Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
April 27, 2012

Artists' Digital Music Royalty Claims Are an “Open Book Account”

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed an open book account claim by recording artists to proceed in class actions alleging agreements that the artists' record labels enter into with digital retailers are licenses, rather than normal retail channel sales that would yield the artists lower royalties. James v. UMG Recordings Inc., 11-01613. An open book account significantly extends the time within which the artists can go to back to recover royalties. In the suits by the estate of Rick James and such artists as Rob Zombie and Dave Mason, District Judge Susan Illston noted that UMG “contends that open book accounts cannot exist where they are balanced and 'closed' at various intervals, such as here where royalties were determined and paid out generally every six months. ' [But a]s neither side disputes that royalty payments to plaintiffs are ongoing, the Court cannot find that the accounts are 'closed' by virtue of the interval royalty payments.”


German Distribution Deal Isn't an “Injury” Within New York State

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over non-New York defendants who, without authority from the New York-based plaintiff, gave a German company the German distribution rights to the plaintiff's films. Troma Entertainment Inc. v. Centennial Pictures Inc., 11 Civ. 1137. The Troma productions at issue are the spoof movies Citizen Toxic, Toxic Avenger IV and Poultrygeist, Night of the Chicken Dead. District Judge Brian M. Cogan noted that by citing Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 16 N.Y.3d 295 (2011), “In effect, plaintiff argues that any time there is a copyright infringement ' anywhere in the world ' and the copyright is held by a New Yorker, then the defendant has caused an injury 'within the state.'” Judge Cogan emphasized, however: “What Penguin Group was concerned with was not just copyrights, but the use of the internet to sell or exhibit purloined copyrighted material [owned by a New York company] to anyone, including potential New York buyers.” But in Troma Entertainment, the district judge found that “plaintiff's reference to the fact that it has German customers and that, in fact, subsequent to defendants' contract with [the German distributor] Silverline, it licensed the Films to a German distributor, does not alter the analysis. Nor does it matter that with regard to these German customers, plaintiff uses the [I]nternet for sales and communications. Personal jurisdiction has to be predicated on defendants' actions, not plaintiff's. One actual German customer is not the same as some potential or actual New York customers who use the [I]nternet, and the loss of the latter is required for long arm jurisdiction under [N.Y.] C.P.L.R. '302(a)(3)(ii).”


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.

Artists' Digital Music Royalty Claims Are an “Open Book Account”

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California allowed an open book account claim by recording artists to proceed in class actions alleging agreements that the artists' record labels enter into with digital retailers are licenses, rather than normal retail channel sales that would yield the artists lower royalties. James v. UMG Recordings Inc., 11-01613. An open book account significantly extends the time within which the artists can go to back to recover royalties. In the suits by the estate of Rick James and such artists as Rob Zombie and Dave Mason, District Judge Susan Illston noted that UMG “contends that open book accounts cannot exist where they are balanced and 'closed' at various intervals, such as here where royalties were determined and paid out generally every six months. ' [But a]s neither side disputes that royalty payments to plaintiffs are ongoing, the Court cannot find that the accounts are 'closed' by virtue of the interval royalty payments.”


German Distribution Deal Isn't an “Injury” Within New York State

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over non-New York defendants who, without authority from the New York-based plaintiff, gave a German company the German distribution rights to the plaintiff's films. Troma Entertainment Inc. v. Centennial Pictures Inc., 11 Civ. 1137. The Troma productions at issue are the spoof movies Citizen Toxic, Toxic Avenger IV and Poultrygeist, Night of the Chicken Dead. District Judge Brian M. Cogan noted that by citing Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha , 16 N.Y.3d 295 (2011), “In effect, plaintiff argues that any time there is a copyright infringement ' anywhere in the world ' and the copyright is held by a New Yorker, then the defendant has caused an injury 'within the state.'” Judge Cogan emphasized, however: “What Penguin Group was concerned with was not just copyrights, but the use of the internet to sell or exhibit purloined copyrighted material [owned by a New York company] to anyone, including potential New York buyers.” But in Troma Entertainment , the district judge found that “plaintiff's reference to the fact that it has German customers and that, in fact, subsequent to defendants' contract with [the German distributor] Silverline, it licensed the Films to a German distributor, does not alter the analysis. Nor does it matter that with regard to these German customers, plaintiff uses the [I]nternet for sales and communications. Personal jurisdiction has to be predicated on defendants' actions, not plaintiff's. One actual German customer is not the same as some potential or actual New York customers who use the [I]nternet, and the loss of the latter is required for long arm jurisdiction under [N.Y.] C.P.L.R. '302(a)(3)(ii).”


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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?