Bit Parts

George Clinton's Bid for Internet Royalties Barred

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that musician George Clinton failed to timely object to the alleged underpayment of Internet royalties. Clinton v. Universal Music Group (UMG), 07-672. Clinton's loan-out entity had signed a music production agreement in 1980 with UMG's predecessor-in-interest, Casablanca Records. Clinton filed a breach-of-contract suit in 2007 over 2003 royalty statements. The 1980 agreement made all royalty statements binding on Clinton “unless specific objection is made by Producer, by written notice to Company stating the basis thereof, within three (3) years after the date such statement or account is rendered.” Granting summary judgment for UMG, District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez emphasized: “Defendants point to the First and Second Audit Reports [of UMG prepared around 2004 by an auditing firm Clinton hired] as evidence that [n]either ' audit report[] specifically objected to the calculation of [I]nternet royalties.” Thus, District Judge Gutierrez concluded that the Internet royalty claims, raised by Clinton for the first time in his second amended complaint, “are barred for failure to timely and specifically object in writing as required by the 1980 Agreement.”

Visual Artist's Jazz Fest Creations Aren't Covered By Moral Rights Statutes

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico decided that use by the 2010 Heineken Jazz Fest (HJF) of artwork plaintiff Dennis Mario Rivera previously created under one-year contracts to brand the HJF's festivals didn't violate Rivera's moral rights under either the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. '106(A) or the similar Puerto Rico Intellectual Property Act (PRIPA). Rivera v. Mendez and Co., 11-1530. VARA applies to certain “works of visual art,” such as paintings, prints and sculptures, but not those created for advertisements or promotions. District Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi noted: “The original works were commissioned [from Rivera] as promotional advertisements for the HJF's between 1998-2009 and the alleged infringing works were utilized for similar purposes in 2010. Therefore, even though the reproductions of Plaintiff's works may in fact be unauthorized, the infringing uses alleged by Plaintiff do not garner the protections of either VARA or PRIPA, as these works were originally created to advertise and promote the various HJF's.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

George Clinton's Bid for Internet Royalties Barred

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that musician George Clinton failed to timely object to the alleged underpayment of Internet royalties. Clinton v. Universal Music Group (UMG), 07-672. Clinton's loan-out entity had signed a music production agreement in 1980 with UMG's predecessor-in-interest, Casablanca Records. Clinton filed a breach-of-contract suit in 2007 over 2003 royalty statements. The 1980 agreement made all royalty statements binding on Clinton “unless specific objection is made by Producer, by written notice to Company stating the basis thereof, within three (3) years after the date such statement or account is rendered.” Granting summary judgment for UMG, District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez emphasized: “Defendants point to the First and Second Audit Reports [of UMG prepared around 2004 by an auditing firm Clinton hired] as evidence that [n]either ' audit report[] specifically objected to the calculation of [I]nternet royalties.” Thus, District Judge Gutierrez concluded that the Internet royalty claims, raised by Clinton for the first time in his second amended complaint, “are barred for failure to timely and specifically object in writing as required by the 1980 Agreement.”

Visual Artist's Jazz Fest Creations Aren't Covered By Moral Rights Statutes

The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico decided that use by the 2010 Heineken Jazz Fest (HJF) of artwork plaintiff Dennis Mario Rivera previously created under one-year contracts to brand the HJF's festivals didn't violate Rivera's moral rights under either the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. '106(A) or the similar Puerto Rico Intellectual Property Act (PRIPA). Rivera v. Mendez and Co., 11-1530. VARA applies to certain “works of visual art,” such as paintings, prints and sculptures, but not those created for advertisements or promotions. District Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi noted: “The original works were commissioned [from Rivera] as promotional advertisements for the HJF's between 1998-2009 and the alleged infringing works were utilized for similar purposes in 2010. Therefore, even though the reproductions of Plaintiff's works may in fact be unauthorized, the infringing uses alleged by Plaintiff do not garner the protections of either VARA or PRIPA, as these works were originally created to advertise and promote the various HJF's.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.