Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP/INEFFECTIVE TRANSFER
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a declaratory ruling that singer Barbara Mason owns the song copyright to her 1965 hit recording “Yes, I'm Ready.” Mason v. Jamie Music Publishing Co. (JMP), 05 Civ. 9922(BSJ)(JCF). Mason was 17 years old when she wrote the song. A Philadelphia Orphan's Court had appointed a guardian for Mason and directed the guardian to execute management, recording and songwriter agreements on her behalf. The songwriter agreement with Stilran Music & Dandelion Music (i.e., JMP) stated that Mason assigned to the publishers the rights in songs that she previously wrote that were listed on a Schedule B, but Schedule B wasn't filed with the Orphan's Court. The publishers federally registered the copyright in 1965 with themselves as claimants; Mason filed a renewal copyright in 1993 listing herself as copyright owner. In 2007, she signed an agreement to sell her copyright interest to Embassy Music Corp.
In ruling for Mason, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones found that the 1965 songwriter's agreement with the missing Schedule B failed to meet the writing requirement of 17 U.S.C. '204(a) for transfer of ownership of a copyright. According to the district judge: “The [c]ourt finds that Defendants' extrinsic evidence does not constitute a written assignment of Mason's copyright ownership, either by itself or when considered in conjunction with the Songwriter's Agreement. The Parties' correspondence and the royalty checks and statements establish that Mason and JMP were engaged in a business relationship and that JMP exploited the Composition and paid Mason royalties as a result.” (For example, in a 1984 letter to JMP President Harold Lipsius regarding a third-party use of “Yes, I'm Ready,” Mason had praised the JMP executive for “looking into this matter which concerns both of us.”)
The district court noted of Mason's copyright renewal registration that “the Songwriter's Agreement explicitly granted the renewal rights to any songs included within its contractual term; consequently the renewal rights to any songs listed on Schedule B would have been included as well if Schedule B had been annexed to the Agreement. As previously discussed, the Songwriter's Agreement failed to satisfy the writing requirements of '204(a) to assign Mason's copyright interest in the Composition, and it similarly did not convey Mason's expectancy in the renewal rights to Defendants. Defendants have failed to proffer any evidence of an express grant by Mason of her renewal rights and therefore Mason's continued acceptance of royalty payments and statements and business dealings with JMP after obtaining the renewal certificate in 1993 has no legal significance in the context of assignments of copyright ownership under the Copyright Act.”
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed an arbitrator's ruling that a film distributor must pay an advance to a lending bank, thus relieving completion bond guarantors of the obligation. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. TF1 International, BS114665. French distributor TF1 had agreed to pay film licensor Bauer Martinez International (BMI) a $1.5 million advance on delivery by March 31, 2007 of The Flock, starring Richard Gere. As security for a production loan, BMI assigned its right to the advance to the Royal Bank of Scotland. TF1 then acknowledged in an acceptance of assignment it signed with the film's completion bond guarantors, Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. and International Film Guarantors, that the French distributor waived U.S. theatrical release of the movie as a condition precedent for its obligation to pay the $1.5 million advance. However, TF1 later refused to pay the advance. An arbitrator ruled that TF1 breached its payment obligation.
The court of appeal noted in its unpublished opinion: “[T]he arbitrator found the following: that TF1 had waived a U.S. theatrical release as a condition for payment to the bank; that TF1 had impeded BMI's delivery and demanded postponement on the pretext that the U.S. release was still a condition precedent to payment; that TF1 had breached the acceptance of assignment by failing to pay the bank in accordance with that document; and that TF1 was estopped by its conduct from invoking the March 31, 2007, delivery deadline.”
The court concluded: “On that basis, the arbitrator rationally ordered TF1 to specifically perform by paying the bank. The relief ordered resolved the harm caused to [the completion bond guarantors] by TF1's breach and protected [the guarantors] from the liability it would face on the completion bond because of that breach, effectively exonerating it on the bond. Accordingly, the award was rationally related to the facts, the findings, and the breach and thus was within the scope of the arbitrator's broad powers.”
COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP/INEFFECTIVE TRANSFER
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
In ruling for Mason, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones found that the 1965 songwriter's agreement with the missing Schedule B failed to meet the writing requirement of 17 U.S.C. '204(a) for transfer of ownership of a copyright. According to the district judge: “The [c]ourt finds that Defendants' extrinsic evidence does not constitute a written assignment of Mason's copyright ownership, either by itself or when considered in conjunction with the Songwriter's Agreement. The Parties' correspondence and the royalty checks and statements establish that Mason and JMP were engaged in a business relationship and that JMP exploited the Composition and paid Mason royalties as a result.” (For example, in a 1984 letter to JMP President Harold Lipsius regarding a third-party use of “Yes, I'm Ready,” Mason had praised the JMP executive for “looking into this matter which concerns both of us.”)
The district court noted of Mason's copyright renewal registration that “the Songwriter's Agreement explicitly granted the renewal rights to any songs included within its contractual term; consequently the renewal rights to any songs listed on Schedule B would have been included as well if Schedule B had been annexed to the Agreement. As previously discussed, the Songwriter's Agreement failed to satisfy the writing requirements of '204(a) to assign Mason's copyright interest in the Composition, and it similarly did not convey Mason's expectancy in the renewal rights to Defendants. Defendants have failed to proffer any evidence of an express grant by Mason of her renewal rights and therefore Mason's continued acceptance of royalty payments and statements and business dealings with JMP after obtaining the renewal certificate in 1993 has no legal significance in the context of assignments of copyright ownership under the Copyright Act.”
The California Court of Appeal, Second District, affirmed an arbitrator's ruling that a film distributor must pay an advance to a lending bank, thus relieving completion bond guarantors of the obligation. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. TF1 International, BS114665. French distributor TF1 had agreed to pay film licensor Bauer Martinez International (BMI) a $1.5 million advance on delivery by March 31, 2007 of The Flock, starring Richard Gere. As security for a production loan, BMI assigned its right to the advance to the Royal
The court of appeal noted in its unpublished opinion: “[T]he arbitrator found the following: that TF1 had waived a U.S. theatrical release as a condition for payment to the bank; that TF1 had impeded BMI's delivery and demanded postponement on the pretext that the U.S. release was still a condition precedent to payment; that TF1 had breached the acceptance of assignment by failing to pay the bank in accordance with that document; and that TF1 was estopped by its conduct from invoking the March 31, 2007, delivery deadline.”
The court concluded: “On that basis, the arbitrator rationally ordered TF1 to specifically perform by paying the bank. The relief ordered resolved the harm caused to [the completion bond guarantors] by TF1's breach and protected [the guarantors] from the liability it would face on the completion bond because of that breach, effectively exonerating it on the bond. Accordingly, the award was rationally related to the facts, the findings, and the breach and thus was within the scope of the arbitrator's broad powers.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.