Sony Denied Implied License for Miller Songs

Judge Haynes then went on to address Sony's objections to a special master's report on the amount of infringement damages. Sony claimed the special master had deducted too small an administration fee before determining the net publisher's share for the infringement-damages calculation. But Judge Haynes noted: “Sony currently administers a portion of the Roger Miller catalog for a 5% fee and has done so for many years. Thus, the 5% administration fee is reasonable. In addition, the Special Master found that the 5% fee was reasonable and consistent with the industry standard.” However, Judge Haynes further decided that foreign income generated by the Miller songs shouldn't be included in the damages award because “to be sure, the United States's copyright laws do not protect against extraterritorial infringement.” The court also declined to award prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee confirmed its earlier ruling that Roger Miller Music and Miller's widow Mary own the renewal-term copyrights to the performer/songwriter's 1964 and post-1964 compositions, which include some of his biggest hits. Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC, 3:04-1132. But the district court changed its previous view that Sony at least had an implied non-exclusive license to use the renewal-term copyrights.

The Tennessee federal district court in 2005 and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2007 both agreed that Sony owned the renewal terms to Roger Miller's 1958-1963 songs. (The Sixth Circuit had also decided that Miller's renewal copyrights were to be divided 50% to the surviving spouse and the other 50% among the author's children. Broadcast Music Inc. v. Roger Miller Music Inc. , 396 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2005).) But Miller died in 1992, at the end of the initial 28-year copyright term that applied to the 1964 and later songs, and thus didn't live to when the renewal term took effect on Jan. 1, 1993. On remand, the district court decided that under the federal Copyright Act, '304(a)(1)(C), the renewal terms for the post-1963 songs thus vested in Miller's heirs, rather than Sony.

In his most recent opinion, U.S. District Judge William J. Haynes Jr. ruled: “To the extent the [c]ourt had [also] earlier found Sony was an implied licensee, the [c]ourt sets aside that conclusion as an impermissible amendment to [']304(a)(1)(C). Thus, Sony lacks any defense to Plaintiffs' infringement claims for 1964 and post-1964 songs.”

Judge Haynes then went on to address Sony's objections to a special master's report on the amount of infringement damages. Sony claimed the special master had deducted too small an administration fee before determining the net publisher's share for the infringement-damages calculation. But Judge Haynes noted: “Sony currently administers a portion of the Roger Miller catalog for a 5% fee and has done so for many years. Thus, the 5% administration fee is reasonable. In addition, the Special Master found that the 5% fee was reasonable and consistent with the industry standard.” However, Judge Haynes further decided that foreign income generated by the Miller songs shouldn't be included in the damages award because “to be sure, the United States's copyright laws do not protect against extraterritorial infringement.” The court also declined to award prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.