Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Sirius XM Fends Off Turtles' Recordings Suit in Florida
After several defeats, Sirius XM Radio won an important ruling in its ongoing legal battle with the '60s rock band The Turtles. On June 22, a Florida federal judge ruled that Flo & Eddie Inc., a company formed by The Turtles' founders, couldn't ban the radio company from playing the artists' music without their permission. Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 13-23182.
Flo & Eddie Inc., founded by Turtles band members Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman, filed a purported class action in Florida against Sirius in September 2013. Flo & Eddie also filed two identical suits in New York and California. Though federal copyright law doesn't cover performance rights to sound recordings made before 1972, when The Turtles' recordings were made, Flo & Eddie convinced federal judges in California and New York that they have a protectable right of public performance in them. Last month, the California judge certified a class of owners of recordings made before 1972. (District Judge Philip Gutierrez authorized a class that includes all artists that own pre-1972 sound recordings that Sirius XM has aired without authorization on or after Aug. 21, 2009.) Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 13-5693 (C.D.Calif.). Meanwhile, in late June, Sirius XM settled a pre-1972 recordings suit brought against it by the major record labels. The $210 million settlement also includes the right for Sirius XM to license the recordings through 2022 at to be determined licensing rates.
California has a specific provision addressing pre-1972 recordings; the New York judge relied on previous cases that had addressed common law copyrights. Florida Statute '540.11, which prohibits unauthorized copying of sound recordings, contains an exemption for broadcasters.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?