Stone Temple Pilots Trademark and Band Dispute

The three remaining original band members of the Stone Temple Pilots sued expelled member Scott Weiland in May 2013 claiming breach of their written partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and trademark infringement.

Weiland was voted out of the group in February 2013.  The four group members operated under a written band partnership that allows a partner to be ousted  for numerous reasons, including not making the band a top priority.  The complaint provides a look at the various ways in which Weiland was not putting the band first and how he was subsequently “sabotaging” the band’s tour and new album release.

Weiland subsequently contersued the band accusing the members of  conspiracy to oust him and demanding the band/partnership be dissolved.

There are four federal trademark registrations for STONE TEMPLE PILOTS owned in the name of the Stone Temple Pilots partnership and listing the four original partners, including Weiland, as the partners.  Might we see some issues at the USPTO regarding those registrations and who is the proper party to maintain ownership?

Here’s the Complaint filed by the Stone Temple Pilots vs Weiland.

More to come as this case progresses.  We always love a good band name dispute.

“When The Band Gets Divorced – Mediating The Band Partnership Dispute”

“When The Band Gets Divorced – Mediating The Band Partnership Dispute”
1 hr CLE pending

Join attorney/mediator Tamera Bennett at the Belo Mansion at Noon on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 for a discussion on common issues band members mediate when a member departs and/or the band dissolves.

We’ll be taking a look at the “Sugarland” partnership dispute, the recent “En Vogue” dispute, as well as the “J Geils Band” dispute and applying those fact patterns to structuring a successful mediation for your client.

Dallas Bar Association
Belo Mansion
2101 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-220-7400

Sherlock Holmes, Elementary, Copyright Protection and Trademarks

“It’s elementary my dear Watson, Sherlock Holmes might still have copyright protection.”  Not precisely the definitive answer one expects from Sherlock’s reasoning of all things – even the intricacies of copyright law.

The recent  lawsuit filed against the estate of Sir Author Conan Doyle might bring out  heirs of other great works created in the late 1800′s and early 20th century to see just how long copyright protection can be stretched.

The character of Sherlock Holmes  first appeared in publication in 1887 and was featured in four novels and 56 short stories spanning until 1927.  According to US Copyright Law, the works written and published prior to 1923 are in the public domain. That means the characters, story lines and plots are free for use.  The Estate asserts the works between 1923 and 1927 are infringed by the book In the Company of Sherlock Holmes scheduled for publication by Random House.  In order to head-off an infringement suit, author/editor Leslie Klinger filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Judge to find the copyright on certain works featuring Sherlock Holmes and certain elements of the stories has expired.

The Complaint filed does a great job laying out the facts regarding when certain elements were first used in the Sherlock Holmes stories and why those elements are in the public domain.

Read more from the The Hollywood Reporter ESQ blog and TechDirt.

Also visit the Conan Doyle Estate website to see which Sherlock Holmes projects have been “licensed” or “authorized.”

On another interesting note, the Conan Doyle Estate Limited has been busy filing  trademark applications for the brand SHERLOCK HOLMES.  In 2010 the estate filed six intent to use trademark application featuring the name SHERLOCK HOLMES.  Based on US Patent and Trademark office filings, none of these trademarks are currently in use by the Estate.  The image above of Holmes with the Pipe is a registered trademark of the The Sherlock Holmes Memorabilia Company.  According to the Conan Doyle Estate Website, the Estate is pursuing cancellation of this trademark registration.

Copyright First Sale Doctrine Before Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court will decide in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  if importing and re-selling copyrighted works originally intended only for sale in a  foreign territory is protected by the “First Sale Doctrine” or constitutes copyright infringement.

If the importation of what are deemed “gray market goods” and their resale  is protected by the “First Sale Doctrine,” book publishers, music owners, and other content owners argue the economic impact on the US market will be devastating. It will under-cut content owners’ ability to offer content for different price points in foreign countries, ie, books/music/films might be sold for a cheaper price in a foreign country than in the US.

Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai national and former Cornell University student, had family members purchase authorized copies of textbooks in Thailand which he resold on eBay in the US for a profit. Evidence at trial suggests Kirtsaeng had a million dollar operation.  John Wiley & Sons, Inc. sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement and won at trial and the Second Court of Appeals upheld a $600,000 damage award.

Kirtsaeng argues his actions were not copyright infringement but protected by the first sale doctrine which provides an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy.   See 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) & (c).

John Wiley & Sons argues unauthorized importation of the books constitutes copyright infringement in violation of the copyright owners’ distribution rights.  See 17 U.S.C.§ 602(a)(1).  Content owners argue such “gray market” goods or unauthorized imports are not lawfully made under the Copyright Act and the resale constitutes copyright infringement.

The case is ripe for Supreme Court review as the 2nd and 9th Circuits say the “first sale doctrine” does not apply and the 3rd Circuit says it does.

Music lawyer Tamera Bennett and film lawyer Gordon Firemark discussed the Kirtsaeng appellate court ruling on Episode 23 of the Entertainment Law Update podcast.

Sir Elton John Sued for Copyright Infringement

Twenty years after Guy Hobbs first thought Elton John’s hit “Nikiti” was lyrically too similar to Hobbs’ poem “Natasha,” Hobbs’ sued John, Bernie Taupin and Big Pig Music in federal court for copyright infringement on April 26, 2012.

Both the song and poem tell a story of a cold-war romance.  Hobbs’ poem, or he calls it his lyrics, was written in 1982 and registered for copyright in the UK in 1983.  In 1984 Hobbs forwarded the poem “Natasha” to Big Pig Music, the music publishing company that represents Elton John and Bernie Taupin.

Elton John released “Nikita” in 1985 on the album “Ice and Fire.” Hobbs alleges he first discovered the release of “Nikiti” in 2001.

Whether or not Hobbs can prove infringement is not the primary issue in this case.  Hobbs’ has admitted in his complaint he had actual knowledge in 2001 of the alleged infringement.  Further, the defendants could easily imply Hobbs should have had knowledge in 1985 when John released the album “Ice and Fire.”

The defense should succeed in this case on their defenses of statute of limitations and laches.  Hobbs simply waited too long to sue.  The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years.  Laches is a defense in common law created by judges, meaning not a law created by legislators, that says you can’t wait too long to sue.

There may also be some interesting procedural questions based on the fact that all the parties are residents of countries other than the United States.

Allman Brothers Settle Class Action With Sony Over Digital Downloads

In a much watched lawsuit, the Allman Brothers, Cheap Trick and the Youngbloods reached a settlement with the Sony record label for back payment of digital download royalties. The lawsuit has been in the forefront of the dispute between record labels and recording artists over the treatment of digital download income in respect to contracts signed back before the advent of iTunes and mp3 files.

This case was certified as a class action, so potentially the settlement terms could impact recording artists that had deals with Sony (or a predecessor) between 1976 and 2001.

Sony is not alone in facing litigation from artists that signed deals prior 2003 for the license vs sale issue.  The “Eminem Case” of F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records was the pioneer case in which the Ninth Circuit held a digital download should be treated as a license, entitling an artist to a 50% royalty.

Click here for a running list of lawsuits over the sale vs license issue for digital downloads.

Recording Artists Suing For Digital Royalty Accountings

As promised, here is a running list of lawsuits filed against record labels over the license vs sale royalty issue for digital downloads.  Please be patient as we gather details on cases.  We may have a case name listed while we are in the process of tracking down the citation.

(The Temptations) Otis Williams and Ron Tyson v UMG Recordings Inc., 3:2012cv01289, filed March 15, 2012, NDCA.

Allman Brothers v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 1:2006cv03252, filed April 27, 2006, SDNY.  As of 3/9/2012 The Court has preliminarily approved the Stipulation and the Settlement set forth, as being a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement as to all Class Members. A settlement in principal was reached a year earlier in March 2011.

Graciela Beltran v EMI Music, Inc., 4:2012cv01002, Feb. 28, 2012, NDCA.

