Foundation gets a say in Charles rights case

Ray CharlesThe late Ray Charles could set a concert house afire all by himself, just by sitting down and putting hands on the keys of an upright piano to bob, weave, and belt out a terrific tune. When it comes to straightening out the finances of his musical legacy, however, there soon may be enough attorneys in the court to fill the seats of a symphony orchestra.

Or so it may seem after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently granted standing to The Ray Charles Foundation in a lawsuit brought by Charles’ heirs over copyright termination rights. A passel of Charles children already were tussling with a major music publisher over copyrights. So the lawyers involved will need to pull up even more chairs to confer now that the foundation’s part of the party.

While Charles  composed some of the best music ever to grace the rhythm and blues charts, he lived a life of great complexity and it all has turned into some elaborate legal counterpoint that now returns for a coda for a U.S. federal court to play through. Let’s plunk through some of the disharmony in this noteworthy case … (more…)

Read More

Charges reinstated in threatening rap case

PIC-parental-advisory-explicit-contentRap on, rappers, the First Amendment may say to creative artists in an often violent, suggestive genre. But federal and state courts are balancing interests and finding that fine line, sometimes a blurry one, between art and criminal threat.

The issue recently arose for a California appellate court, which ruled that such matters should be decided by a trier of fact, not a judge. The people had their case against “Lil A,” also known as Anthony Murillo, dismissed by a trial court. A state Superior Court judge found that Murillo had engaged in protected speech in a rap, in which he made violent statements against two onetime sexual assault victims, whom he identified by first and last name. (more…)

Read More

1920s book roars in ‘Happy birthday’ rights case

happy birthdayBlow out the candles, sweep up that wrapping paper, and most of all, consider for a moment as to whether  all those lovely money gifts will go away? The plaintiffs in a much-publicized suit say they have found new, conclusive evidence that will help them persuade a federal judge to rain on Warner/Chappell Music Inc.’s party, specifically to end its claim to hold the lucrative copyright to what be one of the world’s most performed tunes: the Happy Birthday song.

The plaintiffs have filed an ex parte application to submit new evidence that they assert Warner “mistakenly” had failed to hand over during discovery. Based on this trove of historic material, they also have sought summary judgment to halt Warner’s copyright claims and reports say a decision may come very soon.

As the world awaits U.S. District Judge George King’s ruling on these matters in Los Angeles, let’s unwrap what may become a most unhappy matter for music publishing powerhouse. (more…)

Read More

For FilmOn, a sudden, clear, positive legal signal

alkiTVOnline television services have advanced potentially a half step with the recent ruling favoring plaintiff FilmOn, an on-demand enterprise that attracted a lot of attention as part of broader, highly publicized cases involving new technologies. U.S. District Judge George Wu issued his preliminary ruling, finding that, if online television services like FilmOn are subject to the same copyright rules as traditional broadcast stations, then they should be allowed the same compulsory license rights under the Copyright Act.

FilmOn up until now had been tangled up in last year’s much-watched U.S. Supreme Court decision involving Aereo. In that case, the justices decided that online television services were subject to the same copyright rules as over-the-air broadcasters, notwithstanding the elaborate technology arguments–what will lawyers do without figuring whether thousands of tiny antennae really are part of a content pipeline?–made by powerhouse counsel for entertainment mogul Barry Diller, Aereo’s financier and chief advocate.

As the saying goes, if you’re going to give me all the responsibilities of an adult, then give me all the freedoms of an adult. (Or maybe that’s just what I use to tell my dad?) If online services were found to violate the Copyright Act’s transmit clause the same way that over-the-air broadcast programs can, then they should be awarded the same §111 license that cable and other broadcasters may obtain. Right?

The case,  Wu noted, has won such attention and possesses such complexity, significance, and conflict in laws that he effectively left everything in place, his own ruling aside. He said he anticipates appeals to higher courts.

Read More

Q.-&-A.: Bert Fields on post-mortem rights

Bertram FieldsGGcomWhen legendary Entertainment lawyer Bert Fields recently addressed the Harvard Law Association at the Beverly Hills Bar, he, of course, brought down the house, delighting his audience with his comments on an array of topics. His views on a particular subject resonated for the editors of this blog, because it has arisen in posts before (see here and here): Are there legal rights that need protecting for deceased entertainers? Fields was kind enough to answer a few questions posed by email by Biederman Blog Editorial Board member Jessica Villar regarding this topic:

Question—When you spoke recently to the Beverly Hills Bar, you mentioned new kinds of entertainers’ rights, particularly as these might apply to their post-mortem performances as what you called synthespians. Were you specifically addressing the advent of holographic characters performing entertainers’ known works in shows? Or are there other technologies you had in mind?

