal district court ruled that TV sports director William Webb must pay commissions to his agent from monies for TV contract renewals made after the agent won an arbitration award against Webb. Robert Lewis Rosen Associates Ltd. (RLR) v. Webb, 03 Civ 6338 (HB). The arbitrator had ordered Webb to pay RLR $355,084, including for costs of arbitration, as well as “additional payments” from contract renewals. The district court confirmed the award, then noted in its subsequent ruling: “Webb has chosen to read ambiguity into the Judgment and contends that no additional payments can ever be due because no further monies are [specifically] detailed. But because Arbitration Awards are confirmed in their entirety or specifically changed or vacated, and in this case the Court expressly denied Defendant's motion to vacate, any arguments about ambiguity or the effects of final judgment are unavailing.” … Defamation/Innocent Construction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed a defamation suit by Karla Knafel over unflattering comments columnist Richard Roeper wrote about Knafel's affair with sports figure Michael Jordan. Knafel v. Chicago-Sun-Times Inc., 04-2152. The appeals court concluded: “[I]t is reasonable to read the [contested] passage as saying that although Knafel was having an affair (ie, a longer term relationship) with Jordan, by demanding so much money from him she is demeaning herself. Roeper does not say Knafel has committed the crime of prostitution but, rather, she is making herself sound like she has. The words 'sound like' imply similarity, but not identity. In short, Roeper is hard on Knafel … But his words are reasonably (and easily) subject to an innocent construction; ie, one that stops short of saying she committed a crime.”

Documentaries/Defamation

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted summary judgment in favor of director Michael Moore in a defamation suit by James Nichols, the brother of Terry Nichols (Terry was convicted for his part in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City) over comments related to the plaintiff in the documentary movie “Bowling for Columbine.” Nichols v. Moore, 03-74313. The court concluded that: “Defendant's statements were factual and substantially true statements. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff's defamation claim as well as his False Light and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress claims fail … Even if Defendant's statements were false, the Court still finds summary judgment appropriate because … the Plaintiff is a public figure and he fails to meet the significant constitutional hurdle of actual malice.”

Downloading/Default Judgment

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, granted a default judgment against an individual accused of illegally downloading and uploading sound recordings. UMG Recordings Inc. v. Davito, 2:04cv479 PS. The court concluded: “Here, the grounds for default are clearly established. First, the default goes beyond a mere technicality, as Davito has not filed an answer or any responsive pleadings since the complaint against her was filed on November 18, 2004. Plaintiffs went so far as to send two warning letters prior to applying for default and, still, Davito did not respond. The defendant cannot be allowed to completely ignore this suit.”

DVD Distribution/Preliminary Injunctions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction that barred distribution and sale of a DVD of a 1976 KISS concert. KISS Catalog v. Passport International Productions Inc., 04-57077. The appeals court noted in its brief unpublished opinion: “Applying the 'limited and deferential' standard of review appropriate for preliminary injunction rulings, … we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion or based its decision on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous factual findings in granting the preliminary injunction after concluding that [plaintiffs] are likely to succeed on their copyright infringement claim.”

Tax Liability/Royalty Statements

The U.S. Tax Court upheld a tax-deficiency notice against Robert Poindexter, who argued that the notice was invalid because he allegedly had been underpaid songwriting royalties for the year at issue. Poindexter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo 2005-122. The tax court explained: “Petitioner's position in this case is based upon the erroneous impression that he should not have to pay income tax on his 2000 royalty income until respondent [Commissioner of Internal Revenue] forces Warner Chappell to admit petitioner is owed additional royalties for that year or at least until respondent investigates Warner Chappell. Petitioner is misinformed as to respondent's obligation and as to the authority of this Court. As the Court attempted to explain to petitioner at trial, this case is solely about determining his correct tax liability for the year 2000 …. Petitioner's claim for increased royalties from Warner Chappell has no bearing on the matters before this Court.”