Toto, Inc.  v Sony Music Entertainment,1:2012cv01434, filed Feb. 27, 2012, SDNY.

Gary Wright v. Warner Music Group, 4:2012cv00870, filed Feb. 22, 2012, NDCA.

Kenny Rogers v. Capitol Records, 3:2012cv00180, filed Feb. 13, 2012, MDTN.

(Sister) Sledge v. Warner Music Group Corp., 3:2012cv00559, filed Feb. 2, 2012, NDCA.

Felice Catena (Bruce Gary Estate /Knack) v. Capitol Records, LLC, 2:2012cv00806, filed Jan. 30, 2012.

Peter Frampton v. A and M Records Inc and UMG Recordings Inc., 2:2011cv10649, filed Dec. 23, 2011, CDCA.

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour (Chuck D of Public Enemy) v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 3:2011cv05321, filed November 2, 2011, NDCA.

Rob Zombie v UMG Recordings, Inc., 4:2011cv02431, filed May 18, 2011, NDCA.

Rick James Estate v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 3:2011cv01613, filed April 1, 2011, NDCA.

F.B.T. Productions, LLC v Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) cert denied. Holding digital downloads are a license not a sale.

George Clinton v UMG Recordings, Inc., 2:2007cv00672, filed Jan. 29, 2007, CDCA.

Does Phone Call Equal Song Lyrics? Drake Sued by Ex As Co-Writer of Song

Grammy nominee Drake has been sued by an ex-girlfriend who claims she co-wrote the hit song “Marvin’s Room” and is entitled to part ownership in the copyright in the song; copyright in the sound recording; and payment of songwriter royalties.

The first  30 seconds of the song is a recording of a phone conversation with the ex-girlfriend and plaintiff, Erika Lee. Lee asserts that she and Drake had every intention to write the song together and that her contributions were intended to be incorporated into the final song.  Lee contends the intro “phone message” is key to the underlying song.

Lee’s complaint is somewhat confusing as issues of ownership of the sound recording are intermingled with claims asserting ownership in the underlying song.

The most interesting thing in the complaint to me is a cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  Really, songwriters have a fiduciary duty to one another? If a record label doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to an artist, do we really think that one songwriter would owe the highest duty of utmost care to a co-writer?

Read the complaint here.

Entertainment Law Update Podcast 26: Zombies, Crowds, & Trees

Take a listen to the latest edition of the Entertainment Law Update Podcast with co-hosts L.A.  film lawyer Gordon Firemark and Texas-based music lawyer Tamera Bennett.

I would like to give a personal shout-out and thank you to Gordon for bringing me on board for this great podcast.  I am looking forward to an amazing 2012 for the podcast and can’t wait to see who might be making a surprise visit as guest co-host!

Right of Publicity — 2011 In Review

When a famous person dies, the survival of the right to control and profit from their name and likeness depends on when they died and what state they lived in at their death.  Famous artists may need to take a closer look at where they call home during their life to insure their right of publicity has a home post-death.

After losing a battle in 2005 to have Jimi Hendrix’s right of publicity protected by New York state law, where Hendrix lived at his death, Hendrix’s heirs worked to amend the Washington state right of publicity law.  Hendrix’s heirs sued under the newly amended law. In 2011 a trial judge held Washington’s Personality Rights Act, that allowed anyone to sue in Washington to enforce their rights regardless of where the lived when they died, was unconstitutional.  The trial court’s decision has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

This year an Indiana court ruled that Indiana’s post-death right of publicity law cannot be applied retroactively.  The court ruled John Dillenger’s heirs have no claim to Dillenger’s name and likeness because Dillenger died before Indiana had a posthumous right of publicity.

A California  district judge’s decision ruling Marilyn Monroe was a resident of New York at her death is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  If upheld, Monroe’s post-death right of publicity would not be protected by changes to the California right of publicity statute which granted retroactive protection to famous California residents who died before 1985.  See Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 08-56471 (9th Cir. filed 2008).

George Clinton v UMG: Royalty Disputes and More

This article is was originally published in Billboard Magazine and has been reprinted with permission.

