Cameo Clips

Copyright Infringement/

Chain of Song Ownership

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied a copyright-infringement defense motion for summary judgment by citing a genuine issue of material fact as to ownership of the rights at issue. Johnson v. Cypress Hill, 03 C 9452. The disputed issue revolves around the demise of the independent label Twinight Records, which dissolved in 1978. In fact, the case demonstrates the difficulty of determining conflicting small-label ownership years later. The defendants claim that plaintiff Syl Johnson signed a recording agreement with Twinight in 1967 that gave the record label 'the unlimited right, from time to time, to manufacture, by any method now or hereafter known, phonograph records and other reproductions on any mediums or devices now or hereafter known, of the compositions performed by you and recorded hereunder, and to sell, transfer or otherwise deal in the same throughout the world under any trade-marks, trade names and labels.' Johnson denies signing the agreement, but nevertheless claims he owned 25% of Twinight. Johnson also claims he co-wrote the 1968 song, 'Is It Because I'm Black?' The instrumental portion of the song was allegedly used without permission as the 1993 release, 'Interlude,' by the hip-hop group Cypress Hill. In 2004, Cypress Hill entered into a settlement agreement with Sunlight Records, then operating as Twinight/Twilight Records, for a $25,000 payment that absolved the hip-hop group of liability for any claims over its use of 'Is It Because I'm Black?'

The district court further explained: 'Johnson alleges that Sunlight Records, the releaser [to Cypress Hill] under the Recording Agreement, has no rights in 'Is it Because I'm Black?' because Sunrise is not a successor to the original Twinight Records, Inc. The only relationship between these two companies is that Peter Wright ('Wright') is the controlling shareholder of Sunlight Records, and [was] a minority shareholder of [the original] Twinight Records, Johnson claims in his affidavit that in 1977 or 1978, that [original Twinight Records 50% owner Howard] Bedno told Plaintiff that Twinight Records was finished, and that Johnson could take all of the master recordings for himself. Therefore, Plaintiff claims, any agreement entered into by Sunlight granting a license in the song is void because Sunlight had no rights in the work to transfer. ' In viewing all the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable jury could conclude that either party still owns the rights to 'Is it Because I'm Black?' Here, it is unclear as to results of Twinight's assets upon its dissolution in 1978. Additionally, if Johnson was a shareholder in the original Twinight Records, Inc., along with Wright, then Johnson is due compensation for the royalties arising from the licensing of 'Is It Because I'm Black?”

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota became the latest court to strike down a state law aimed at regulating the access of minors to video games. Entertainment Software Association v. Hatch, 06-CV-2268 (JMR/FLN). Federal courts in California, Illinois and Michigan have previously done so. The Minnesota Restricted Video Games Act (the Act) prohibited individuals under 17 years of age from buying or renting video games rated 'AO' (for 'adults only') or 'M' (for 'mature') by the industry's Entertain-ment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The district court initially noted that the 'Act imposes a regime which attempts to regulate video games based on content. ' As these games enjoy First Amendment protection, any such restriction is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny.' Issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law the day before it was to take effect, the district court agreed with the plaintiff trade associations that use of industry ratings as a basis for violation of the state statute amounted to an improper delegation of authority. The court explained that the 'ESRB rating is determined by a private body with no duty to answer to the public. Indeed, the rating scheme does not provide a method for the public or the State to challenge a rating once it is determined.' In promulgating the law, the state had relied on a study titled 'An Update on the Effects of Playing Violent Video Games.' The court found the study insufficient as a basis for enacting the Minnesota statute. According to the court: '[T]here is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota's children at all. A person, indeed a legislature, may believe there is a link and a risk of harm, but absent compelling evidence, the belief is pure conjecture. The State's professed concerns, in the absence of evidence showing them to be well-founded, do not outweigh the chilling effect on free speech that would result from the Act's becoming effective.'

