Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ellington Heirs Lose Bid to Change Foreign Royalties Calculations
The New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, decided that a copyright renewal that Duke Ellington signed in 1961 didn't unfairly deprive his heirs of a portion of foreign royalties on the music giant's works, such as “Mood Indigo” and “Sophisticated Lady.”
In Ellington v. EMI Music, 156, the court of appeals ruled 5-2 that “clear and unambiguous” provisions govern EMI's obligations to Ellington's grandson Paul Ellington and the composer's other survivors. Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam, writing for the majority, said a plain reading of the contract says Ellington or his heirs are entitled to 50% of the net revenues received from the composer's works from foreign subpublishers. The agreement was originally signed by Ellington and Mills Music Inc., which has become EMI.
The fact that EMI has come to use affiliated foreign subpublishers in an arrangement that allows the publisher to reduce the amount of royalties that must be turned over to the Ellington family on foreign sales, a development not contemplated in 1961, doesn't directly violate any terms of the 1961 contract, Judge Abdus-Salaam wrote. According to the judge, “EMI's corporate reconfiguration did not ' 'avoid the understanding of the parties.' Rather, the parties merely did not account for the possibility that the publisher would eventually affiliate with foreign subpublishers.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?