Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Cameo Clips

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

Music Publishing/Copyright Infringement

A music publisher failed to allege a viable copyright infringement claim against associate Mary J. Blige producer Scott Storch, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled. Brought to Life Music Inc. v. MCA Records Inc., 02-1164 (Feb. 14). Brought to Life claimed that the defendants, which included Storch, producer Dr. Dre and artist Mary J. Blige, had infringed on the music publisher's work 'Sam Adams.' The complaint alleged that Storch had given a copy of 'Sam Adams,' a portion of which appeared on Blige's recording 'Family Affair,' to Dr. Dre. Dismissing the suit, the district court stated, 'Plaintiff here has not alleged that Storch has violated any of its alleged exclusive rights in its works. Specifically, Storch is not alleged to have i) reproduced plaintiff's work; ii) prepared derivative works based on plaintiff's work; iii) distributed copies of plaintiff's work to the public for sale; or iv) performed plaintiff's work publicly by means of digital audio transmission. See 17 U.S.C. '106. Plaintiff has not attempted to describe 'by what acts and during what time' Storch infringed the copyright.' The court also held that there was no viable contributory infringement claim because it hadn't been alleged that Storch knew of or had substantially participated in the alleged infringement. Finally, the district court decided that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Pennsylvania resident Storch, whose New York activities included involvement with musical recordings produced in New York, deriving income from the sale of records in New York, musical performances in New York and a co-publishing relationship in New York. The court concluded that these activities didn't constitute 'continuous and systematic contacts' in the state as required by N.Y. CPLR Sec. 301.


Music Publishing/Tax Deductions

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
AI Isn’t Replacing Lawyers — It’s Changing How They Work Image

Instead of eliminating legal jobs, generative AI can be transformative for the in-house role by stripping away repetitive tasks and giving lawyers room to focus on higher-value work.

OpenAI Gets Summary Judgment In Trademark Battle With Open Artificial Intelligence Image

A trademark battle that pitted technology giant OpenAI against a company known as Open AI (note the space between the terms) has resulted in a summary judgment that has ordered the smaller enterprise to cease use of the name and its prized internet real estate, open.ai.

Recent Decisions from CA and NY On AI Training and Copyright Image

In late July, two important decisions came down from courts in the Northern District of California regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted material for the training of large language models. No real consensus has emerged as to the effect they will have on the broader AI litigation landscape.

Successful and Enforceable Brands Connect with the Consumer: Lessons from a Recent 10th Circuit Decision Image

Protectable rights are created the same way a successful brand is established — linking your Mark and your company’s offering in the minds of the consumer is a must. The good news? Regardless of your company’s size or marketing budget, this necessary connection can be achieved.

Insights from Acting Director Stewart’s Decisions on Discretionary Denial under the New Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management Image

Just three months ago, Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart rescinded existing guidelines governing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) discretion to deny petitions for inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) when parallel litigation is already pending in federal district court or the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Acting Director Stewart replaced those guidelines with new interim processes that rely on the Director to issue decisions on patent owners’ requests for discretionary denials.