Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of artist Mary J. Blige and her record label, music publisher and song collaborator co-defendants in a copyright infringement suit over Blige's song “Family Affair.” Jones v. Blige, 07-1051.
Plaintiffs Leonard Jones and James E. White had sued over their song “Party Ain't Crunk.” In the spring of 2001, White sent a demo of the song to Andy McKaie, Senior VP of A&R for Universal Music Enterprises, which compiles product re-issues. Universal's new product division released “Family Affair” on Blige's No More Drama album in August 2001.
The appeals court decided that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had access to “Party Ain't Crunk.” The court explained: “Plaintiffs' assertions of a connection between McKaie and Defendants are entirely unsupported by the record. Plaintiffs claim that McKaie is a 'liason between the departments that release old and new material and he has to coordinate with the new release division on the creative end,' but they cite no support for this in the record. Also without citation or support, Plaintiffs claim that McKaie 'was in a position to provide
suggestions or comments to Blige and Young.' Plaintiffs point out that one of the songs on the No More Drama album contains a sample of a television theme-song, and they claim that the sample would have been cleared through McKaie's department and that he therefore 'knew about the 'No More Drama' project and was working on it.' This apparently is mere speculation, as the evidence Plaintiffs cite does not support their claim that the sample originated from McKaie's department or, if it had, that he would have known about it.
The Sixth Circuit also declined to accept the “bare corporate receipt” doctrine as a basis for proof of access. In addition, the appeals court explained that the time line demonstrated that “Family Affair” had been independently created. “Defendants have proved independent creation only of the music, and not the lyrics, of 'Family Affair',” the appeals court stated. “However, because Plaintiffs could not establish access, and because the lyrics of the two songs are not so 'striking[ly]' similar as to give rise to an inference of copying, ' the grant of summary judgment as to the lyrics was also proper.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of artist Mary J. Blige and her record label, music publisher and song collaborator co-defendants in a copyright infringement suit over Blige's song “Family Affair.” Jones v. Blige, 07-1051.
Plaintiffs Leonard Jones and James E. White had sued over their song “Party Ain't Crunk.” In the spring of 2001, White sent a demo of the song to Andy McKaie, Senior VP of A&R for Universal Music Enterprises, which compiles product re-issues. Universal's new product division released “Family Affair” on Blige's No More Drama album in August 2001.
The appeals court decided that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendants had access to “Party Ain't Crunk.” The court explained: “Plaintiffs' assertions of a connection between McKaie and Defendants are entirely unsupported by the record. Plaintiffs claim that McKaie is a 'liason between the departments that release old and new material and he has to coordinate with the new release division on the creative end,' but they cite no support for this in the record. Also without citation or support, Plaintiffs claim that McKaie 'was in a position to provide
suggestions or comments to Blige and Young.' Plaintiffs point out that one of the songs on the No More Drama album contains a sample of a television theme-song, and they claim that the sample would have been cleared through McKaie's department and that he therefore 'knew about the 'No More Drama' project and was working on it.' This apparently is mere speculation, as the evidence Plaintiffs cite does not support their claim that the sample originated from McKaie's department or, if it had, that he would have known about it.
The Sixth Circuit also declined to accept the “bare corporate receipt” doctrine as a basis for proof of access. In addition, the appeals court explained that the time line demonstrated that “Family Affair” had been independently created. “Defendants have proved independent creation only of the music, and not the lyrics, of 'Family Affair',” the appeals court stated. “However, because Plaintiffs could not establish access, and because the lyrics of the two songs are not so 'striking[ly]' similar as to give rise to an inference of copying, ' the grant of summary judgment as to the lyrics was also proper.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?