Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement/Statute of Limitations

The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southwestern Division, held that a pro se suit against musical artist Michael Jackson and producer Quincy Jones was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations of Sec. 107(b) of the Copyright Act. Gleeson v. Jackson, 1-05-cv-88. Plaintiff George Gleeson claimed copyright infringement of songs and the 'moonwalk' dance that Jackson popularized. But the district court noted: '[I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff, George Gleeson, knew or should have known of Michael Jackson's performance of the songs 'Thriller,' 'We Are the World,' and 'Do You Remember,' as well as the dance move 'moonwalk,' for more than twenty years. ' The songs and the popular dance move performed by the infamous Jackson have been a matter of common knowledge since the mid-1980's. ' [In addition,] Gleeson has failed to present a showing that he ever owned a copyright to any of the above-entitled songs or to Jackson's famous dance move, the moonwalk.”

Loan Repayment/Forum Non Conveniens

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, ruled that California wasn't an inconvenient forum for a lawsuit against musician Peter Wolf alleging failure to repay a loan originally obtained in Austria to buy a house and a recording studio. Erste Bank v. Wolf, B180216. According to the court's unpublished opinion: '[T]his is a relatively simple accounting and collection matter. Moreover, no additional lawsuits will be brought in California as a result of the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. Indeed, if this matter is tried in Austria, the Bank ultimately will be required to file a separate action in California to enforce a foreign judgment, since defendant's assets are located here. ' [T]he proof is primarily if not entirely documentary; most of the relevant documents have already been produced and translated, so it is irrelevant where the originals of the documents are kept; our courts are accustomed to accommodating people whose native language is not English.'

Music-Royalties Suits/Contempt Orders

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found a defendant in contempt for failing to produce discovery documents in a royalties-collection suit over CD sales of musical-variety performances of performer Tom Jones. C/F International Inc. v. Classic World Productions, 01-3624. The court emphasized that '[Classic World president Daryl] Payne either did not conduct a reasonable search in spite of the Court order or deliberately withheld the files. In either case, Payne is liable for violating the Court discovery order, and C/F is entitled to compensation for damages it suffered as a result.' The court found that amount to be $409,026.

Network-Owners' Dispute/Arbitration

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed that the arbitrability of a dispute between the majority and minority owners of the MBC Gospel Network ' which operated the Black Family Channel ' should be decided by a court, rather than an arbitrator. James & Jackson LLC v. Willie Gary LLC, No. 59. The supreme court noted in this suit over liability for a corporate debt: '[T]he arbitration clause [in the network's LLC operating agreement] begins by requiring arbitration of any controversy arising out of or relating to the LLC Agreement in accordance with the AAA rules. But it continues by expressly authorizing the nonbreaching Members to obtain injunctive relief and specific performance in the courts. Thus, despite the broad language at the outset, not all disputes must be referred to arbitration. Since this arbitration clause does not generally refer all controversies to arbitration, the federal majority rule does not apply, and something other than the incorporation of the AAA rules would be needed to establish that the parties intended to submit arbitrability questions to an arbitrator.'

Sampling Suits/Promissory Estoppel

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided, in an unpublished opinion, that artists weren't estopped by a proposed settlement agreement from filing suit over the Fugees' unauthorized use of a sample of the plaintiffs' song. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' conduct had ratified the settlement agreement. The appeals court found, however, that for purposes of promissory estoppel 'the Proposed Agreement specified that it would not be binding until duly executed ' which it never was ' so it could not reasonably have been expected to induce Defendants' reliance.' Scipio v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., 05-5134.

TV Episodes/Copyright-Infringement Damages

A Manhattan federal district court decided that each episode of a TV series is a 'work' that may be awarded its own statutory damages for copyright infringement, even though the episodes weren't individually registered for copyright. U2 Entertainment Inc. v. China Video Inc., 04 Civ. 6139 (RMB) (KNF).

