BIT PARTS

'

California's Retroactive Right of Publicity Doesn't Violate Due Process

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that retroactive application of California's descendible right of publicity doesn't violate due process rights under California's constitution. Bruce Lee Enterprises LLC v. A.V.E.L.A. Inc., 10 CV 2333. The suit arose over alleged unauthorized reproductions on t-shirts of the late martial arts star Bruce Lee. In recent years, the California legislature made the state's Civil Code '3344.1 applicable to individuals who died prior to 1985, when the statute was first enacted. Defendants A.V.E.L.A. and Leo Valencia argued they have been selling and licensing Bruce Lee's image since 1983. But District Judge Kimba M. Wood noted: 'Valencia never believed he owned the images. At best Valencia can claim he believed he had a right to use the images without paying a licensing fee. This does not rise to the level of a vested interest, nor does it constitute sufficient reliance to trigger due process.' Still to be decided was whether Lee's domicile at the time of his death in 198 was California or Hong Kong.

'

Copyright Attorney Fees Assessed Against Ed Sullivan Show Owner

In finding a transformative copyright fair use ' in the unlicensed seven-second clip utilized in the Jersey Boys musical of Ed Sullivan introducing the Four Seasons vocal group on his 1960s TV show ' the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $155,000 attorney fees and costs award against plaintiff SOFA Entertainment. The'appeals court emphasized that, based on SOFA's prior experience in litigating fair use, the rights owner 'should have known from the outset that its chances of success in this case were slim to none.' SOFA Entertainment Inc. v. DMG PJW Dodger Productions Inc., 10-56535.

'Actual Notice' Issue Up Next in Victor Willis Termination Rights Litigation

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California decided that the three-year statute of limitations of Sec. 507(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act applies to copyright ownership disputes in cases of notices sent by authors to terminate prior copyright assignments. Scorpio Music (Black Scorpio) S.A. v. Willis, 11cv1557. Co-ownership percentage claims are thus counted from when the claiming co-author learns of the 'plain and express repudiation' of his or ownership claim. The case revolves around copyright termination notices sent by Victor Willis, who was lead singer of the popular disco group Village People, to recapture his share of copyrights he separately assigned in post-1977 lyrics he was involved in writing for 33 Village People songs. In 2012, the district court dismissed Scorpio's suit seeking to void the termination notices. Willis contends that counterclaim defendant Henri Belolo, who co-produced the disco group with Jacques Morali, had no role in writing 24 of the songs in which Belolo is named as co-author. Now, in inserting 507(b) into the termination mix, Chief U.S. District Judge Barry Moskowitz added he was 'not convinced that the mere filing of copyright registrations listing Belolo as an author and the release of records bearing labels identifying Belolo as an author rise to the level of 'plain and express repudiation' communicated to Willis. At the very least, Plaintiffs should have to show that Willis had actual notice of the content of the registrations and the record labels.'

Alleged Access Scenarios No Help to Plaintiff in Suit over Tim McGraw Hit

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, dismissed a copyright infringement suit against country artist Tim McGraw over the McGraw hit 'Everywhere,' written by co-defendants Craig Wiseman and Mike Reid. Martinez v. McGraw, 08-0738. Plaintiff James Martinez alleged several chain-of-access scenarios by the defendants to his song 'Anytime, Anywhere Amanda,' including through McGraw's hair stylist. But District Judge Todd J. Campbell noted: 'No one has testified that he or she actually gave a copy of Plaintiff's song to any of the Defendants; Plaintiff just tries to infer that someone did. On the other hand, all the Defendants have testified affirmatively that they never heard 'Anytime, Anywhere Amanda' or knew about Plaintiff until this lawsuit. Finally, there is no competent expert proof that the two works are 'strikingly similar' to raise an inference of access and copying.' In addition, Judge Campbell found sufficient evidence that the defendants independently created their composition.

'

California's Retroactive Right of Publicity Doesn't Violate Due Process

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that retroactive application of California's descendible right of publicity doesn't violate due process rights under California's constitution. Bruce Lee Enterprises LLC v. A.V.E.L.A. Inc., 10 CV 2333. The suit arose over alleged unauthorized reproductions on t-shirts of the late martial arts star Bruce Lee. In recent years, the California legislature made the state's Civil Code '3344.1 applicable to individuals who died prior to 1985, when the statute was first enacted. Defendants A.V.E.L.A. and Leo Valencia argued they have been selling and licensing Bruce Lee's image since 1983. But District Judge Kimba M. Wood noted: 'Valencia never believed he owned the images. At best Valencia can claim he believed he had a right to use the images without paying a licensing fee. This does not rise to the level of a vested interest, nor does it constitute sufficient reliance to trigger due process.' Still to be decided was whether Lee's domicile at the time of his death in 198 was California or Hong Kong.

'

Copyright Attorney Fees Assessed Against Ed Sullivan Show Owner

In finding a transformative copyright fair use ' in the unlicensed seven-second clip utilized in the Jersey Boys musical of Ed Sullivan introducing the Four Seasons vocal group on his 1960s TV show ' the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $155,000 attorney fees and costs award against plaintiff SOFA Entertainment. The'appeals court emphasized that, based on SOFA's prior experience in litigating fair use, the rights owner 'should have known from the outset that its chances of success in this case were slim to none.' SOFA Entertainment Inc. v. DMG PJW Dodger Productions Inc., 10-56535.