George Clinton v. Universal Music Group Highlights Time Limits On Royalty Claims, BILLBOARD, Sept. 29, 2011.

by Tamera H. Bennett

Judging from pioneering funk productions helmed by Parliament-Funkadelic mastermind George Clinton, the man knows the value of staying on the beat and keeping time.

But the apparent failure of Clinton to keep an eye on the clock could cost him dearly in terms of royalties he claims he’s still owed. The decision highlights one of the challenges facing heritage artists and their heirs in navigating claims for underpayment of digital downloads and possibly other new media uses of their copyrights. In addition to keeping track of royalties due to them (which can require costly audits), artists must also be aware of how long they have to raise objections to the size of the payments they receive.

In 1980, Clinton signed a production agreement with Casablanca Records, which is now owned by Universal Music Group. UMG claims that it couldn’t reach Clinton for years and that it was unable to send him royalty statements. Once Clinton re-surfaced in 2001, UMG sent back royalty statements and payments to Clinton for the years 1996 to 2000.

But Clinton sued UMG in 2007 for breach of contract, claiming that the label group didn’t pay him all the royalties he was due from 2000 to 2003. His production contract required Clinton to provide detailed and specific objections to his royalty statements and he complied — almost. Clinton outlined under-payments, non-payments and improper withholding of taxes.  What Clinton never specified was that he had been underpaid for royalties stemming from digital downloads.

Then earlier this year, Clinton amended his lawsuit claiming for the first time that UMG had not paid him the correct royalty rate for digital downloads, citing a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records. In the F.B.T. case, the court held that in certain contractual situations digital downloads are a license and as such the record label must pay a higher royalty rate to the artist.

Clinton had the right under his production agreement to review and audit royalty statements to determine if UMG had properly paid him. Clinton also had the right to sue UMG if it failed to do so.

But both of these rights had a time limit — three years after the date a royalty statement was “rendered” to Clinton. It is very common in recording agreements for there to be a time limit on bringing a lawsuit, a period of time which is usually shorter than the statute of limitations stipulated in state or federal law.

Three years seems like a pretty easy way to calculate a deadline. Indeed, in 2003, Clinton and UMG agreed to a “tolling” agreement that effectively froze time so the three-year window within which Clinton had to file a lawsuit for the statements rendered in 2000 and later would not run out.

But on Aug. 9,  U.S. District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez ruled that the clock had started running three years from the time Clinton should have received his royalty statement. If Clinton didn’t receive his royalty statement, his 1980 contract placed the responsibility on Clinton to tell UMG in writing that he never got his statement. Clinton’s four-year absence cost him the ability to sue UMG for potential accounting errors over multiple years.

In his ruling, Gutierrez made it clear that Clinton failed to specifically object to the underpayment of digital download royalties in a timely manner. Because Clinton didn’t comply with the requirements in his recording contract, he lost the opportunity to challenge UMG on years of royalty statements specifically related to digital downloads.

At the end of October, Gutierrez will determine whether Clinton v UMG will go to trial on the question of whether the tolling agreement was valid. The district judge ruled that it wasn’t valid, but an appeals court reviewed the decision and sent the question back to Gutierrez.

If the tolling agreement is valid — that is, if Clinton’s suit against UMG is deemed to have been filed within the required time frame, then Gutierrez will rule on Clinton’s claims that UMG failed to pay him royalties due to him, excluding those for digital downloads. This is a significant concern for any label or artist. Even though there is no binding court decision in Clinton v. UMG on this issue, it has become imperative to include language that references the freezing of all statutory limitations periods as well as contractual limitations periods.

The possibility that the tolling agreement could be declared invalid has prompted Clinton to sue his now-former lawyers for legal malpractice.
Tamera H. Bennett is an entertainment and intellectual property attorney based in Lewisville, Texas.

Y.M.C.A. — Spells Copyright Termination

Victor Willis, the former lead singer of the group The Village People and the songwriter or co-writer on 32 songs performed by the group, is in a legal battle with the music publishers that currently own the copyright in the songs  to terminate the agreements granting ownership of the song copyrights to the music publisher.

