Bit Parts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled a synchronization license is required to visually display lyrics with karaoke recordings of songs. Leadsinger Inc. v. BMG Publishing, 06-55102 (9^th Cir. 2008). Karaoke producer Leadsinger had filed a declaratory suit against music publishers. In a case of first impression for the circuit, the appeals court noted that, under Sec. 101 of the Copyright Act, 'the visual representation of successive portions of song lyrics that Leadsinger's device projects onto a television screen constitutes 'a series of related images.' ' [As a result,] in addition to any Sec. 115 compulsory [mechanical] licenses necessary to make and distribute phonorecords and reprint licenses necessary to reprint song lyrics, Leadsinger is also required to secure synchronization licenses to display images of song lyrics in timed relation with recorded music.' The appeals court further decided that the karaoke recordings didn't fall within the fair-use copyright exception to licensing. '[T]he purpose and character of Leadsinger's use is commercial; song lyrics fall within the core of copyright protection; and Leadsinger uses song lyrics in their entirety,' the appeals court concluded.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion for attorney fees, under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act, by a defendant in a music-file-sharing suit. Virgin Records America Inc. v. Thompson, 07-50067. Defendant Cliff Thompson had filed his motion after record-company plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their copyright-infringement action, upon discovering that Thompson's daughter had been the party responsible for the file sharing. The appeals court noted: 'First, the [district] court determined that Plaintiffs' lawsuit was not frivolous or objectively unreasonable, citing several reasons for this conclusion. The court found that 'Plaintiffs discovered substantial copyright infringement of their songs by a file-sharing program attached to an internet [sic] account registered to Thompson.' The court also found that the Plaintiffs attempted to contact Thompson to resolve this matter for six months prior to filing this lawsuit. ' The court found no indication that Plaintiffs 'prosecuted this suit with malevolent intent.' ' These Plaintiffs should not be deterred from bringing future suits to protect their copyrights because they brought an objectively reasonable suit. Thompson, however, 'delayed the prompt resolution' of this litigation by failing to respond to Plaintiffs' pre-suit communications and to disclose the identity of the
true copyright infringer.'

Song Infringement/Access