Bit Parts

Bankruptcy Trust Doesn't Get Artist's Royalties in Perpetuity

In refusing to grant a bid to have the creditors' trust in La Toya Jackson's Chapter 11 bankruptcy ' which began in July 1995 ' extended beyond March 31, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized Jackson had “dedicated to the Trust the right to receive” her artist-royalty income “for a term of years, not in perpetuity.” In re Jackson, 95-43145. Underlying the extension bid was a complaint by unpaid, unsecured creditors that the trust's income instead had been used to pay Jackson's bankruptcy administrative expenses. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck took note of the creditor trustee's allegation that Jackson “pursued a scorched-earth litigation strategy during her bankruptcy case aimed at deliberately incurring administrative costs to the detriment of unsecured creditors.” But the judge found the contention was raised “too late.”

Bob Marley Sound Recordings Held to Be Works for Hire

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that sound recordings made by the late reggae legend Bob Marley in the 1970s were works for hire that vested the copyrights in Island Records. The copyright renewal terms thus belong to Island's successor-in-interest UMG Recordings, rather than to Marley's heirs, the court concluded. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings Inc., 08 CIV. 6143(DLC). District Judge Denise Cote reached her determination under the Copyright Act of 1909, which provided that an employer could be the “author” of a work-for-hire. But the 1909 Act didn't include a list of specific works for hire and has been broadly construed. (The Copyright Act of 1976, which applies to works published or created on or after Jan. 1, 1978, does list works that qualify as for-hire but excludes sound recordings. Record companies have argued that sound recordings can be works for hire as contributions to statutorily recognized “collective works” or “compilations.”) The 1972, 1974 and 1975 agreements Marley signed with Island didn't use “work-for-hire” language. But the district court noted in part: “While Plaintiffs point to the clause stating that Island and Bob Marley would 'mutually agree' on lyrics and music before recordings were made, they disregard the very next provision which gave Island the discretion to decide whether or not such lyrics and music as recorded are acceptable and satisfactory. ' Plaintiffs contend that Bob Marley selected the recording studios, chose the musicians and songs to record, and determined when the group recorded. The fact that Marley may have exercised artistic control over the recording process, however, is legally irrelevant; what is dispositive is that Island had the contractual right to accept, reject, modify, and otherwise control the creation of the Sound Recordings.”

“Dubious” View of Right-of-Publicity Protection for Logo

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found “dubious” a corporation's attempt to protect a sports-league logo through the state's right of publicity law, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 214, '3A. Ruggers Inc. v. United States of America Rugby Football Union, 09-cv-30051-MAP. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor didn't decide the issue. But he did dismiss a claim alleging intentional interference by a Ruggers competitor with a sponsorship agreement for Ruggers to provide USA Rugby teams with gear and clothing, in exchange for exclusive rights to use the USA Rugby logo on apparel.

Bankruptcy Trust Doesn't Get Artist's Royalties in Perpetuity

In refusing to grant a bid to have the creditors' trust in La Toya Jackson's Chapter 11 bankruptcy ' which began in July 1995 ' extended beyond March 31, 2011, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York emphasized Jackson had “dedicated to the Trust the right to receive” her artist-royalty income “for a term of years, not in perpetuity.” In re Jackson, 95-43145. Underlying the extension bid was a complaint by unpaid, unsecured creditors that the trust's income instead had been used to pay Jackson's bankruptcy administrative expenses. Bankruptcy Judge James M. Peck took note of the creditor trustee's allegation that Jackson “pursued a scorched-earth litigation strategy during her bankruptcy case aimed at deliberately incurring administrative costs to the detriment of unsecured creditors.” But the judge found the contention was raised “too late.”

Bob Marley Sound Recordings Held to Be Works for Hire

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that sound recordings made by the late reggae legend Bob Marley in the 1970s were works for hire that vested the copyrights in Island Records. The copyright renewal terms thus belong to Island's successor-in-interest UMG Recordings, rather than to Marley's heirs, the court concluded. Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v. UMG Recordings Inc., 08 CIV. 6143(DLC). District Judge Denise Cote reached her determination under the Copyright Act of 1909, which provided that an employer could be the “author” of a work-for-hire. But the 1909 Act didn't include a list of specific works for hire and has been broadly construed. (The Copyright Act of 1976, which applies to works published or created on or after Jan. 1, 1978, does list works that qualify as for-hire but excludes sound recordings. Record companies have argued that sound recordings can be works for hire as contributions to statutorily recognized “collective works” or “compilations.”) The 1972, 1974 and 1975 agreements Marley signed with Island didn't use “work-for-hire” language. But the district court noted in part: “While Plaintiffs point to the clause stating that Island and Bob Marley would 'mutually agree' on lyrics and music before recordings were made, they disregard the very next provision which gave Island the discretion to decide whether or not such lyrics and music as recorded are acceptable and satisfactory. ' Plaintiffs contend that Bob Marley selected the recording studios, chose the musicians and songs to record, and determined when the group recorded. The fact that Marley may have exercised artistic control over the recording process, however, is legally irrelevant; what is dispositive is that Island had the contractual right to accept, reject, modify, and otherwise control the creation of the Sound Recordings.”

“Dubious” View of Right-of-Publicity Protection for Logo

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found “dubious” a corporation's attempt to protect a sports-league logo through the state's right of publicity law, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 214, '3A. Ruggers Inc. v. United States of America Rugby Football Union, 09-cv-30051-MAP. District Judge Michael A. Ponsor didn't decide the issue. But he did dismiss a claim alleging intentional interference by a Ruggers competitor with a sponsorship agreement for Ruggers to provide USA Rugby teams with gear and clothing, in exchange for exclusive rights to use the USA Rugby logo on apparel.