Pursuant to section 203 of the 1976 Copyright Act authors (or certain heirs) may terminate  copyright assignments and reclaim copyrights 35 years after the work is first published.  There are strict statutory guidelines that must be followed and they are outlined in more detail in the article here.

The music publishers that own the songs made famous by The Village People have asked a judge to find the songs were created by Willis as “works for hire.”  Under the Copyright Act works created as “works for hire” are not subject to the termination provision because the employer, in this case the music publisher, would by law be deemed the author of the work.  But, songs are not specifically enumerated as a category of “works for hire,” so the music publishers would be required to prove that Willis was their employee in order for this argument to fly.

While the article from The Hollywood Reporter Esq. blog and The New York Times lay out the facts and the basics on termination law, they do not mention what might be the music publisher’s best argument to defeat the claim:  17 USC § 203(A)(1) requires that when a work, in this fact pattern a song, has more than one author, a termination of the grant may be effected by a majority of the authors who executed the original agreement conveying the rights to the copyright.  “Y.M.C.A” has four songwriters.  Three of the four songwriters must properly serve notice on the music publisher to meet the first hurdle in even attempting to terminate the grant. While the other co-writers may have filed their termination notices, this fact does not seem to be surfacing in the news reports.

Music lawyer Tamera Bennett and film lawyer Gordon Firemark discuss this case in detail in Episode 23 of the Entertainment Law Update Podcast.

Estate Updates On Bobby Fischer and James Brown

Where there’s money … there will be battles….

Bobby Fischer’s Estate:
An Icelandic Court’s ruling may have ended the running dispute as to who is the actual heir to renowned chess player Bobby Fischer.  I blogged here about the dispute between the person claiming to be his child and the women claiming to be his wife.  DNA testing ruled out the child as an heir.  The court ruled in March 2011 that documentation was sufficient to prove a women from Japan was his wife at his death at would inherit his 2 Million dollar estate.

James Brown’s Estate:
There really is no end in sight for the dispute between the heirs over the James Brown Estate. I blogged here on the ongoing dispute between Brown’s heirs and Brown’s alleged heirs regarding his estate plan that included the bulk of his estate going to a charitable trust.  An action has now been filed to overturn a 2009 Settlement Agreement that allocated a portion of his estate to heirs that were not specifically named in his will. By the court’s action in approving the 2009 Settlement Agreement, the corpus of the charitable trust was substantially reduced.

Music Lawyer Tamera Bennett Talks Eminem, Rick James and Allman Brothers

This article is featured in Billboard and is reprinted with permission.

Rick James Estate’s Class-Action Suit Against Universal: An Entertainment Attorney Weighs In

April 08, 2011

By Tamera H. Bennett

The Rick James estate filed a class action lawsuit against Universal Music Group and it’s raising expectations that more artists may enter the license-vs.-sale battle over digital downloads.

But the clock could be ticking for heritage artists interested in pursuing action against their former record labels.

In its suit against UMG, the James estate is seeking damages for what it alleges are unpaid royalties for the sale of music through digital downloads and ringtones. The filing came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an appellate court decision granting F.B.T. Productions a greater share of royalties from UMG’s sale of Eminem’s music through digital downloads and ringtones.

The Allman Brothers Band recently settled a proposed class action case against Sony Music Entertainment on the same issue: Is a digital download a license or a sale? In accordance with the Eminem decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a digital download is a license, and an artist is typically entitled to 50% of what the record label was paid for the license, versus a lesser percentage that would be due for the sale of a record.

With record labels using standard agreements from the mid-’60s to the mid-2000s, the James estate is banking on having its case certified as a class action and bringing aboard thousands of plaintiffs who had record or production deals with UMG or affiliated record labels from Jan. 1, 1965, to April 30, 2004.

