Cameo Clips

Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a “one work” ruling in a copyright infringement suit by songwriter/recording artist Jason Spooner over the unauthorized use of Spooner's song “Who Am I” in a TV skiing commercial. District Judge George Z. Singal noted: “Given the facts of this case, including the fact that a single copyright holder holds the rights to both the sound recording and the musical composition of 'Who I Am,' the [c]ourt deems the musical composition and sound recording 'one work' for purpose of statutory damages.” Singal also found: “There is no evidence that Defendants have any use for or interest in musical compositions. They are not musicians and there is no evidence that they have ever attempted to license a musical composition ' Defendants are solely in the market for sound recordings that they then use as background music for their film productions.” Spooner v. EEN Inc., 08-CV-262-P-S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled it has subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright infringement suit filed by a screenplay writer who also alleges breaches of contract. Felton v. King of Salsa LLC (KOS), 09 Civ. 7918. Plaintiff Anthony Felton wrote a screenplay ' and became involved in directing and producing ' a movie about salsa artist Hector Lavoe. In 2006 and 2007, Felton and the KOS defendants entered into several agreements between them regarding the movie's production. KOS later sued Felton in New York Supreme Court, New York County, alleging breach of contract, among other things. Felton then filed a federal suit against KOS alleging copyright infringement and related claims over the film's production.

Denying KOS's motion to dismiss Felton's suit, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet explained: “The controlling authority where a complaint presents alleged copyright claim based in part upon contract violations is Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 2000), not considered by the parties. Bassett thoroughly reviews the complications presented by infringement claims alleged to be incidental to contract claims and therefore not arising under 28 U.S.C. '1338(a). Id. at 347-55. In Bassett, the Second Circuit overruled Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 971 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.1992), and held that, '[w]hen a complaint alleges a claim or seeks a remedy provided by the Copyright Act, federal jurisdiction is properly invoked.' Id. at 355 (citing T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir.1964)).”

Judge Sweet added: “Here, the first cause of action of the complaint alleges a violation of Felton's copyrighted Screenplay. The third cause of action seeks to invalidate the KOS copyright on the Film, appropriately challenging the owner's claim that the Film was a work for hire based on a violated contract. Under Bassett, federal jurisdiction exists.”

On the other hand, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a suit by author Mark Frost who sought a declaration that no valid contract had been negotiated for the defendants to acquire the movie rights to his novel The Match. Frost v. Frederick, CV 09-8325 PSG (CWx). The defendants claimed that e-mails between the parties constituted an enforceable contract. Frost argued the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '204(a), requires a transfer of exclusive rights in a copyright to be in writing.

But U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez noted: “[T]here appears to be no dispute over whether the alleged agreement is subject to the writing requirement of '204, merely over whether that requirement was satisfied.” The district judge continued: “[T]he [c]ourt notes that 'almost every case involving contract interpretation, appropriate for state court determination, could be recharacterized as a case appropriate for a federal court simply by framing the issue to be whether the disputed contract qualified as a writing within the meaning of section 204(a).' Jasper v. Bovina Music, 314 F.3d 42, 47 (2d Cir.2002).”

COPYRIGHT DAMAGES/STATUTORY 'WORK'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that an album constitutes one “work” for purposes of awarding statutory damages to copyright plaintiffs. Bryant v. Media Right Productions Inc., 09-2600-cv. Songwriters Anne Bryant and Ellen Bernfeld, and their self-owned record label Gloryvision, sued after their albums Songs for Dogs and Songs for Cats were sold through digital downloads by Orchard Enterprises. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement for Media Right Productions to market physical copies of the albums. Media Right then entered into an agreement with the Orchard for the “non-exclusive rights to sell, distribute and otherwise exploit” the albums “by any and all means and media (whether now known or existing in the future), including ' via the Internet, as well as all digital storage, download and transmission rights, whether now known or existing in the future.”

The Bryant plaintiffs sought statutory damages for each of the songs on their two albums. United States District Judge Kimba M. Wood, sitting by designation, noted for the appeals court that the plaintiffs/appellants argued “each song has 'independent economic value': [I]nternet customers could listen to and purchase copies of each song, each of which Appellants claim was independently copyrighted.” But Judge Wood emphasized that the Second Circuit “has never adopted the independent economic value test, and we decline to do so in this case. ' We cannot disregard the statutory language [of 17 U.S.C. '504(c)(1) that states a compilation, such as an album, is one 'work'] simply because digital music has made it easier for infringers to make parts of an album available separately.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine issued a “one work” ruling in a copyright infringement suit by songwriter/recording artist Jason Spooner over the unauthorized use of Spooner's song “Who Am I” in a TV skiing commercial. District Judge George Z. Singal noted: “Given the facts of this case, including the fact that a single copyright holder holds the rights to both the sound recording and the musical composition of 'Who I Am,' the [c]ourt deems the musical composition and sound recording 'one work' for purpose of statutory damages.” Singal also found: “There is no evidence that Defendants have any use for or interest in musical compositions. They are not musicians and there is no evidence that they have ever attempted to license a musical composition ' Defendants are solely in the market for sound recordings that they then use as background music for their film productions.” Spooner v. EEN Inc., 08-CV-262-P-S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled it has subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright infringement suit filed by a screenplay writer who also alleges breaches of contract. Felton v. King of Salsa LLC (KOS), 09 Civ. 7918. Plaintiff Anthony Felton wrote a screenplay ' and became involved in directing and producing ' a movie about salsa artist Hector Lavoe. In 2006 and 2007, Felton and the KOS defendants entered into several agreements between them regarding the movie's production. KOS later sued Felton in New York Supreme Court, New York County, alleging breach of contract, among other things. Felton then filed a federal suit against KOS alleging copyright infringement and related claims over the film's production.

Denying KOS's motion to dismiss Felton's suit, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet explained: “The controlling authority where a complaint presents alleged copyright claim based in part upon contract violations is Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe , 204 F.3d 343 (2d Cir. 2000), not considered by the parties. Bassett thoroughly reviews the complications presented by infringement claims alleged to be incidental to contract claims and therefore not arising under 28 U.S.C. '1338(a). Id. at 347-55. In Bassett , the Second Circuit overruled Schoenberg v. Shapolsky Publishers, Inc. , 971 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.1992), and held that, '[w]hen a complaint alleges a claim or seeks a remedy provided by the Copyright Act, federal jurisdiction is properly invoked.' Id . at 355 (citing T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu , 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir.1964)).”

Judge Sweet added: “Here, the first cause of action of the complaint alleges a violation of Felton's copyrighted Screenplay. The third cause of action seeks to invalidate the KOS copyright on the Film, appropriately challenging the owner's claim that the Film was a work for hire based on a violated contract. Under Bassett, federal jurisdiction exists.”

On the other hand, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed a suit by author Mark Frost who sought a declaration that no valid contract had been negotiated for the defendants to acquire the movie rights to his novel The Match. Frost v. Frederick, CV 09-8325 PSG (CWx). The defendants claimed that e-mails between the parties constituted an enforceable contract. Frost argued the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. '204(a), requires a transfer of exclusive rights in a copyright to be in writing.

But U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez noted: “[T]here appears to be no dispute over whether the alleged agreement is subject to the writing requirement of '204, merely over whether that requirement was satisfied.” The district judge continued: “[T]he [c]ourt notes that 'almost every case involving contract interpretation, appropriate for state court determination, could be recharacterized as a case appropriate for a federal court simply by framing the issue to be whether the disputed contract qualified as a writing within the meaning of section 204(a).' Jasper v. Bovina Music , 314 F.3d 42, 47 (2d Cir.2002).”