Bit Parts

Brian Wilson's Ex-Wife Wins Remand Back to State Court of Her Claim to Share of Revenues from Sale of His Song Catalog

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided that federal copyright law didn't preempt a claim by Marilyn Wilson Rutherford, the former wife of Beach Boys icon Brian Wilson, to a share — under a 1981 judgment dissolving her marriage with Brian — of his income from the December 2021 sale of his song rights to Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG). Wilson v. Rutherford, 2:22-cv-01982. The 1981 divorce judgment, issued by the L.A. Superior Court's Family Law division, stipulated that 170 Beach Boys songs Brian wrote during the couple's marriage were marital community property. The judgment then gave Marilyn a 50% share of revenues the songs generated and Brian the exclusive right "to administer and exploit all rights" in the compositions. Brian sold the songs to UMPG after recapturing the copyrights under the assignment termination provisions of Sec. 304(c) of the U.S. Copyright Act. In February 2022, Marilyn filed a request in the family law court in part for an accounting and payment of at least $6.7 million from the song catalog sale. In March, Brian had the case removed to federal court. In an August 2022 ruling, Central District federal Judge Josephine L. Staton observed: "Brian argues that although the parties were married from 1964 to 1978, the Reverted [song] Rights he sold in the Community Works cannot be community property because pursuant to Section 304(c) [his] termination rights did not first vest until 2011." But remanding the case back to the L.A. Superior Court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, District Judge Station noted: "Marilyn does not assert that she has a right to terminate any grants of copyrights in the Community Works; nor does she dispute that Brian had the right to terminate the grants. Instead, Marilyn merely asserts that she is entitled to certain revenues arising from Brian's exploitation of the Community Works, as provided under the 1981 Judgment (or more broadly under California's family law)." The district judge added: "Indeed, Section 304(c) provides that '[t]ermination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under' state law."