Cameo Clips

Music Royalty Claims

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a royalties-based suit by salsa artist Gilberto Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa v. Combo Records, 04-1405 (JAG). The district court first decided on Santa Rosa's contract claims (Santa Rosa didn't have a copy but claimed to have entered into a contract with Combo Records as early as 1978) that: “Santa Rosa does not remember what the contract contained, and lacks any proof of its formation from witnesses or a record of the instrument. … Because this Court cannot find an express or an implied contract without any facts, nor any sort of enforceable promise, the Court will not address Santa Rosa's claim of breach nor grant his request to rescind the contract.”

The court next found Santa Rosa's claim for a declaration of ownership of the recordings at issue time-barred by the Copyright Act's 3-year statute of limitations, stating: “Santa Rosa did not state any facts that explain his decades-long absence of concern [of non-payment of royalties] and still support a finding that he was reasonably diligent in protecting his interests.” Finally, the court concluded on Santa Rosa's Lanham Act claim alleging that his name had been omitted from the recordings: “Santa Rosa has to rely on the laws designed to address his concerns as the inventor and not producer or manufacturer of a product to make his claim against Combo Records; in this case, the Copyright Act and not the Lanham Act.”

The producers and distributors of the film “Hardball” were entitled to summary judgment in a suit by an individual who claimed that the unflattering depiction of a character in the movie amounted to defamation, false light and related personal-rights violations, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled. Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 01 C 6721. Plaintiff Robert Muzikowski had been portrayed in the nonfiction book “Hardball: A Season in the Projects,” to which Paramount bought the film rights, for his work in starting baseball teams for young people. The district initially dismissed Muzikowski's suit for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed.

On remand, the district court noted that Muzikowski complained of “transferred attributes [of the film character Conor O'Neill who was also involved in baseball teams for young people], such as posing as a broker [Muzikowski is actually a securities broker] and scalping tickets.” But the district court explained that the “innocent construction rule mandates that we give the allegedly defamatory statement its 'natural and obvious meaning' and interpret it as it was used, according to the ideas that were intended to be communicated to the viewers. … Though not completely dispositive, the fact that the context for the O'Neill character is a blockbuster movie, starring actors of worldwide fame and using many devices typical of a fictional story is very significant. … [R]easonable viewers taking in the film as a whole would recognize the hallmarks of Hollywood make-believe and not mistake the characters depicted as historical reenactments of real stories of real people. … Moreover, several undisputed aspects of the film and the O'Neill character support the reasonableness of a conclusion that O'Neill is not Muzikowski in disguise. … To be sure, there are similarities between O'Neill and Muzikowski. … However, far from negating the effect of the differences detailed above in establishing an innocent construction of the film, these shared characteristics demonstrate only that reasonable viewers could see the connection Muzikowski detects between himself and the film's protagonist, not that they must. … [I]f a statement can be innocently construed, the nondefamatory construction must be accepted even if the statement can also reasonably be construed defamatorily.”

Music Royalty Claims

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed a royalties-based suit by salsa artist Gilberto Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa v. Combo Records, 04-1405 (JAG). The district court first decided on Santa Rosa's contract claims (Santa Rosa didn't have a copy but claimed to have entered into a contract with Combo Records as early as 1978) that: “Santa Rosa does not remember what the contract contained, and lacks any proof of its formation from witnesses or a record of the instrument. … Because this Court cannot find an express or an implied contract without any facts, nor any sort of enforceable promise, the Court will not address Santa Rosa's claim of breach nor grant his request to rescind the contract.”

The court next found Santa Rosa's claim for a declaration of ownership of the recordings at issue time-barred by the Copyright Act's 3-year statute of limitations, stating: “Santa Rosa did not state any facts that explain his decades-long absence of concern [of non-payment of royalties] and still support a finding that he was reasonably diligent in protecting his interests.” Finally, the court concluded on Santa Rosa's Lanham Act claim alleging that his name had been omitted from the recordings: “Santa Rosa has to rely on the laws designed to address his concerns as the inventor and not producer or manufacturer of a product to make his claim against Combo Records; in this case, the Copyright Act and not the Lanham Act.”

The producers and distributors of the film “Hardball” were entitled to summary judgment in a suit by an individual who claimed that the unflattering depiction of a character in the movie amounted to defamation, false light and related personal-rights violations, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, ruled. Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp. , 01 C 6721. Plaintiff Robert Muzikowski had been portrayed in the nonfiction book “Hardball: A Season in the Projects,” to which Paramount bought the film rights, for his work in starting baseball teams for young people. The district initially dismissed Muzikowski's suit for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed.

On remand, the district court noted that Muzikowski complained of “transferred attributes [of the film character Conor O'Neill who was also involved in baseball teams for young people], such as posing as a broker [Muzikowski is actually a securities broker] and scalping tickets.” But the district court explained that the “innocent construction rule mandates that we give the allegedly defamatory statement its 'natural and obvious meaning' and interpret it as it was used, according to the ideas that were intended to be communicated to the viewers. … Though not completely dispositive, the fact that the context for the O'Neill character is a blockbuster movie, starring actors of worldwide fame and using many devices typical of a fictional story is very significant. … [R]easonable viewers taking in the film as a whole would recognize the hallmarks of Hollywood make-believe and not mistake the characters depicted as historical reenactments of real stories of real people. … Moreover, several undisputed aspects of the film and the O'Neill character support the reasonableness of a conclusion that O'Neill is not Muzikowski in disguise. … To be sure, there are similarities between O'Neill and Muzikowski. … However, far from negating the effect of the differences detailed above in establishing an innocent construction of the film, these shared characteristics demonstrate only that reasonable viewers could see the connection Muzikowski detects between himself and the film's protagonist, not that they must. … [I]f a statement can be innocently construed, the nondefamatory construction must be accepted even if the statement can also reasonably be construed defamatorily.”