Copyright Infringement/Statute of Limitations

The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southwestern Division, held that a pro se suit against musical artist Michael Jackson and producer Quincy Jones was barred by the 3-year statute of limitations of Sec. 107(b) of the Copyright Act. Gleeson v. Jackson, 1-05-cv-88. Plaintiff George Gleeson claimed copyright infringement of songs and the 'moonwalk' dance that Jackson popularized. But the district court noted: '[I]t is undisputed that the plaintiff, George Gleeson, knew or should have known of Michael Jackson's performance of the songs 'Thriller,' 'We Are the World,' and 'Do You Remember,' as well as the dance move 'moonwalk,' for more than twenty years. ' The songs and the popular dance move performed by the infamous Jackson have been a matter of common knowledge since the mid-1980's. ' [In addition,] Gleeson has failed to present a showing that he ever owned a copyright to any of the above-entitled songs or to Jackson's famous dance move, the moonwalk.”

Loan Repayment/Forum Non Conveniens

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, ruled that California wasn't an inconvenient forum for a lawsuit against musician Peter Wolf alleging failure to repay a loan originally obtained in Austria to buy a house and a recording studio. Erste Bank v. Wolf, B180216. According to the court's unpublished opinion: '[T]his is a relatively simple accounting and collection matter. Moreover, no additional lawsuits will be brought in California as a result of the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss. Indeed, if this matter is tried in Austria, the Bank ultimately will be required to file a separate action in California to enforce a foreign judgment, since defendant's assets are located here. ' [T]he proof is primarily if not entirely documentary; most of the relevant documents have already been produced and translated, so it is irrelevant where the originals of the documents are kept; our courts are accustomed to accommodating people whose native language is not English.'

Music-Royalties Suits/Contempt Orders

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found a defendant in contempt for failing to produce discovery documents in a royalties-collection suit over CD sales of musical-variety performances of performer Tom Jones. C/F International Inc. v. Classic World Productions, 01-3624. The court emphasized that '[Classic World president Daryl] Payne either did not conduct a reasonable search in spite of the Court order or deliberately withheld the files. In either case, Payne is liable for violating the Court discovery order, and C/F is entitled to compensation for damages it suffered as a result.' The court found that amount to be $409,026.

Network-Owners' Dispute/Arbitration

The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed that the arbitrability of a dispute between the majority and minority owners of the MBC Gospel Network ' which operated the Black Family Channel ' should be decided by a court, rather than an arbitrator. James & Jackson LLC v. Willie Gary LLC, No. 59. The supreme court noted in this suit over liability for a corporate debt: '[T]he arbitration clause [in the network's LLC operating agreement] begins by requiring arbitration of any controversy arising out of or relating to the LLC Agreement in accordance with the AAA rules. But it continues by expressly authorizing the nonbreaching Members to obtain injunctive relief and specific performance in the courts. Thus, despite the broad language at the outset, not all disputes must be referred to arbitration. Since this arbitration clause does not generally refer all controversies to arbitration, the federal majority rule does not apply, and something other than the incorporation of the AAA rules would be needed to establish that the parties intended to submit arbitrability questions to an arbitrator.'

Sampling Suits/Promissory Estoppel

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided, in an unpublished opinion, that artists weren't estopped by a proposed settlement agreement from filing suit over the Fugees' unauthorized use of a sample of the plaintiffs' song. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' conduct had ratified the settlement agreement. The appeals court found, however, that for purposes of promissory estoppel 'the Proposed Agreement specified that it would not be binding until duly executed ' which it never was ' so it could not reasonably have been expected to induce Defendants' reliance.' Scipio v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., 05-5134.

TV Episodes/Copyright-Infringement Damages

A Manhattan federal district court decided that each episode of a TV series is a 'work' that may be awarded its own statutory damages for copyright infringement, even though the episodes weren't individually registered for copyright. U2 Entertainment Inc. v. China Video Inc., 04 Civ. 6139 (RMB) (KNF).