What the James estate may not be counting on is another fairly standard provision in these recording contracts: the “incontestability provision.” Most artist contracts signed during the proposed class window include language such as this: “All royalty statements rendered by the label to the artist shall be binding upon the artist and not subject to any objection by the artist for any reason unless specific objection in writing, stating the basis thereof, is given to the label within one year from the date the statement is rendered.”

A similar incontestability provision was included in the 1985 Allman Brothers recording agreement (originally signed with PolyGram Records) that’s part of the band’s current litigation against UMG pending in federal district court in New York. The court held in 2008 that the clause was valid and enforceable and denied the challenge to certain royalty statements because there wasn’t a timely objection to the statements in accordance with the contract.

Whether there is a one-, two-, three- or even a four-year window of time to object to a royalty statement, heritage artists who intend to challenge the royalty rate they’ve been paid for digital downloads may be barred from collecting years of unpaid revenue unless they act immediately.

Joining the James estate’s class action may sound appealing, but waiting for the case to be certified as a class action might be too late for some heritage acts. Even though there are common questions of law and fact among the proposed class members, the court may deny a class certification. Keep in mind that the Allmans’ case against Sony settled almost five years after being filed, but before the class was ever certified.

Heritage artists should review closely their agreements to determine if they have to take any additional action to preserve their rights. Launching a full-blown audit may not be financially viable for many heritage artists, but at a minimum they should immediately begin objecting in writing to the royalty rate paid for digital downloads. For those who have the financial resources, artists should comply with the contract objection provision, send notice of an audit and perhaps even send a tolling agreement to the label to freeze the contract-imposed limitations period. The Allman Brothers tried the tolling provision route first with UMG, but the major refused to freeze the limitations period, prompting the band to file suit.

Although UMG has repeatedly discounted the Eminem decision as only applying to the particular facts of that case, it’s anticipated that the Ninth Circuit decision will spur many heritage artists to start the litigation process to preserve their rights. Tactically speaking, individual suits may be more effective than a class action because the labels’ efforts will be divided in defending the suits. Artists might want to investigate filing suit in the Northern District of California, where the James estate filed its case.

If the rules of civil procedure are met, the court may consider a “joinder” of cases in lieu of a class action, potentially giving named plaintiffs more control over the terms of a settlement than under a class action. In the event of a joinder, only plaintiffs named in the lawsuit may recover damages.

Either way, time is of the essence. Heritage artists interested in pursuing a higher royalty rate on digital downloads should act quickly as windows of opportunity are closing each year.

Tamera H. Bennett is an entertainment and intellectual property attorney based in Lewisville, Texas.

Music Business Panel at Denton — 35 Conferette

Updated: March 14, 2011:

The Dallas Observer Blog has an interesting article on the “Music Business Legal Checklist” panel that was presented as part of the 2011 35 Conferette.

Click here for a summary of the topics discussed and resources you can review online.

_______________________________________________

Dallas and Fort Worth music lawyers team up for a “basics” music business legal issues panel on March 10, 2011 at Denton Banter as part of the Day Events for the 35 Conferette music conference.

Music Business Legal Check List: Five Things You Better Think About and Do
Sponsored by the Dallas Bar Sports and Entertainment Law Section
Thursday, March 10th from 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM at Banter, 219 West Oak Street, Denton, TX 76201

This free and open to the public  presentation will assist the new or established musician/artist/music business professional in navigating the ins-and-outs of legal issues involved in the music business. The panel will address 1) when key team members such as a manager, attorney or booking agent should become involved in an artist’s career; 2) who owns the content – songs, sound recordings, trademarks; 3) do you need a written agreement or is a hand-shake between the band members enough; 4) how do you raise money for the next record; and 5) what revenue streams are out there.

Moderator
Tamera H. Bennett: Attorney, Bennett Law Office, PC; President, Farm To Market Music, LLC, Lewisville, TX

Panelists
Megan M. Carpenter: Associate Professor & Director, Center for Law & Intellectual Property, Texas Wesleyan School of Law, Fort Worth, TX
Craig C. Crafton: Attorney, Cozen O’Conner, Dallas, TX
Catherine Hough: Attorney, Ferguson Law Group, PC, Plano, TX
Decker Sachse: Attorney, Sachse Law Group; Business Affairs, Kirtland Records, Dallas, TX

Stick around after the panel presentation for the 2nd Annual Music Mixer hosted by the Texas Board members of the Recording Academy (the Grammy folks).  Cash Bar.

