Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Second Circuit Rules in Record Distribution Case

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld cancellation of the distribution by Artemis Records of a cover recording of “The Ketchup Song (Heh Hah)” for which 24/7 Records failed to obtain a compulsory license for the musical composition. But the appeals court allowed 24/7 to proceed with claims of wrongful termination of 24/7's overall distribution contract with Artemis and that Artemis' distributor Sony Music, which distributed an earlier internationally successful recording of “The Ketchup Song,” had tortiously interfered with the 24/7-Artemis agreement. 24/7 Records Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment LLC, 04-5563.

Florida-based 24/7 signed a deal for Artemis to serve as 24/7's exclusive record distributor in the United States. The agreement, which also acknowledged that Sony's RED Distribution would work on behalf of Artemis, stated:

“[24/7] solely shall be responsible for, and shall pay all costs in connection with, each of the following:

(b) The securing, in writing, of all necessary licenses, consents and permissions required for the distribution of Records hereunder, including, without limitation, from recording artists, producers, other performers, music publishers, unions and guilds, and other Persons rendering services or granting rights in connection with the Recordings and the Records.”

The agreement further stated that 24/7 represented and warranted that 24/7 already had “or prior to release hereunder shall have, and shall at all times thereafter continue to have in effect a valid and enforceable grant of rights or license … with respect to each Recording, each musical composition and all other copyrightable materials embodied in or on the Records (including, without limitation, mechanical licenses for all musical compositions and licenses for so-called 'samples').”

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
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.

Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers Image

There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.

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.

Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases Image

The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.

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?