Bit Parts

A Manhattan federal district court denied a defense motion for reconsideration of a ruling over alleged rights in the Jay-Z recording “Izzo (H.O.V.A.).” Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., 01-9583. Plaintiff Demme Ulloa had alleged copyright infringement and unjust enrichment based on a vocal phrase she contributed to the recording while a visitor at a studio session. Reconfirming its earlier denial of summary judgment for the defendants on those claims, the district court noted that whether the melody occurred in prior art wasn't relevant to the originality of Ulloa's vocal phrase because the defendants “do not contend that Plaintiff copied the Vocal Phrase from those prior works.” The district court also noted in its latest ruling that Ulloa's unjust enrichment claim wasn't preempted at this point by copyright law because she would be able to proceed with the claim if “Defendants prevail at trial in establishing that the Vocal Phrase was either created as a work for hire (and thus Plaintiff has no copyright in the work) or licensed to Defendants.”

Implied Contract Claim Can Continue