box1 header1
Entry Detail
Terms of Use The data on this site is for education, insights, and entertainment, and is not to be used for commercial purposes. If you want to use content for noncommercial purposes, be kind and give us due credit. To read the full Terms of Use, click here.
Options Conduct New Search
Copy Permalink to this Item
 
Pete Rock vs. Shady Record Label
Highest Court Second Circuit
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Rock, Pete
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Website Proprietor(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Pete Rock is an early pioneer--along with Gang Starr, Stetsasonic, and others--of hip-hop's exploration into jazz (used largely as samples), and, along with partner C.L. Smooth, released a string of albums in the early 1990s. He later went solo, and this case arose from that phase of his carrer. Rock recorded an album for Defendant, an independent record label, and scrapped a decent number of songs, considering them unfit to be released. Defendant, without Rock's permission, released the songs as a follow-up album, and Rock sued, alleging copyright infringement, contract breach, and various related state law claims. Defendants sought to enforce the forum selection clause contained in the contract, and the issue became whether claims for copyright infringement can be said to "arise from" the contract and thus be subject to to clause, which required litigation in England. The District Court said they did, but the Second Circuit disagreed. Though the forum clause was mandatory, the court held that Rock's rights in the songs infringed by Defendants did not "arise from" the agreement; the contract only entered the litigation as a defense brought by Defendants, and did not constitute any part of Plaintiff's copyright infringement claims. The contract claim was dismissed, as it needed to be brought in England, but the copyright claims were not. - LSW

Legal Issues
Conflicts of Law Choice of Law Forum Selection Clause
  Jurisdiction & Forum Venue
Contracts Breach Payment & Performance
  Terms Construction & Interpretation
Copyrights Infringement Reproduction & Distribution/Dissemination
General Affirmative Defenses Federal Preemption
  Equitable Actions Unjust Enrichment
Trademarks & Unfair Competition State Statute/Common Law Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts


Opinions Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd.
494 F.3d 378
Second Circuit , July 24, 2007 ( No. 05-7017-cv )


Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd.
2006 Copr.L.Dec. P 29,107 / 2005 WL 3309652
S.D. New York , December 06, 2005 ( No. 05 Civ. 897(GBD) )


Errors Do you see something that is not correct?
The Discography is an ongoing project. Some entries in the database are displayed in various stages of completion. If you see spelling or grammar issues, they are likely to be corrected in the near future as they're noticed by editors (they're on the "To Do" list, we promise). But If you notice errors regarding facts, legal conclusions, or other information, please contact us to let us know. We've done our best, but can't assure perfection. Thank you.


Related Searches Parties
Music Publisher(s) ( Defendant )
Record Label(s) ( Defendant )
Rock, Pete ( Plaintiff )
Website Proprietor(s) ( Defendant )

Legal Issues
Conflicts of Law / Choice of Law / Forum Selection Clause
Conflicts of Law / Jurisdiction & Forum / Venue
Contracts / Breach / Payment & Performance
Contracts / Terms / Construction & Interpretation
Copyrights / Infringement / Reproduction & Distribution/Dissemination
General / Affirmative Defenses / Federal Preemption
General / Equitable Actions / Unjust Enrichment
Trademarks & Unfair Competition / State Statute/Common Law / Unfair Competition, False Advertising & Related Torts

Courts
Second Circuit (highest court)
S.D. New York


permalink to this entry