Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

By Stan Soocher
June 01, 2021

Don Everly Prevails Over Late Brother Phil's Family Following Trial on Authorship of Everly Brothers' 1960 Hit "Cathy's Clown"

After a two-day bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, District Judge Aleta A. Trauger found in favor of Don Everly in his 2017 declaratory action against the estate of his brother Phil over authorship of the Everly Brothers 1960 hit "Cathy's Clown." Everly v. Everly, 3:17-cv-01440. In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had decided there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Don "plainly and expressly repudiated" Phil as a co-author at least three years before Phil's family launched a counterclaim alleging co-authorship in response to Don's lawsuit. Everly v. Everly, 958 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2020). If there had been express repudiation, the family's co-authorship counterclaim would be barred under the Copyright Act's three-year statute of limitations. From 1960 to 1980, Phil and Don were both credited on record releases and business documents as "Cathy's Clown" co-authors. Phil and Don also said publicly that they co-wrote the song because, as District Judge Trauger explained it, Don "was told by [Everly music publisher's Acuff-Rose co-founder] Wesley Rose that it would make the Everly Brothers more popular if the public believed that they wrote their songs together." But in 1980, at Don's behest Phil signed a "Release and Assignment" stating that he transferred to Don "all of [Phil's] rights, interests and claim in and to ['Cathy's Clown'], including rights to royalties and his claim as co-composer, effective June 1, 1980." In an enlightening look at the Everly Brothers' historically stormy relationship, District Judge Trauger observed: "The defendants portray Don as a bully who repeatedly badgered Phil to give up his rights to 'Cathy's Clown.' That portrait, however, is inconsistent with the apparently undisputed fact that Phil and Don had essentially no direct contact from the time the duo broke up in 1973 until the telephone call that resulted in Phil's signing the 1980 Release. A single telephone call does not qualify as pestering. The court accepts that Don was imperious and difficult to work with, and Don's being a bully would explain in part why he would repudiate Phil's contribution to writing 'Cathy's Clown,' if indeed he made any such contribution. But the story about Don's bullying does not explain why Phil would sign the 1980 Release unless Phil understood that Don was claiming sole authorship of 'Cathy's Clown' and that Phil would no longer be credited as a co-author of the work." The district judge then decided that Phil's family's co-authorship counterclaim was time-barred because Don expressly repudiated co-authorship by Phil in a letter and phone call to Phil prior to Phil's signing of the June 1980 Release and Assignment.

*****

Split Decision on Secondary Liability Claims Against Harry Fox Agency in Music Licensing Lawsuit Over Spotify Streaming of Eminem Compositions

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) defense motion to dismiss a vicarious infringement claim against the Harry Fox Agency (HFA) in a lawsuit against Spotify over the streaming of rapper Eminem's songs, but permitted a contributory infringement claim against HFA to proceed. Eight Mile Style LLC v. Spotify USA Inc., 3:19-cv-0736. Middle District Judge Aleta A. Trauger explained that the plaintiff publishers allege "Spotify streamed recordings of the [Eminem] Eight Mile Compositions as if it had obtained [required] compulsory mechanical licenses — and indeed fostered the impression that it had obtained those licenses — when, in fact, it had missed its chance to timely complete the required steps and therefore needed to obtain a negotiated license to render its ongoing actions non-infringing." The lawsuit alleges HFA, which Spotify hired to process the compulsory licensing, engaged in secondary liability in part "by circulating knowingly fraudulent documents (e.g., untimely, and otherwise ineffective [Spotify notices of intention under §115 of the U.S. Copyright Act] that were intentionally and knowingly backdated to appear as though they were issued on a timely basis …" In dismissing the vicarious liability claim against HFA, District Judge Trauger, explained: "[I]t is questionable whether a party that observes the conduct of another without any right to stop or limit that conduct is actually 'supervising' the other party. Regardless, … HFA worked for Spotify. It may have assisted in, been aware of, and/or been complicit in Spotify's infringement, but it was not Spotify's supervisor in any ordinary sense of the term." Allowing the contributory infringement claim to proceed, the district judge noted: "HFA protests that all it is accused of doing is sending letters based on information it received from Spotify. At this stage, however, the court is required to take the plaintiffs' allegations as true, and those allegations include the plaintiffs' claims about how and why industry practice and HFA's own reputation allowed HFA's actions to conceal Spotify's lack of a valid mechanical license for the Eight Mile Compositions. The purpose and effect of that concealment, moreover, was not simply to prevent past infringement from being discovered, but to allow infringement to continue."

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

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?