Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Decision of Note: </b>Copyright Law Preempts Singer's Publicity Claim
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that singer Debra Laws' state right-of-publicity claim over the use of her voice in a Jennifer Lopez sound recording and music video was preempted by federal copyright law. Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc., 03-57102.
Laws signed an agreement with Elektra/Asylum Records in 1979 that gave the record company the 'sole and exclusive right to copyright such master recordings' and 'the exclusive worldwide right in perpetuity ' to lease, license, convey or otherwise use or dispose of such master recordings.' Laws sued under California common and statutory law after a sample from her track 'Very Special' was licensed by the label for the Jennifer Lopez track 'All I Have.'
Affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit found: 'Laws does not dispute Sony's contention that the recording of 'Very Special' was a copyrighted sound recording fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Laws' right of publicity claim is based exclusively on what she claims is an unauthorized duplication of her vocal performance of the song 'Very Special.' Although California law recognizes an assertable interest in the publicity associated with one's voice, we think it is clear that federal copyright law preempts a claim alleging misappropriation of one's voice when the entirety of the allegedly misappropriated vocal performance is contained within a copyrighted medium.'
Laws' 1979 agreement with Elektra had also stated that Elektra 'shall not, without [Laws'] prior written consent, utilize or authorize others to utilize the Masters in any so-called 'audio-visual' or 'sight and sound' devices intended primarily for home use,' and that Elektra 'or our licensees shall not, without your prior written consent, sell records embodying the Masters hereunder for use as premiums or in connection with the sale, advertising or promotion of any other product or service.'
On this, the court explained: 'We express no view as to the effect of Laws' reservation in the production agreement and no view as to any remedies that Laws may have against Elektra. Whether or not the two parties contracted around the actual use of a copyright does not affect our preemption analysis. To the extent that Laws has enforceable, contractual rights regarding the use of Elektra's copyright, her remedy may lie in a breach of contract claim against Elektra for licensing 'Very Special' without her authorization.'
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that singer Debra Laws' state right-of-publicity claim over the use of her voice in a Jennifer Lopez sound recording and music video was preempted by federal copyright law. Laws v.
Laws signed an agreement with Elektra/Asylum Records in 1979 that gave the record company the 'sole and exclusive right to copyright such master recordings' and 'the exclusive worldwide right in perpetuity ' to lease, license, convey or otherwise use or dispose of such master recordings.' Laws sued under California common and statutory law after a sample from her track 'Very Special' was licensed by the label for the Jennifer Lopez track 'All I Have.'
Affirming the district court, the Ninth Circuit found: 'Laws does not dispute Sony's contention that the recording of 'Very Special' was a copyrighted sound recording fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Laws' right of publicity claim is based exclusively on what she claims is an unauthorized duplication of her vocal performance of the song 'Very Special.' Although California law recognizes an assertable interest in the publicity associated with one's voice, we think it is clear that federal copyright law preempts a claim alleging misappropriation of one's voice when the entirety of the allegedly misappropriated vocal performance is contained within a copyrighted medium.'
Laws' 1979 agreement with Elektra had also stated that Elektra 'shall not, without [Laws'] prior written consent, utilize or authorize others to utilize the Masters in any so-called 'audio-visual' or 'sight and sound' devices intended primarily for home use,' and that Elektra 'or our licensees shall not, without your prior written consent, sell records embodying the Masters hereunder for use as premiums or in connection with the sale, advertising or promotion of any other product or service.'
On this, the court explained: 'We express no view as to the effect of Laws' reservation in the production agreement and no view as to any remedies that Laws may have against Elektra. Whether or not the two parties contracted around the actual use of a copyright does not affect our preemption analysis. To the extent that Laws has enforceable, contractual rights regarding the use of Elektra's copyright, her remedy may lie in a breach of contract claim against Elektra for licensing 'Very Special' without her authorization.'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.