Bit Parts

Declaratory Copyright Complaint Can Be Amended After Plaintiff Film Company Secures Financing

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a film company to amend a declaratory action for copyright non-infringement, after the company secured financing for its production. Effie Film LLC (EFL) v. Murphy, 11 Civ. 783. EFL sought a declaratory ruling that actress/screenwriter Emma Thompson's screenplay Effie ' about a love triangle among historical art figures John Ruskin, Euphemia (Effie) Gray and John Everett Millais ' didn't infringe on Gregory Murphy's screenplay and playscript The Countess. Murphy moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the film hadn't yet been produced. But after production of the film was completed, EFL moved to amend its complaint to reflect that. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa noted: “There is no indication that EFL acted in bad faith in pursuing this amendment. Rather, EFL reasonably seeks to update its complaint to reflect recent significant factual developments in an effort to cure what Murphy claims are jurisdictional defects. The court also is not persuaded that Murphy would be prejudiced by allowing EFL to amend its complaint. There has been no discovery in this case and Murphy may, of course, file any appropriate motions attacking the jurisdictional basis or merits of EFL's amended complaint.”

Sony/ATV Wins Right to Renewal Terms in Roger Miller Songs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that Sony/ATV Music was entitled to the copyright renewal terms for hits songs such as “King of the Road” and “Dang Me” that Roger Miller wrote in 1964. Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC, 10-5363. Miller had signed songwriting agreements with Sony/ATV's predecessor Tree Publishing. Sony/ATV filed renewal applications with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1992, when Miller was still alive in the 27th year of the songs' initial 28-year copyright terms. But Miller didn't live until the start of the renewal terms in 1993. So Roger Miller Music ' to which his widow Mary Miller had assigned song rights she inherited through Roger's will ' claimed it owned the rights to the songs' renewal terms. However, the Sixth Circuit noted: “The renewal copyright vests in any party entitled to it 'at the time the application is made.' [17 U.S.C.] '304(a)(2)(B)(i). The author (and therefore any of his assignees [i.e., Sony/ATV) thus secures an interest in the renewal copyright so long as he is still living at the time of application for renewal with the Copyright Office. This interest is not lost even if the author subsequently dies prior to the commencement of the renewal term. The House Judiciary Committee Report for the 1992 [Copyright Renewal] Act confirms this reading '.” The appeals court added: “The fact that the interest in the renewal copyright vests “upon the beginning of such further term,” 17 U.S.C. '304(a)(2)(B)(i), does not dictate a contrary result. The date of vesting is not dispositive as to who owns the copyright '.”

Declaratory Copyright Complaint Can Be Amended After Plaintiff Film Company Secures Financing

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York allowed a film company to amend a declaratory action for copyright non-infringement, after the company secured financing for its production. Effie Film LLC (EFL) v. Murphy, 11 Civ. 783. EFL sought a declaratory ruling that actress/screenwriter Emma Thompson's screenplay Effie ' about a love triangle among historical art figures John Ruskin, Euphemia (Effie) Gray and John Everett Millais ' didn't infringe on Gregory Murphy's screenplay and playscript The Countess. Murphy moved to dismiss on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the film hadn't yet been produced. But after production of the film was completed, EFL moved to amend its complaint to reflect that. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa noted: “There is no indication that EFL acted in bad faith in pursuing this amendment. Rather, EFL reasonably seeks to update its complaint to reflect recent significant factual developments in an effort to cure what Murphy claims are jurisdictional defects. The court also is not persuaded that Murphy would be prejudiced by allowing EFL to amend its complaint. There has been no discovery in this case and Murphy may, of course, file any appropriate motions attacking the jurisdictional basis or merits of EFL's amended complaint.”

Sony/ATV Wins Right to Renewal Terms in Roger Miller Songs

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided that Sony/ATV Music was entitled to the copyright renewal terms for hits songs such as “King of the Road” and “Dang Me” that Roger Miller wrote in 1964. Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing LLC, 10-5363. Miller had signed songwriting agreements with Sony/ATV's predecessor Tree Publishing. Sony/ATV filed renewal applications with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1992, when Miller was still alive in the 27th year of the songs' initial 28-year copyright terms. But Miller didn't live until the start of the renewal terms in 1993. So Roger Miller Music ' to which his widow Mary Miller had assigned song rights she inherited through Roger's will ' claimed it owned the rights to the songs' renewal terms. However, the Sixth Circuit noted: “The renewal copyright vests in any party entitled to it 'at the time the application is made.' [17 U.S.C.] '304(a)(2)(B)(i). The author (and therefore any of his assignees [i.e., Sony/ATV) thus secures an interest in the renewal copyright so long as he is still living at the time of application for renewal with the Copyright Office. This interest is not lost even if the author subsequently dies prior to the commencement of the renewal term. The House Judiciary Committee Report for the 1992 [Copyright Renewal] Act confirms this reading '.” The appeals court added: “The fact that the interest in the renewal copyright vests “upon the beginning of such further term,” 17 U.S.C. '304(a)(2)(B)(i), does not dictate a contrary result. The date of vesting is not dispositive as to who owns the copyright '.”