Bit Parts

In a ruling of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided that a co-owner of a copyright isn't in privity with the other copyright co-owners for purposes of applying collateral estoppel from the outcome of a separate infringement action the co-owners previously filed. Young Money Entertainment LLC v. Digerati Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-07663. When co-owners of Lil Wayne songs included in the documentary movie The Carter sued in 2010 in New York federal court for copyright infringement, the district judge decided that suit non-party and songs co-owner Lil Wayne had given the defendants a valid, non-exclusive license. In 2012, Young Money Entertainment and Lil Wayne filed a copyright infringement action in California federal court over use of the songs in The Carter. Copyright co-owners can't sue each other for infringement but have a right to an accounting from their co-owners. In addition, co-owners of a copyright may grant non-exclusive licenses to third parties. In finding that the New York ruling didn't bar the California federal suit, Central District of California Judge Otis D. Wright II: “Applying collateral estoppel here would effectively allow one co-owner to rob another co-owner's own right to sue for an accrued cause of action by being the first to the courthouse steps. The Court therefore finds it improper to conclude the co-owners in the copyrighted works at issue here had a substantive legal relationship creating traditional privity for purposes of collateral estoppel.”

World of Warcraft Extension Packs May Restart Single-Publication Period

Though declining to decide the issue on the case pleadings at hand, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California indicated that so-called expansion pack releases of online games may qualify as separate products for purposes of calculating California's single-publication rule. Lewis v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 12-1096. Amanda Lewis filed suit over use, since 2005, of her voice and an original song in World of Warcraft “baby murloc” pets. Lewis's complaint alleged violation of her right of publicity under Calif. Civ. Code '3344 and copyright infringement. The defendants moved in part to dismiss the right of publicity as time-barred. A two-year statute of limitation governs '3344. At the same time, Calif. Civ. Code '3425.3 states: “No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication '.” Lewis argued that three subsequent expansion-pack versions of World of Warcraft constituted independent publications that restarted the two-year limitations period. Ruling that Lewis could amend her complaint, District Judge Claudia Wilken noted: “[I]n the context of
[I]nternet publications, the Ninth Circuit has recently articulated that, under California law, a statement on a website is not republished unless the statement itself is substantively altered or added to, or the website is directed to a new audience. [Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012).] The Court also notes that the fact that the classic WoW and the expansion packs were released over a period of six years suggests that the different software releases should be deemed separate publications.”

Second TV “Series Year” Can't Overlap with First Year in Determining Showrunner's Profit Participation

The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, decided that the term “Series Year” in a showrunner's development/production agreement with a TV studio referred to consecutive, rather than concurrent, time periods that would determine the showrunner's share of series income. Gibson v. Twentieth Century Fox Television, B230560. Reba TV series showrunner Allison Gibson argued in her breach-of-contract suit that Reba's second “Series Year” began when, in early 2002, Gibson began providing “material executive producer services” for the show's second season, though season one was still in production. Thus, Gibson claimed, she was entitled to a 25% increase in her “Modified Adjusted Gross Receipts” under the agreement's “pay-or-play” clause, as she was fired from the TV show in Spring 2002. But the court of appeal emphasized in an unpublished opinion: “Defendant's interpretation that the second Series year commences in June or July of the production of the Series is consistent with the language of the Agreement. Under defendant's interpretation, there is no anomaly of first Series year overlapping with the second Series year.”

Song Copyrights Co-Owner Lil Wayne Not Affected By Prior Court Ruling Against His Co-Owners

In a ruling of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided that a co-owner of a copyright isn't in privity with the other copyright co-owners for purposes of applying collateral estoppel from the outcome of a separate infringement action the co-owners previously filed. Young Money Entertainment LLC v. Digerati Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-07663. When co-owners of Lil Wayne songs included in the documentary movie The Carter sued in 2010 in New York federal court for copyright infringement, the district judge decided that suit non-party and songs co-owner Lil Wayne had given the defendants a valid, non-exclusive license. In 2012, Young Money Entertainment and Lil Wayne filed a copyright infringement action in California federal court over use of the songs in The Carter. Copyright co-owners can't sue each other for infringement but have a right to an accounting from their co-owners. In addition, co-owners of a copyright may grant non-exclusive licenses to third parties. In finding that the New York ruling didn't bar the California federal suit, Central District of California Judge Otis D. Wright II: “Applying collateral estoppel here would effectively allow one co-owner to rob another co-owner's own right to sue for an accrued cause of action by being the first to the courthouse steps. The Court therefore finds it improper to conclude the co-owners in the copyrighted works at issue here had a substantive legal relationship creating traditional privity for purposes of collateral estoppel.”

World of Warcraft Extension Packs May Restart Single-Publication Period

Though declining to decide the issue on the case pleadings at hand, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California indicated that so-called expansion pack releases of online games may qualify as separate products for purposes of calculating California's single-publication rule. Lewis v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 12-1096. Amanda Lewis filed suit over use, since 2005, of her voice and an original song in World of Warcraft “baby murloc” pets. Lewis's complaint alleged violation of her right of publicity under Calif. Civ. Code '3344 and copyright infringement. The defendants moved in part to dismiss the right of publicity as time-barred. A two-year statute of limitation governs '3344. At the same time, Calif. Civ. Code '3425.3 states: “No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication '.” Lewis argued that three subsequent expansion-pack versions of World of Warcraft constituted independent publications that restarted the two-year limitations period. Ruling that Lewis could amend her complaint, District Judge Claudia Wilken noted: “[I]n the context of
[I]nternet publications, the Ninth Circuit has recently articulated that, under California law, a statement on a website is not republished unless the statement itself is substantively altered or added to, or the website is directed to a new audience. [ Yeager v. Bowlin , 693 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2012).] The Court also notes that the fact that the classic WoW and the expansion packs were released over a period of six years suggests that the different software releases should be deemed separate publications.”