Fed Court Believes It Can't Consider Copyright Issue

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered defendant Artisan Pictures to show cause why a suit against it for payment of film-acquisition rights shouldn't be remanded to state court. The federal court noted it 'likely lacks' subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory suit, even though the case involves whether copyright claims over licenses for film music were time barred. Sakkis v. Artisan Pictures Inc., CV 08-00049 MMM (JCx).

Cahoots Productions entered into an 'Acquisition of Rights Agreement' with Artisan purportedly for payment of a share of money from the movie 'Blue Hill Avenue.' Cahoots assigned its rights to Dino Sakkis, including authority for Artisan to pay Sakkis $77,720. Artisan executed a 'Distributor's Acceptance' to pay Sakkis directly but later held back on paying Sakkis by citing third parties' claims that licenses for music used in the movie weren't valid. Sakkis then filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court for a declaration that Artisan was obligated to pay him on the ground that the supposed copyright claims over the music licenses were barred by the three-year statute of limitations of the Copyright Act. Artisan removed the case to the federal district court based on the copyright claims.

The district court explained, however: 'Sakkis does not allege that he owns the copyrights in question. Nor does he assert that he has any 'real and reasonable apprehension' that he will be subject to liability for copyright infringement. In the absence of such a showing, he has no standing upon which to seek declaratory relief under the Copyright Act. To the extent that any copyright dispute is relevant to Sakkis' claims in this action, that dispute is between the Copyright Claimants and Artisan. The dispute affects Sakkis only because he believes that the Assignment is being breached because of the claims of the Copyright Claimants.'

'Seen this way,' the district court continued, 'it is clear that, to the extent that copyright infringement plays any role in the dispute between Sakkis and Artisan, it is as a defense to Sakkis' underlying breach of contract claim. ' [A] federal defense, no matter how central to resolution of a case, does not create subject matter jurisdiction. That Sakkis seeks declaratory relief does not change this fact.'

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered defendant Artisan Pictures to show cause why a suit against it for payment of film-acquisition rights shouldn't be remanded to state court. The federal court noted it 'likely lacks' subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory suit, even though the case involves whether copyright claims over licenses for film music were time barred. Sakkis v. Artisan Pictures Inc., CV 08-00049 MMM (JCx).

Cahoots Productions entered into an 'Acquisition of Rights Agreement' with Artisan purportedly for payment of a share of money from the movie 'Blue Hill Avenue.' Cahoots assigned its rights to Dino Sakkis, including authority for Artisan to pay Sakkis $77,720. Artisan executed a 'Distributor's Acceptance' to pay Sakkis directly but later held back on paying Sakkis by citing third parties' claims that licenses for music used in the movie weren't valid. Sakkis then filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court for a declaration that Artisan was obligated to pay him on the ground that the supposed copyright claims over the music licenses were barred by the three-year statute of limitations of the Copyright Act. Artisan removed the case to the federal district court based on the copyright claims.

The district court explained, however: 'Sakkis does not allege that he owns the copyrights in question. Nor does he assert that he has any 'real and reasonable apprehension' that he will be subject to liability for copyright infringement. In the absence of such a showing, he has no standing upon which to seek declaratory relief under the Copyright Act. To the extent that any copyright dispute is relevant to Sakkis' claims in this action, that dispute is between the Copyright Claimants and Artisan. The dispute affects Sakkis only because he believes that the Assignment is being breached because of the claims of the Copyright Claimants.'

'Seen this way,' the district court continued, 'it is clear that, to the extent that copyright infringement plays any role in the dispute between Sakkis and Artisan, it is as a defense to Sakkis' underlying breach of contract claim. ' [A] federal defense, no matter how central to resolution of a case, does not create subject matter jurisdiction. That Sakkis seeks declaratory relief does not change this fact.'