Bit Parts

Two recent court rulings involving the entertainment industry considered evidentiary roles in disputes over enforcing rights from underlying copyrights. In one case, the estate of pianist Oscar Peterson and New York City Birdland club owner John Valenti sued Valenti's former live-in companion Hilary Kole, who worked as a singer at Birdland. The plaintiffs claim Kole infringed their copyrights in recordings made by Peterson and Kole that Kole permitted an Internet radio site to stream. The estate filed copyright registrations for the final studio mixes, while Kole claims copyrights in the unedited studio recordings. Section 410(c) of the Copyright Act gives prima facie proof of ownership to copyright registrations made within five years of publication. Sending the case to trial, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted: “Given that the two registrations were obtained just five weeks apart and in clear contemplation of this litigation, the Court concludes that any evidentiary weight that might be due one registration is counterbalanced by the other, leaving no presumption on either side.” Peterson v. Kolodin, 13 Civ. 793. In the other case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent to trial a dispute over the validity of licensing rights to early Bob Marley recordings. Rock River Communications, which obtained a non-exclusive license from San Juan Music Group, sued Universal Music Group (UMG), which claims an exclusive license in the recordings. The cause of action at issue against UMG alleges intentional interference with Rock River's prospective economic advantage. The appeals court decided that defendant UMG must prove Rock River's license from San Juan Music is invalid. The court noted: “UMG cannot obtain summary judgment based on the holes in Rock River's claim to a valid license when the validity of UMG's own licensing rights is equally spotty.” Rock River Communications Inc. v. Universal Music Group, 11-57168

Copyright Act Doesn't Preempt Emotional Distress Claims Over Web Posting of WWE Video

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona decided the Copyright Act didn't preempt state law claims by a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) digital-content producer and his wife who filed state law claims over the WWE's website posting of a video of the co-defendant wrestler Big Show physically attacking the producer. The attack occurred when producer Andrew Green was interviewing Big Show (aka Paul D. Wight Jr.). Green v. Wight, 13-00967. The district court noted: “The thrust of the Greens' tort claims is not that WWE's posting of the video was unauthorized, but rather that its depiction of Green in an embarrassing light caused Green harm. The rights that the Greens seek to protect, i.e., freedom from ridicule and emotional distress, are qualitatively different from copyright rights. This additional element of emotional harm, due not to unauthorized use but widespread humiliation, changes the nature of the action from a copyright claim to a separate state-law tort claim.”