Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that an oral agreement between an artist and a booking agent/promoter couldn't be enforced under either New York or Puerto Rican law. Santos v. Medina, 18 Civ. 02685. Bachata artist Anthony "Romeo" Santos, who had been lead vocalist in the group Aventura, sued booking agent/promoter Publimagen De Asesores, a Puerto Rican corporation, and its owner Angelo Medina Mercado, alleging breach of contract for failure to pay $500,000 from concert fees. Santos had terminated an initial verbal artist/agent agreement with Publimagen as of 2016, though Publimagen claimed the parties entered into another oral agreement for Publimagen to "be the promotor of Santos' concerts in Puerto Rico, under the same terms and conditions of the existing agreement, that is a commission of ten percent (10%)." In response to Santos' lawsuit over the first agreement, Publimagen counterclaimed for breach of the alleged second contract, seeking $1,192,347 in commissions from Santos. The suit parties agreed their initial verbal agreement was valid, but Santos argued the second one wasn't under the statute of frauds. District Judge Edgardo Ramos applied Puerto Rican law, explaining: "Because Medina and Publimagen are merchants who engaged in commercial acts on behalf of Santos as a commercial commission, their contract falls exclusively under the [Puerto Rico] Commerce Code," P.R. Laws Ann. Tit. 10, §§1002, 1521. The code's statute of frauds enforces oral agreements that exceed $300, but requires evidence beyond witness testimony to do so. Thus, the district court ruled: "Medina did not, however, corroborate the contract's existence beyond oral testimony, nor deny that such non-oral testimony is required under the Commerce Code." The court also considered the second oral agreement under New York's statute of frauds, which requires the ability to be completed within one year to be enforceable. On this, Judge Ramos explained: "[Medina] claims that he was responsible for promoting at least one performance in Puerto Rico, and that the existence of Santos' five Puerto Rican concerts in 2016 demonstrate that the contract was capable of full performance within a year. Yet, Medina alleges that he was exclusively responsible for promoting all of Santos' Puerto Rican concerts indefinitely, not merely one concert."
*****
|Joan Marie Johnson, a member of The Dixie Cups vocal group that topped the charts with their recording "Chapel of Love" in 1964, signed an agreement for the New York-based Artists Rights Enforcement Corp. (AREC) to collect music royalties owed to Johnson. After Johnson, a Louisiana resident, died in 2016, AREC continued to collect 50 percent of the royalties recovered. Johnson's niece, Texas resident Jerri Jones, sued AREC in Texas for a declaration that she wasn't bound by the Johnson/AREC agreement. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed Jones' lawsuit by finding the court lacked personal jurisdiction over AREC. Jones v. Artists Rights Enforcement Corp., 2:19-CV-505 (E.D.La. 2018). Affirming, the U.S. Court of Appeals has noted: "Although Johnson signed the contract in Louisiana, and presumably communicated with AREC from Louisiana, the contract itself was not drafted in Louisiana. Even if the contract was discussed and drafted in Louisiana, the exchange of communications in carrying out a contract is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction. Moreover, these activities could not create a business relationship between Jones and AREC because Jones was not contemplated in the contract or involved in its negotiation." Jones v. Artists Rights Enforcement Corp., 19-30374. The appeals court added: "Jones alleges that an intentional tort occurred, but if it did, it was not in Louisiana. AREC is based in New York, and Jones resides in Texas."
*****
|The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that a fair use argument could be raised in defending against a claim under Cal. Civ. Code §980, which provides "exclusive ownership in the representation or expression" of a recording. Johnson v. UMG Recordings Inc., 2:19-cv-02364. The finding arises out of a music sampling case that artist/producer Syl Johnson filed alleging several UMG-distributed recordings infringed on his 1968 recording "I Feel an Urge." The complaint alleges state statutory right of publicity (the sample includes Johnson's voice), unfair business practices and the §980 sound-recording misappropriation claims. District Judge Otis D. Wright first found: "As five years have elapsed since the time Plaintiff allegedly became aware … [Johnson's] claims outside of those accrued within the relevant statute of limitations" for each of the statutory causes of action were time barred. District Judge Wright went on to rule that UMG could raise a fair use defense under Johnson's misappropriation claim under Cal. Civ. Code §980. However, the court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the claim on fair use grounds by noting, "At this juncture, the Court does not find that Defendant's use of Plaintiff's clip for its commercial benefit was fair."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.