Bit Parts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided in part that a jury could reasonably find Live Nation willfully infringed on a photographer's copyrights when using his photos on Run-DMC merchandise. Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise Inc., 14-55302. Glen Friedman sued in the Central District of California over use of photos he took of the iconic rap group in the 1980s that Live Nation included in a 2008 calendar and on several t-shirt designs. Live Nation did stipulate it had infringed, but the district court granted summary judgment to the merchandiser as to whether the infringement was willful, which could have increased infringement damages. Live Nation's artist merchandise contracts give artists such as Run-DMC approval rights over design and distribution of merchandise. However, reversing the summary judgment ruling on willfulness, the Ninth Circuit noted that a Live Nation employee claimed in a declaration “only that as an industry practice 'it is generally the responsibility of the music artists' personal managers to uncover the relevant facts and ascertain the scope of the music artists' rights.' Given an approval process that never explicitly asks about copyrights at all, a jury could reasonably conclude that Live Nation's reliance on [Run-DMC] who were the subjects of the photographs at issue to clear photographic rights, rather than on the photographers who took them ' based only on a purported industry practice never reflected in any document ' amounted to recklessness or willful disregard, and thus willfulness.”

Country Artist Wins Attorney Fees After Prevailing in Record Label's End-Run Copyright Suit

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas awarded attorney fees and costs to country artist Jason Cassidy for successfully defending a copyright infringement suit his former record label filed after Cassidy discharged in bankruptcy a $700,000 debt he owed the label. A-Blake Records LLC v. Cassidy, H-14-3401. In its copyright infringement suit against Cassidy, A-Blake Records claimed it owned the copyrights in Cassidy-written compositions that Cassidy performed at a bar. But the record label later agreed its infringement action should be dismissed with prejudice. Finding Cassidy to be the “prevailing party” for purposes of an attorney fees award under the Copyright Act, District Judge Lynn N. Hughes noted: “A-Blake knew that it did not own the right to exclude Cassidy from performing his songs ' it still filed suit.” Judge Hughes continued: “A-Blake filed this suit because Cassidy's estate [in bankruptcy] rejected its contract and A-Blake missed the deadline to object. The court understands that A-Blake is unhappy and believes it is owed $700,000.00 from Cassidy. This does not give A-Blake permission to be mean spirited, to use this court as a means for retaliation, or to force Cassidy to pay to defend himself against [copyright] claims it knows to be without merit.” The district judge concluded that Cassidy “gets to keep playing his songs, his way, in public places and projected through his fan's music players ' many of whom will have the opportunity to build on his creativity.”'

District Court in Fourth Circuit Decides Copyright Office Must Act on Registration Application Before Plaintiff Can Proceed With Infringement Suit