Bit Parts

Copyright Infringement Claim Is Time-Barred If Ownership Claim Is, Too

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that a claim for copyright infringement is barred if a copyright ownership claim in the litigation is, too. Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Ltd. v. Content Media Corp., 11-56759. The case involved copyright claims by Seven Arts against Paramount Pictures over several films. The ruling, which was a case of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, places that circuit in line with the Second and Sixth Circuits on the issue. According to the Ninth Circuit's decision, “We join our sister circuits in holding that an untimely ownership claim will bar a claim for copyright infringement where the gravamen of the dispute is ownership, at least where, as here, the parties are in a close relationship. [Seven Arts's predecessor-in-interest CineVisions had executed a 'first look' agreement with Paramount in 1998.] Because it is apparent from the complaint that Paramount clearly and expressly repudiated Seven Arts's ownership of the copyrights more than three years before Seven Arts brought suit, the district court properly dismissed.”

Malpractice Suit Against Music Lawyer Ruled Untimely

The New York Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed as time-barred a legal malpractice suit filed against New York lawyer Oren Warshavksy over music litigation in Louisiana. TufAmerica Inc. v. Warshavsky, 157795/12. Tuf- America had hired Warshavsky in 1999 to represent it in litigation filed against the music company in Louisiana federal court, and then in 2002 in two cases filed by the same plaintiffs in Louisiana state court. TufAmerica sued Warshavsky in November 2012 in New York state court alleging the attorney failed to maintain proper legal fees records in the federal suit that would have enabled TufAmerica to debit those costs from artist royalties involved in the Louisiana state court litigation. New York C.P.L.R. '214(6) has a three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims, but it may be tolled if there is “continuous representation” of a client. N.Y. state court Justice Anil C. Singh decided that the statute of limitations was triggered when TufAmerica's Louisiana counsel received an e-mail from Warshavsky on May 31, 2006, stating: “I do not have any documents, and if [TufAmerica's record label] Tuff City does not have the bills then there is not much that can be done ' sometimes there are no documents found, and we can only give circumstantial evidence. Essentially, they want back up data ' sorry, it is gone. And the company that generated the bills, Cobrin & Gittes, ceased operation in April 2002.” Justice Singh went on to conclude there had been no continuous representation after May 31, 2006, because “it appears that plaintiff's local counsel in Louisiana handled the underlying matters exclusively from that date forward without any assistance from Warshavsky.

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.