Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Clause & Effect

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
March 28, 2007

Music-Publishing Agreements/ Copyright Renewal Terms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that singer/songwriter Roger Miller gave his music publisher the renewal rights to his 1958-1963 songs. Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC, 05-6824. Miller, who died in 1992, had signed agreements with Sony's predecessor-in-interest Tree Publishing which required Miller and Tree to execute a separate exhibit for each song that Miller delivered to the publisher. The appeals court noted: 'Because the publishing agreements made no reference to the renewal copyrights and the Exhibit A agreements were never executed, Appellants [Roger Miller Music and widow Mary Arnold Miller] contend that Sony could not have received the renewal copyrights for Miller's 1958-1963 songs.' But the exhibit agreement stated Miller authorized the publisher to 'renew' his copyrights, which the appeals court found demonstrated 'the intent to convey the renewal interest; this is particularly true because even more generic terms, such as 'forever' and 'hereafter,' have sufficed to convey an interest in the renewal copyrights.' And though a subsequent 1969 contract in which Miller and Tree agreed to waive the Exhibit A signing requirement 'specifically mentions only the royalty provisions of the Exhibit A agreement,' the court concluded that 'nothing in the parties' course of dealing shows that the parties did not intend to be bound by all the provisions of the Exhibit A agreement.'

Sony had conceded to the district court that Miller's estate owned his 1964 songs because the songwriter had died before the renewal term began on Jan. 1, 1993. But the appeals court ruled: 'Sony's statements dealt with legal conclusions, and not matters of fact, and therefore the district court erred in concluding that the statements were [binding] judicial admissions ' [W]e remand the case to the district court so it can determine whether it should hear Sony's new argument regarding its ownership of the renewal copyrights in the 1964 songs.'

Music-Publishing Agreements/ Copyright Renewal Terms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that singer/songwriter Roger Miller gave his music publisher the renewal rights to his 1958-1963 songs. Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC, 05-6824. Miller, who died in 1992, had signed agreements with Sony's predecessor-in-interest Tree Publishing which required Miller and Tree to execute a separate exhibit for each song that Miller delivered to the publisher. The appeals court noted: 'Because the publishing agreements made no reference to the renewal copyrights and the Exhibit A agreements were never executed, Appellants [Roger Miller Music and widow Mary Arnold Miller] contend that Sony could not have received the renewal copyrights for Miller's 1958-1963 songs.' But the exhibit agreement stated Miller authorized the publisher to 'renew' his copyrights, which the appeals court found demonstrated 'the intent to convey the renewal interest; this is particularly true because even more generic terms, such as 'forever' and 'hereafter,' have sufficed to convey an interest in the renewal copyrights.' And though a subsequent 1969 contract in which Miller and Tree agreed to waive the Exhibit A signing requirement 'specifically mentions only the royalty provisions of the Exhibit A agreement,' the court concluded that 'nothing in the parties' course of dealing shows that the parties did not intend to be bound by all the provisions of the Exhibit A agreement.'

Sony had conceded to the district court that Miller's estate owned his 1964 songs because the songwriter had died before the renewal term began on Jan. 1, 1993. But the appeals court ruled: 'Sony's statements dealt with legal conclusions, and not matters of fact, and therefore the district court erred in concluding that the statements were [binding] judicial admissions ' [W]e remand the case to the district court so it can determine whether it should hear Sony's new argument regarding its ownership of the renewal copyrights in the 1964 songs.'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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 Image

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 Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.