Quiz Time

Every year, I teach a course in Music Industry Law and Copyright Law. I like to give pop quizzes just to see if the students are paying attention. Here's a question which always blows their minds.

1. John Cage was a respected American avant-garde composer. One of his most famous pieces was called “4’33””, which consisted of him staring at a piano for four minutes and 33 seconds. The piece contained no music whatsoever. Is this work capable of copyright protection? If so, why?  If not, why not?

For those of you following along at home, , what do you think the correct answer is?

Don't Mess With the Black Eyed Peas or 17 USC 505

It sometimes happens that potential plaintiffs are dismayed by my reticence in taking their copyright infringement case – even when they assume they have a clear-cut case.  From now on I may suggest to these potential litigants that they read the sad case of Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr., et al. 

            In that case, Pringle sued Adams, better known as Will.i.am  and his band, the Black Eyed Peas (as well as their producer and record label and various other publishers) claiming that their hit "I Gotta  Feeling," infringed upon his song “Take a Dive”. 

            I have not read the entire procedural history of the case but it seems that Pringle's cause of action was doomed from the beginning due to an issue regarding an improper copyright registration.  Sections 411 and 412 of the Copyright Act mandate registration as a prerequisite of a copyright infringement lawsuit. 

            However, after Pringle lost the case on summary judgment,  Will.i.am  and his compatriots asked the court to order Pringle to pay their attorney's fees incurred in  defending the action. This  resulted in an award of $1 million to Will.i.am, $1.3 million to producer David Guetta and $500,000.00 to the band's label Interscope.  For some reason Fergie lost out on recovering her attorney's fees. 

            This is the harsh reality of the Copyright Act.  Section 505 of the Act states, ". . . the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the cost" and since John Fogerty successfully defended  his case against Saul Zaentz, this has been a key ingredient of infringement litigation and a deterrent to anyone considering bringing all but the strongest cases.  Conversely, it can also serve as an incentive to settle early if you are the defendant in other types of infringement litigation. 

            It is often hard to convince a songwriter that what he hears as a "substantial similarity" between his song and someone else's song may to the ears of an expert musicologist not be similar at all – or while similar may not be original enough to qualify for copyright protection.  If you add to this the specter of having to pay the other side's attorney's fees the concept of seeking justice (real or perceived) becomes much less attractive. 

Tom Petty Does Not Back Down

“What happened? I conclude that the composer, in seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was working with various possibilities. As he tried this possibility and that, there came to the surface of his mind a particular combination that pleased him as being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective  listener; in other words, that this combination of sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious knew it already had worked in a song that his conscious mind did not remember. Having arrived at this pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the song became an enormous success.”  Judge Richard Owen, Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music 420 F.Supp 177 (1976)

I am in the process of preparing to teach my Music Business law class tonight and re-reading my notes on copyright infringement. Taking an ill advised break to look at Facebook, I see that British singer songwriter Sam Smith has apparently settled an infringement claim by Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne over his song “Stay With Me” and Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down”. According to an article posted on the Consequence of Sound website, Petty and Lynne now share a 25% interest in Smith’s “Stay With Me”.

Since there was no lawsuit, we have no record of what happened but my guess is that Petty and his lawyers, armed with at least one expert witness musicologist made a demand upon Smith et. al. claiming infringement of the Petty composition. It probably helped that Petty is known for not backing down.  An equitable settlement was reached.

The quote above is from the trial Judge in the well known  case involving Petty and Lynne’ s fellow Wilbury George Harrison, in which the plaintiff proved that Harrison subconsciously infringed upon the hit “He’s So Fine.”  I don’t know if the general public is aware of the fact that subconscious infringement is a viable cause of action. As Judge Owen concluded in the Bright Tunes case, “Did Harrison deliberately use  the music of “He’s So Fine”? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that “My Sweet Lord” is the same song as “He’s So Fine” with different words….That is, under the law, infringement  of copyright and is no less so even though subconsciously  accomplished.”

The  two songs are similar. The two things you need to prove in a copyright infringement case are access and substantial similarity. Clearly, Smith had access to “I Won’t Back Down”.  Had the case continued the battle would have been waged over the legal elements of substantial similarity and it would have involved musicologists arguing about the similarities between the two songs and most important, whether  those  alleged similarities are capable of copyright protection?  In other words, just because we can hear similarities between the two songs, it does not mean that they are “substantially similar” from a legal standpoint.  Many litigants have learned this the hard way.