Answer—I was talking about buying the rights of living performers to use their computer generated images to make new movies or perform in new concerts when they’re too old to do so or after their deaths.  Synthespians are a stage later.  They are computer generated actors and performers who will appear human, but are not.  They never die and when the audience tires of them, we create new ones. (more…)

Read More

Individual copyright claims in films? Nope.

2nd circuit9th circuitIt took a year, two U.S. District Court judges, eleven judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, two judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and officials from the U.S. Copyright office. But, finally, a long-standing copyright standard in film making has been restored, and, at least for now, the legal view, again, is that individuals who are involved in the making of a finished movie may not assert that they have a separate, stand-alone infringement claim.

This stance, of course, not only got a powerful recent en banc ruling in the appellate courts that oversee Los Angeles, the movie-making capital of the world, it also was affirmed by the appeals judges who oversee the nation’s other entertainment hub: New York.

So for now, Google and its mighty YouTube subsidiary needn’t yank a video that caused a global firestorm and the makers of the movie Heads Up will be headed for further court proceedings. How did both go round to get back to what many in the industry have seen as an important copyright standard?


Read More

With infringement claims, appellate discord

Location, location, location. It matters not just in real estate but also for a legal venue, as creative artists Devin Copeland and Mareio Overton were reminded when a federal appellate court overturned a lower court’s dismissal of their case against pop stars Usher, Justin Bieber, (shown in video above) and others, asserting copyright infringement with the pop hit Somebody to Love.

Now fans, composers, lyricists, musicians, and other performers may not find this music to their ears: But the Copeland-Overton-Usher-Bieber case provides a sound illustration of let’s call it jurisdictional discord, with appellate judges in scattered parts of the country ruling off of different, um, scores. Take note, please, that judges have their ears open for some different things when creatives pursue legal claims and this may result for them in judicial harmony or cacophony. (more…)

Read More

Sirius catches sunshine in fight with ex-Turtles

siriusA federal court in Florida has provided a ray of legal sunshine for Sirius XM , in a way that its counterparts in California and New York haven’t: The satellite music company finally has won a legal battle in the public performance war that Flo & Eddie have waged with Sirius over their pre-1972 sound recordings with The Turtles. As this blog has recounted since this case’s outset, musicians and composers have turned to a state by state campaign to protect their rights to classic tunes, finding a gap in federal copyright coverage.

The courts holding sway over America’s two Entertainment capitals have viewed the creatives’ cause favorably but the Sunshine State, a judge in Miami has said, has no common law basis for a similar sunny view. What’s this cloudy Dixieland difference? (more…)

Read More

Canadians in TV case can’t elude jurisdiction

hollwoodAlthough some entertainment industry types may belittle Los Angeles and insist that they can do business on their own terms elsewhere, all too many paths lead to and through what boosters blushingly have dubbed the Entertainment capital of the world (yes, even you die-hard Seattle grungers need to recognize that Nirvana’s iconic Nervermind was recorded in Van Nuys).

So it wasn’t exactly a surprise when U.S. District Court Judge Ronald S.W. Lew ruled recently that LA, California, and the United States had powerful legal pull, aka jurisdiction, over some far northern business interests, specifically Canadian resident David Fortier and Canadian incorporated Temple Street Production Incorporated. Govern yourselves accordingly, out of towners, as to whether you think you can elude a legal challenge if it plops on your doorstep: (more…)

Read More

Judge carves up claims in ‘New Girl’ case

New GirlHollywood can be a small town, particularly when it comes to Entertainment Law practitioners at a certain level. This can cut both ways for potential clients, as plaintiffs Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold learned when U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson in Los Angeles tossed a big section of their suit, rejecting claims of idea theft and breach of contract over the popular Fox television program New Girl

The judge–who had previously found their suit problematic–pointed out to Counts and Gold that, despite their complaints to him, they had been fully informed by their initial counsel of a potential conflict of interest before entering into talks about a potential settlement, which they rejected. Wilson found their attorneys were not “incapacitated” by the potential conflict, nor did they act in bad faith. Meantime, he reminded them that they had exceeded the statute of limitations for their action and, he, thus, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss part of their claim. How did this case get in such a muddle?


Read More