Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld cancellation of the distribution by Artemis Records of a cover recording of “The Ketchup Song (Heh Hah)” for which 24/7 Records failed to obtain a compulsory license for the musical composition. But the appeals court allowed 24/7 to proceed with claims of wrongful termination of 24/7's overall distribution contract with Artemis and that Artemis' distributor Sony Music, which distributed an earlier internationally successful recording of “The Ketchup Song,” had tortiously interfered with the 24/7-Artemis agreement. 24/7 Records Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment LLC, 04-5563.
Florida-based 24/7 signed a deal for Artemis to serve as 24/7's exclusive record distributor in the United States. The agreement, which also acknowledged that Sony's RED Distribution would work on behalf of Artemis, stated:
“[24/7] solely shall be responsible for, and shall pay all costs in connection with, each of the following:
…
(b) The securing, in writing, of all necessary licenses, consents and permissions required for the distribution of Records hereunder, including, without limitation, from recording artists, producers, other performers, music publishers, unions and guilds, and other Persons rendering services or granting rights in connection with the Recordings and the Records.”
The agreement further stated that 24/7 represented and warranted that 24/7 already had “or prior to release hereunder shall have, and shall at all times thereafter continue to have in effect a valid and enforceable grant of rights or license … with respect to each Recording, each musical composition and all other copyrightable materials embodied in or on the Records (including, without limitation, mechanical licenses for all musical compositions and licenses for so-called 'samples').”
The Second Circuit explained: “This representation required 24/7 to obtain a license for use of the Ketchup Song, which 24/7 failed to do, before Artemis became obligated to distribute that record. … In order to comply with the Artemis contract and to avoid copyright infringement for the Ketchup Song cover, 24/7 was required to obtain either a negotiated license (which Sony was free to grant or deny) or a compulsory license, which would allow 24/7 to cover the Ketchup Song without Sony's consent so long as it notified Sony of its intent to do so and complied with such statutory requirements as the payment of royalties at a fixed statutory rate.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?