The case would have been ugly and expensive with no clear cut result. All involved should be commended for settling this dispute.  On another note, this gives me the opportunity to post my favorite Petty video of my favorite Petty song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvlTJrNJ5lA

You Really Got a Hold On Me

            I recently read that Smokey Robinson had settled a dispute with his ex-wife Claudette over his right to exercise the termination of copyright assignment in his songs under the 1976 Copyright Act.  While I am all for both marital harmony and post-marital harmony it would have been fascinating to see how a court might have interpreted this intersection of federal copyright law and domestic relations.

 

            Robinson had taken the somewhat unusual step of filing an action for a declaratory judgment apparently after receiving a letter from his former wife's counsel asserting a community property interest in the compositions in question, despite the fact that the couple  had been divorced nearly for three decades.  He wanted the court to confirm the fact that the Copyright Act gives the right to terminate assignments and recapture copyrights to the author alone and not an ex-spouse and presumably, despite whatever economic effect this might have on the ex-spouse).

            The Copyright Act is pretty clear in this particular area but it does provide some fairly troublesome questions for divorcing spouses.  One wonders if when divorcing in 1985, the Robinsons even contemplated that Smokey would be able to recapture the copyrights to his greatest hits.  Was there a duty of disclosure (of an event that might occur 29 years in the future)?  We often see how divorce settlements can be impacted by the Copyright Act but I think that this might have presented a different take on the issue.  As the clock begins to run on some of these massive hits from the 60s and beyond we will no doubt see more of these cases and they are tremendously important.

Let Us Now Praise Flo and Eddie

I have been thinking a lot about Flo and Eddie (Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan a/k/a the Turtles) and their recent victories over Sirius XM Radio in California and New York.  Although subject to appeal, both these cases have established the principle of a digital public performance royalty available to the owners of sound recordings in those states which recognize these rights fixed in sound recordings prior to February 15, 1972. 

            What does this mean? 

            The U.S. Copyright Act provides for a public performance royalty (from digital transmission) to be paid to owners of sound recordings created after February 15, 1972.  This right led to the creation of Sound Exchange and all of those current arguments about how little Spotify, Pandora and the other streaming services are paying to recording artists..  For reasons that I cannot recall, the Act excluded those recordings created prior to February 15, 1972 but allowed the owners of those recordings to pursue common law remedies under state law against infringers.  This is one of the few areas not preempted by federal law under the Copyright Act.

            Historical trivia:  Neil Young's "Harvest" was released on February 14, 1972 – (one day before the law went into effect).

            Several states such as California, New York and Florida have laws on the books that give protection to owners of sound recordings (Tennessee is currently looking at updating its law).  California law is pretty clear.  The relevant section of California Civil Code § 980(a)(2) reads as follows:

                        The author of an original work of authorship consisting of a sound recording initially fixed prior to February 15, 1972 has an exclusive ownership interest therein until February 15, 2047 as against all persons except one who independently makes or duplicates another sound recording that does not directly or indirectly capture the actual sounds fixed in such prior recording, but consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate the sounds contained in the prior sound recording. 

 

            The court in the California case agreed that the language gave Flo and Eddie the right to pursue an infringement action against Sirius Radio for digitally transmitting the Turtles' recordings and accordingly gave them a summary judgment on this particular issue. 

            Note that this judgment applies to the State of California.  How that judgment works out on a national basis in practice is open to debate.  The plaintiffs have won a similar case in New York and my understanding is that they are pursuing a case in Florida as well.

            Shortly after the decision a friend of mine asked what ramifications this decision would have for other "heritage" artists such as classic country artists whose  recordings are played on other Sirius XM stations.  Ultimately, my gut feeling is that the effect will be minimal for the reason that the Turtles (unlike the vast majority of recording artists from that era) own their master recordings.  The master recordings of most other artists are owned by record companies – major labels and/or once independent companies who were absorbed by major labels.  I have no idea what is going on behind closed doors but I am going to assume that the majors don't have any interest in suing satellite radio – one of their de facto partners in promoting music.  The smaller independents or artists who might own their own back catalogs may not have the resources to take on such a battle on their own.

            Nonetheless, Flo and Eddie have won an impressive and important battle because they addressed  an issue that everyone knew was blatantly unfair and they have claimed a moral and economic victory.This is not the first time they have gone to Court  to take a stand for artist’s rights and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.  It seems absurd to treat artists and the owners of sound recordings different due to an arbitrary date.  I don't know if this will ultimately be resolved through Congress, the courts or a grand compromise but the issue is now unavoidable.  Congratulations to  Flo and Eddie for taking it on.