Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Cameo Clips

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
July 30, 2008

COPYRIGHT PREEMPTION/MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed, on federal-preemption grounds, several state claims that were included with a copyright-infringement claim against songwriters Phil Vassar and Craig Wiseman. The suit alleged the defendants copied the plaintiffs' song 'Good Ol' Days to Come' for Vassar's hit record 'Good Old Days.' Brainard v. Vassar, 3:07-0929. 'Good Ol' Days to Come' had been pitched to Vassar's representatives. The district court noted of the plaintiffs' common-law misappropriation claim: 'The plaintiffs propose that the breach of an implied promise to pay for the use of the plaintiffs' song and to credit the plaintiffs as creators of the song are sufficient 'extra elements' to defeat [copyright] preemption. However, as the defendants point out, the source for the implied promises to pay and to provide credit is not, under the plaintiffs' allegations, any behavior on behalf of the parties but, rather, standard industry practice.'

The court then dismissed the plaintiffs' federal claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act claim, explaining: '[T]he Lanham Act would provide a cause of action if the defendants had taken actual albums produced by the plaintiffs and labeled them as having been produced by the defendants, or if the defendants had labeled their own albums as having been produced by the plaintiffs when they were, in fact, produced by the defendants. ' It does not, however, provide a cause of action in the present setting, where the plaintiffs allege that the defendants stole portions of their song and recorded it themselves. ' That is the realm of copyright.'


COPYRIGHT TERMINATION/SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNMENT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the daughter of Eric Knight, the author of 'Lassie Come Home,' didn't give up her statutory right to terminate a copyright assignment when she signed a second agreement in 1978 with the same company that she had assigned the movie, TV and radio rights in her 25% copyright interest in 'Lassie' in 1976. Classic Media Inc. v. Mewborn, 06-55385. Eric Knight died in 1943. In 1996, daughter Winifred Knight Mewborn sent a notice to Golden Books Family Entertainment, then current owner of the Lassie works, that she would be terminating her 1976 assignment. Golden Books rejected Mewborn's termination notice. Then in 2005, Mewborn's lawyer sent a letter to Classic Media, Golden Books' successor-in-interest, over a planned 'Lassie Come Home' movie. Mewborn wanted her share of income per the 1996 termination notice for exploitation of the Lassie rights.

Reversing and remanding a district court grant of summary judgment for Classic Media, the Ninth Circuit first noted: 'Despite (1) the express statutory language that termination of a pre-1978 transfer 'may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary,' 17 U.S.C. Sec. 304(c)(5); (2) Congress's clear intent to benefit authors and their heirs with additional years of copyright protection in the 1976 Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court; and (3) the omission of any language transferring termination rights in the 1978 Assignment or even a mention of the right of termination, the district court concluded that Mewborn intended to relinquish and impliedly waived her 'newly acquired right of termination' when she executed the 1978 Assignment.'

The appeals court concluded, however, 'that insofar as Classic urges us to hold that the 1978 Assignment transferred the motion picture, television and radio rights subject to Mewborn's termination rights, we cannot so hold because such an assignment would be void as an 'agreement to the contrary' pursuant to Sec. 304(c)(5). Moreover, all that Mewborn had at the time of the 1978 Assignment was future rights that would revert upon termination of the grant and the 1978 Assignment does not purport to grant those rights.'

COPYRIGHT PREEMPTION/MISAPPROPRIATION CLAIM

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed, on federal-preemption grounds, several state claims that were included with a copyright-infringement claim against songwriters Phil Vassar and Craig Wiseman. The suit alleged the defendants copied the plaintiffs' song 'Good Ol' Days to Come' for Vassar's hit record 'Good Old Days.' Brainard v. Vassar, 3:07-0929. 'Good Ol' Days to Come' had been pitched to Vassar's representatives. The district court noted of the plaintiffs' common-law misappropriation claim: 'The plaintiffs propose that the breach of an implied promise to pay for the use of the plaintiffs' song and to credit the plaintiffs as creators of the song are sufficient 'extra elements' to defeat [copyright] preemption. However, as the defendants point out, the source for the implied promises to pay and to provide credit is not, under the plaintiffs' allegations, any behavior on behalf of the parties but, rather, standard industry practice.'

The court then dismissed the plaintiffs' federal claim of unfair competition under the Lanham Act claim, explaining: '[T]he Lanham Act would provide a cause of action if the defendants had taken actual albums produced by the plaintiffs and labeled them as having been produced by the defendants, or if the defendants had labeled their own albums as having been produced by the plaintiffs when they were, in fact, produced by the defendants. ' It does not, however, provide a cause of action in the present setting, where the plaintiffs allege that the defendants stole portions of their song and recorded it themselves. ' That is the realm of copyright.'


COPYRIGHT TERMINATION/SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNMENT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the daughter of Eric Knight, the author of 'Lassie Come Home,' didn't give up her statutory right to terminate a copyright assignment when she signed a second agreement in 1978 with the same company that she had assigned the movie, TV and radio rights in her 25% copyright interest in 'Lassie' in 1976. Classic Media Inc. v. Mewborn, 06-55385. Eric Knight died in 1943. In 1996, daughter Winifred Knight Mewborn sent a notice to Golden Books Family Entertainment, then current owner of the Lassie works, that she would be terminating her 1976 assignment. Golden Books rejected Mewborn's termination notice. Then in 2005, Mewborn's lawyer sent a letter to Classic Media, Golden Books' successor-in-interest, over a planned 'Lassie Come Home' movie. Mewborn wanted her share of income per the 1996 termination notice for exploitation of the Lassie rights.

Reversing and remanding a district court grant of summary judgment for Classic Media, the Ninth Circuit first noted: 'Despite (1) the express statutory language that termination of a pre-1978 transfer 'may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary,' 17 U.S.C. Sec. 304(c)(5); (2) Congress's clear intent to benefit authors and their heirs with additional years of copyright protection in the 1976 Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court; and (3) the omission of any language transferring termination rights in the 1978 Assignment or even a mention of the right of termination, the district court concluded that Mewborn intended to relinquish and impliedly waived her 'newly acquired right of termination' when she executed the 1978 Assignment.'

The appeals court concluded, however, 'that insofar as Classic urges us to hold that the 1978 Assignment transferred the motion picture, television and radio rights subject to Mewborn's termination rights, we cannot so hold because such an assignment would be void as an 'agreement to the contrary' pursuant to Sec. 304(c)(5). Moreover, all that Mewborn had at the time of the 1978 Assignment was future rights that would revert upon termination of the grant and the 1978 Assignment does not purport to grant those rights.'

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.