The case is interesting for several reasons.  First, as noted, it is the first rate decision of Judge Cote to be appealed.  The last rate decision of Judge Connor, the former SDNY judge who managed the ASCAP docket, the Yahoo! case, was recently remanded.  Second, the parties offered two vastly different views of the value of the through-to-the-audience (TTTA) license ASCAP provided.  In the proceedings in the District Court, ASCAP contended that it was entitled to over $41 million in fees for the period between 2003 and 2011.  Mobi contended that it owed only $301,257.99 for the period from November 2003 to July 2009.  Third, Judge Cote did not attempt to fashion her own reasonable rate.  Instead, she rejected ASCAP’s proposed fee proposal and generally adopted MobiTV’s fee proposal.  The result of Judge Cote adopting MobiTV’s proposal was a judgment setting a fee of $405,000 for the period from November 2003 through March 2010.

The Second Circuit’s decision is below:

By way of background, Guetta was sued in 2010 in the Central District of California by Gene Friedman, a photographer who took one of the most iconic photographs in hip hop, featuring Run DMC:
Guetta made several derivative works, which he commercialized on t-shirts and postcards, including:

and

To create the Broken Records Work, Guetta caused a digital image of the Photograph to be altered so as to remove most of the detail from its subjects, leaving an outline of the group’s features. … Guetta then had the image projected onto a large piece of wood and painted the image onto the wood.  Thereafter, Guetta glued more than 1,000 pieces of broken phonograph records onto the painted wood. The result was a three-dimensional image of Run-DMC created entirely from broken records. (Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment)

and
Guetta claimed that his derivative works were either transformative (and, therefore, fair use under § 107) or did not use copyrightable portions of Friedman’s original (and, therefore, could not constitute infringement).

In this case, the District Judge disagreed with Guetta.  Regarding the question of whether the portions of the photograph copied were copyrightable, Judge Pregerson concluded the Friedman “selected and arranged the subjects. Although the court believes that no more is
required, the court also notes that [Friedman] made related decisions about light and shadow, image clarity, depth of field, spatial relationships, and graininess that were all represented in the copyrighted Photograph. [Friedman] also selected the background
and perspective of the Photograph, and all of these particular artistic decisions commulatively result in the Photograph.”  Having found the photo copyrightable, Judge Pregerson quickly concluded that Guetta had, indeed, infringed Friedman’s copyright.

Regarding Guetta’s claim that his use was fair because the works were transformative, Judge Pregerson again disagreed, concluding that “[Guetta] has not offered a transformative alternative use of the Photograph image. Both [Friedman] and [Guetta] are artists, and the image was used by both in works of visual art for public display. Although the statements made by those respective artworks and the mediums by which those respective statements were made differ, the use itself is not so distinct as to render Defendant’s use a transformation of Plaintiff’s copyright.”

Judge Pregerson’s opinion is below.

Now, Guetta finds himself a defendant again, this time being sued by the estate of James Marshall for allegedly doing exactly the same thing with Marshall’s photographs as he did with Friedman’s; i.e., taking the photo and manipulating it to look different, while still being able to recognize the artist-subject matter. (Marshall v. Guetta, 12-cv-3423-SJO (C.D. Cal.).  So why is Google on the hook?  According to the complaint,  Google held an event to launch its music service at Guetta’s studio, where Guetta installed a backdrop using blown-up derivative works of Marshall’s photos of John Coltrane and Jimi Hendrix.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of Marshall’s original photo and Guetta’s:

The Google event at Guetta’s studio with the allegedly infringing art in the background :

And, what does all this have to do with Girl Talk?  Peter Friedman argued here that the reason mash-up artist Girl Talk has not been sued by the record labels is because the argument that Girl Talk “transformed the copyrighted materials sufficiently that his work constitutes non-infringing fair use is just too good.”  Judge Pregerson’s opinion appears to undercut such arguments.  For example, Guetta’s transformation was such that the underlying work was still identifiable (i.e., Guetta’s intent was for viewers to recognize his art as depicting Run DMC or Coltrane or Hendrix, thus capturing the essence of the original photo).  The same is obviously true for Girl Talk, who relies on listeners’ recognition of the underlying songs to make his music more popular.  Extending Pregerson’s logic, both Girl Talk and the recording artists he samples are are “artists” and though “the statements made by those respective artworks and the mediums by which those respective statements were made differ, the use itself is not so distinct as to render Defendant’s use a transformation of Plaintiff’s copyright.”

The WMG Agreement provided a significantly higher percentage of royalties under the licensed equation than under the sold equation. In general, the sold equation provides for royalties often percent (10%) (depending on the popularity of the artist, album and price the record was sold at; i.e., the more popular the artist, or the more expensive the album, the higher the royalty rate) while the licensed equation provides for royalties of fifty percent (50%) of net receipts. As a result, a recording artist or producer is paid a significantly lower percentage of the total money received by Defendant for their commercial exploitation of the artist or producer’s master recordings under the sold equation than under the licensed equation.

While I understand the strategic play, class certification is always hard in these circumstances, as even small differences in contractual language may have important implications for the applicable royalty rate.

What is clear is that these suits are going to become more and more common.