Entertainment Law Update Podcast: Beauty Pageants and Super Bowls

Film attorney Gordon P. Firemark and music lawyer Tamera H. Bennett have put Episode 18 of the Entertainment Law Update “in the can.”

Catch up on Sheppard Fairey, Jimi Hendrix, and Hurt Locker litigation matters.  New hot topics include litigation over the “Super Bowl” temporary seating, a Texas beauty queen dethroned, and Lady Gaga vs. Madonna.

The King’s Estate Sues Music Publisher Chrysalis Music Group

Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC sued Chrysalis Music Group, Inc. in New York County Supreme Court for breach of a 2002  world-wide Music Publishing Administration Agreement.

The Complaint makes for interesting reading and lays out the history of Elvis Presley’s songwriting career.  The Complaint alleges Chrysalis failed to properly license, collect and protect the song assets.  There is also a claim that Chrysalis failed to properly promote the song catalog and there were “lost opportunities.”

While I find the arguments regarding lack of properly accounting, paying, and protecting the rights of the songs persuasive, I doubt a cause of action related to “lost opportunities” will fly.

The music publishing administration agreement is attached to the complaint.  You can read more at The Hollywood Reporter Esq. Blog.

 

Entertainment Law Update Podcast Episode 14

Dallas Music Lawyer Tamera H. Bennett and Los Angeles  Theater Lawyer Gordon P. Firemark discussed Mockumentaries, Downloads, Licenses, and First Sale issues in Episode 14 of the Entertainment Law Update Podcast.

If you are a licensed California attorney, CLE credit hours are available.  In most other states, listening to the podcast will qualify for “self-study” cle hours.

Failure to Plan: The Estate of Bobby Fischer

Estate of Bobby Fischer
As part of the materials for the 20th Annual Entertainment Law Institute held in Austin, Texas, I summarized several recent “estate” cases. The Bobby Fischer case is one that clearly falls under the category of “Failed to Plan.”

Robert James “Bobby” Fischer died in Iceland from kidney disease on January 17, 2008 at the age of 64 without even a simple will. Now the Icelandic courts are trying to determine his heirs between a Japanese woman who claims she was his wife, a Filipino woman who claims she is the mother of his only child, two estranged nephews, and the U.S Government. In August 2010 it was reported that after exhuming his body, DNA testing shows that Fischer is not the father of the Filipino child.

Read more from the New York Times.

Other estates we discussed during the CLE included Jack Kerouac, Darrell Wayne Perry, James Brown, and Roger Miller.

Songwriter’s Estate Settles With Trust for Music Royalties

Estate of Darrell “Wayne” Perry
County songwriter Darrell “Wayne” Perry died in 2005 but his estate was not resolved until July 2010.  Perry wrote songs including Tim McGraw’s number one country hit, “Not A Moment Too Soon.”  Perry’s children sued their aunt, the executor of the estate, for wrongful death of their father in addition to mismanagement of the estate assets.

I have been unable to pull from the court records any of the court documents but provide this information to the case for reference.  Estate of Darrell W. Perry, PE05-06-0659 (Butler Co. Ohio Probate Ct. decision July 26, 2010).

News reports state that Perry’s sister, Darlene Bishop, was appointed executor.  This could have been via a will or the court may have made the appointment. Based on the animosity Perry’s children have openly displayed against Ms. Bishop, I am assuming there was a simple will involved that appointed Ms. Bishop the executor.

Whatever planning there was on Mr. Perry’s part pre-death, the court found the best plan was taking Mr. Perry’s songwriter royalty income and placing that in trust for his children’s benefit.   Read this article from USA today for more information: Court Settles Estate of Songwriter Darren ‘Wayne’ Perry, USA Today (note the article title references Mr. Perry’s name incorrectly).