Copyright Infringement/

Chain of Song Ownership

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied a copyright-infringement defense motion for summary judgment by citing a genuine issue of material fact as to ownership of the rights at issue. Johnson v. Cypress Hill , 03 C 9452. The disputed issue revolves around the demise of the independent label Twinight Records, which dissolved in 1978. In fact, the case demonstrates the difficulty of determining conflicting small-label ownership years later. The defendants claim that plaintiff Syl Johnson signed a recording agreement with Twinight in 1967 that gave the record label 'the unlimited right, from time to time, to manufacture, by any method now or hereafter known, phonograph records and other reproductions on any mediums or devices now or hereafter known, of the compositions performed by you and recorded hereunder, and to sell, transfer or otherwise deal in the same throughout the world under any trade-marks, trade names and labels.' Johnson denies signing the agreement, but nevertheless claims he owned 25% of Twinight. Johnson also claims he co-wrote the 1968 song, 'Is It Because I'm Black?' The instrumental portion of the song was allegedly used without permission as the 1993 release, 'Interlude,' by the hip-hop group Cypress Hill. In 2004, Cypress Hill entered into a settlement agreement with Sunlight Records, then operating as Twinight/Twilight Records, for a $25,000 payment that absolved the hip-hop group of liability for any claims over its use of 'Is It Because I'm Black?'

The district court further explained: 'Johnson alleges that Sunlight Records, the releaser [to Cypress Hill] under the Recording Agreement, has no rights in 'Is it Because I'm Black?' because Sunrise is not a successor to the original Twinight Records, Inc. The only relationship between these two companies is that Peter Wright ('Wright') is the controlling shareholder of Sunlight Records, and [was] a minority shareholder of [the original] Twinight Records, Johnson claims in his affidavit that in 1977 or 1978, that [original Twinight Records 50% owner Howard] Bedno told Plaintiff that Twinight Records was finished, and that Johnson could take all of the master recordings for himself. Therefore, Plaintiff claims, any agreement entered into by Sunlight granting a license in the song is void because Sunlight had no rights in the work to transfer. ' In viewing all the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable jury could conclude that either party still owns the rights to 'Is it Because I'm Black?' Here, it is unclear as to results of Twinight's assets upon its dissolution in 1978. Additionally, if Johnson was a shareholder in the original Twinight Records, Inc., along with Wright, then Johnson is due compensation for the royalties arising from the licensing of 'Is It Because I'm Black?”

Video-Game Laws/Constitutionality

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota became the latest court to strike down a state law aimed at regulating the access of minors to video games. Entertainment Software Association v. Hatch, 06-CV-2268 (JMR/FLN). Federal courts in California, Illinois and Michigan have previously done so. The Minnesota Restricted Video Games Act (the Act) prohibited individuals under 17 years of age from buying or renting video games rated 'AO' (for 'adults only') or 'M' (for 'mature') by the industry's Entertain-ment Software Rating Board (ESRB). The district court initially noted that the 'Act imposes a regime which attempts to regulate video games based on content. ' As these games enjoy First Amendment protection, any such restriction is presumptively invalid and subject to strict scrutiny.' Issuing a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law the day before it was to take effect, the district court agreed with the plaintiff trade associations that use of industry ratings as a basis for violation of the state statute amounted to an improper delegation of authority. The court explained that the 'ESRB rating is determined by a private body with no duty to answer to the public. Indeed, the rating scheme does not provide a method for the public or the State to challenge a rating once it is determined.' In promulgating the law, the state had relied on a study titled 'An Update on the Effects of Playing Violent Video Games.' The court found the study insufficient as a basis for enacting the Minnesota statute. According to the court: '[T]here is a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota's children at all. A person, indeed a legislature, may believe there is a link and a risk of harm, but absent compelling evidence, the belief is pure conjecture. The State's professed concerns, in the absence of evidence showing them to be well-founded, do not outweigh the chilling effect on free speech that would result from the Act's becoming effective.'