Complaint:

Like several other suits, this case is being brought by Richard Busch of Nashville’s King and Ballow, who has cut quite a lucrative niche for himself after winning the landmark Eminem case before the 9th Cir.

Stay tuned…

Complaint:

Disney’s MSJ is below:

Then Carpathia, the hosting company that leased Megaupload more than 1,100 servers on which 25 petabytes of Megaupload files are hosted, filed a motion in the government’s suit alleging it is paying $9,000 per day to maintain Megaupload’s files. According to its motion,

The parties who have so far claimed some interest in the data on the Mega Servers include: (1) Mega, which claims to need the data preserved for its defense and so that it may be returned to its customers; (2) the United States government, which has disclaimed a need for the data but objects to the transfer of ownership of the Mega Servers from Carpathia to Mega; (3) the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the “EFF”), which claims to represent the interests of end users who have non-infringing content stored on the Mega Servers and has requested that the data be preserved in order to facilitate its return to Mega users who have not engaged in copyright infringement; and (4) the Motion Picture Association of America (the “MPAA”), which, on behalf of its member studios, asserts a copyright interest in certain data purportedly located on the Mega Servers, has requested that Carpathia preserve the data in order to facilitate potential civil claims against Mega and the other Defendants in this action, and has indicated that it objects to any transfer of the data to third-parties

Carpathia is asking the court to use its discretion “under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 and enter a protective order either: (1) allowing Carpathia to reprovision the Mega Servers after a brief period of access has elapsed; (2) requiring one or more of the parties to this action to take possession of the Mega Servers in exchange for reasonable compensation to Carpathia; or (3) requiring any and all interested parties to compensate Carpathia for the substantial costs of transporting and continuing to maintain the Mega Servers until the conclusion of this action.”

Carpathia’s motion is below:

Now a civil action has been filed by Microhits, which claims to own “federally registered copyrights on sound recordings featuring the musical performances of the legendary Billie Holiday, Nat King Cole, Marvin Gaye, Frank Sinatra, AI Martino, Donny Hathaway, Rod Stewart, Muddy Waters, Howlin’ Wolf, Lightnin’ Hopkins, Junior Wells, Nina Simone, Louis Armstrong, Jerry Lee Lewis, Herbie Mann, and Bob James as well as such well-known modern artists as Missy Elliott, Christina Aguilera, Vanessa Hudgens” and Valcom, which claims to own “federally registered copyrights which includes feature films and television programs starring Denzel Washington, Bill Murray, Jackie Chan, Charlton Heston, Ronald Reagan, George C. Scott, Martin Sheen, Judy Garland, Bela Lugosi, John Carradine, Roy Rogers, Richard Chamberlain, Martin Landau, January Jones, Ryan Seacrest and many others.”  The plaintiffs are represented by the law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver, the infamous plaintiff’s firm that brought mass John Doe lawsuits against BitTorrent users.

The Complaint is below:

One prospective buyer described the suit as troubling, saying it could upend SESAC’s business model if the firm lost.

“Part of SESAC’s sales pitch is that they have a lot more flexibility on pricing” than competitors, the source said, adding that he was likely not going to make an offer.

It’s a funny, tongue-in-cheek critique of the content industry’s claims about the economic impact of piracy.  It is another example of the perils of hyperbole; I can’t believe that piracy hasn’t had some negative effect on the content industry–particularly smaller players like independent film makers–but when framed in such extreme terms, the content industry loses credibility.

The defendants in this case, East Coast Foods, Inc. and Herbert Hudson, argued that the allegedly infringing performances actually occurred at The Sea Bird Jazz Lounge, which is located at the same address but operated as a separate business and owned by a separate company, Shoreline Foods, Inc..  Hudson, the sole officer and director of East Coast Foods and President of Shoreline Foods, was sued in his individual capacity.

The plaintiff publishers argued that East Coast Foods and Hudson were vicariously liable for the copyright infringement that occurred at The Sea Bird.  A defendant can be vicarious liable for copyright infringement if he “exercises the requisite control over the direct infringer and … derives a direct financial benefit from the direct infringement.” (at p. 5).  The District Court found that Hudson, as the sole officer and director of East Coast, did control the premises where the infringing performances occurred and did derive a financial benefit through the sale of food and liquor and was, therefore, vicariously liable for the copyright infringement that took place at Roscoe’s / Sea Bird.

In total, the District Court awarded the plaintiff publishers $203,728.22, which included $4,500 for each of the 8 infringements ($36,000) and attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $167,728.22.  Because he was found vicariously liable, Mr. Hudson is personally responsible for satisfying the entire $204,000 judgment.

The Ninth Circuit opinion is here:

The District Court’s granting of summary judgment is here:

The District Court’s award of fees is here:

Apparently, the Depart. of Justice has already made up its mind about Megaupload, filing a five-count indictment–including allegations of copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit money laundering and racketeering–and having four employees arrested in New Zealand, including Kim Dotcom, Megaupload’s outspoken leader.  Although Megaupload is headquartered in Hong Kong, some of the alleged pirated content was hosted on leased servers in Ashburn, Va., which the Feds used to claim jurisdiction in the Eastern District of VA.  The website, which claimed to have 50 million daily users and ranked in the top 20 most visited websites, was shuttered as well.  Visitors to the site were greeted with the following:

The Indictment is here