Bit Parts

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas decided that author Michael Baisden should amend his complaint over the stage production and film of his novel 'The Maintenance Man' to better state an unfair-competition allegation. Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions Inc. (IRP), H-08-0451. Baisden gave the defendants a three-year license for the stage play, but alleged underpayment of royalties and that the license rights were exceeded. The district court ruled, among other things, that Baisden properly alleged copyright infringement. But the court explained that Texas doesn't recognize a claim for unfair competition 'without some allegation of an independent substantive tort or other illegal conduct ' Although plaintiff argues that his unfair competition claim seeks to vindicate IRP's unlawful attempts to obtain access and derive profits from his current and prospective business relationships, he has neither alleged in his complaint that IRP (or either of the other two defendants) breached a confidential relationship or otherwise engaged in fraudulent or unethical conduct, nor argued that proof of his state law claim for unfair competition requires proof of an additional element not required to prove his federal copyright claim. ' However, because this case is still in an early stage of development and because the court is not persuaded that plaintiff is unable as a matter of law to state a claim that falls under the penumbra of unfair competition under Texas law, plaintiff will be accorded an opportunity
to amend his complaint.'

Music Publishing/Contract Interpretation

The California Court of Appeal, Second District, ruled that federal copyright law didn't control the issue of whether music publishing agreements R&B saxophonist Junior Walker entered into with Jobete Music in 1975 and 1983 replaced single-song agreements he signed in the 1960s. De Walt v. Jobete Music Co. Inc., B197108. Walker's heirs claimed that the 1960s agreements hadn't conveyed the songs' renewal rights. The Court of Appeal noted in an unpublished opinion: 'We agree with Jobete that because the jury determined that the 1960's single-song agreements were replaced by the parties' later agreements and [Walker's heirs] admitted that the later agreements did convey renewal copyrights, the jury was never called upon to decide whether the 1960's single-song agreements conveyed renewal copyrights. Accordingly, no federal question was raised and the case was properly tried in state court.'

Rights in Band Names and Member Personas/Injunctive Relief