box1 header1
Search Results
Search Results 364 results
Showing Records 1 - 20
Showing Page 1 of 19
Options Conduct New Search
 
1. Aretha Concert Spoils Hogged
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Talent Agent(s)
Defendants MTV Networks
Television Producer(s)
Viacom
Other Franklin, Aretha
Short Description Plaintiff is the company responsible for arranging and booking Aretha Franklin's live performances, who contracted with a television production company for Aretha to perform at Radio City Music Hall for "VH_1 Divas Live: The One and Only Aretha Franklin A Benefit Concert for the VH_1 Save the Music Foundation." According to the agreement, to which Viacom was not a signatory, Plaintiff was to be paid $150,000 plus proceeds from ticket sales and 40% of revenue from sales of CDs and DVDs of the performance. After the concert aired, Defendants failed to secure a distributor, and Plaintiff sued, alleging the failure was a breach of contract and a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff also argued that Viacom's refusal to give Plaintiff master recordings of the concert was also a breach, as was Defendant's failure to pay royalties or account for sales, even if limited in number. The court found that Viacom was not a party to the original contract, and thus claims against it were dismissed, and that nothing in the contract required Defendants to provide Plaintiff with master recordings. Further, the court found that the agreement was entered in 2001, though Plaintiff claimed it wasn't finalized until 2006, and thus the breach claims regarding the failure to secure a distributor were time-barred as outside the 6-year statute of limitations. Nonpayment of royalties, however, was not dismissed, as the obligation was ongoing. Plaintiff's claims for breach of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed as duplicative of the contract claims, and promissory estoppel could not be maintained because a valid contract existed. All claims except royalty nonpayment were dismissed. - LSW


view more detail
 
2. Latin Music Manager Steal Clients?
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Booking Agent(s)
Music Manager(s)
Defendants Alvares, Marcelo
Margison, Richard
Vargas, Ramon
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description The facts of this lawsuit are not uncommon. Defendants are well-known international singers Ramon Vargas, Richard Margison, and Marcelo Alvarez, who entered a management contract with Plaintiff, a music management company. As is common, Defendants were handled by specific individuals at Plaintiff corporation, and these individuals later left (or were fired by) Plaintiff to manage artists on their own. Defendants decided to stay with their respective managers and thus left Plaintiff's roster. When Defendants performed at concerts that had been arranged while still under contract with Plaintiff, Plaintiff sued, arguing they should have been paid commissions on these performances, even though the appearances occurred after the artists left Plaintiff. The artists argued the clause was inapplicable, because the individuals responsible for booking the gigs were no longer employed by Plaintiff. On the parties' motions for summary judgment, the court found that contract interpretation required findings of fact, as did interpreting industry customs for post-termination commissions. Defendants' argument that termination of Defendants' managers constituted termination of the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant was precluded because Defendants did not raise the issue early enough. After a trial on the merits, the court found for Plaintiffs for around $700,000. Industry custom within the world of opera agreed with Plaintiffs' position and Defendants did not offer conflicting evidence. Plaintiffs were owed commissions for performances arranged during the parties' contractual arrangement but performed afterwards. - LSW


view more detail
 
3. Connie Wants Old Contracts Back
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Francis, Connie
Defendants Universal Music Group
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Plaintiff was the oft-troubled Connie Francis, whose unfortunate mid-century sexual assault has since caused years of mental health issues and some odd lawsuits. In this case, Francis sued her record label, Universal, for breaching provisions contained in a 1960s record contract that had since been rendered moot by subsequent agreements. According to the parties' original agreement, Universal was not allowed to include Francis's recordings on compilation albums without her permission, though later agreements plainly superseded this prohibition by "releas[ing] and discharg[ing Defendants] from any and all . . . covenants, agreements, contracts and promises" previously entered. When Francis sued Universal for including her recordings on compilations, the court found the release of prior contracts binding, and granted Defendant's summary judgment disposing of Plaintiff's complaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff was unable to show an appropriate calculation of damages. However, the court held that Plaintiff's count for underpayment of royalties was not time-barred regarding amounts earned by Defendants within the 6-month period prior to Plaintiff's complaint; the contractual limitation on Plaintiff's actions was six months, and thus damages within this period was allowed. - LSW


view more detail
 
4. Lil' Wayne's Co-Author Sues
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Banner, David
Deezle
Royalty Collector(s)
Defendants Film Distributor(s)
Film Studio(s)
Video/DVD Distributor(s)
Other Lil' Wayne
Short Description Plaintiffs include two hip-hop songwriters and producers, David Banner and Deezle, both of whom have worked, at various times, with Dwayne Carter, better known as Lil' Wayne. This lawsuit stemmed from a concert Lil' performed to be released as a film and DVD, called "The Carter." Lil' granted to Defendants the rights to use various songs he co-authored with Plaintiffs, for reproduction in the film and associated merchandise. Plaintiffs sued, alleging Lil's company, Young Money Entertainment, had no power to grant the licenses to the songs, because it was a not a copyright co-owner; the company listed on the copyright registration was Young Money Publishing. If Young Money did not have the ability to grant a license, Defendants' film infringed Plaintiffs' rights. However, held the court, the different Young Money entities were all companies through which Lil' Wayne himself acted, and Wayne could validly grant a license if he saw fit. Thus, Defendants had valid license. While Plaintiffs were most likely owed royalties from the production, this was a not an issue in the instant suit, which alleged infringement, not royalty nonpayment. Based on the facts before the court, Defendants' summary judgment was granted. - LSW


view more detail
 
5. No Name vs. 50, Game, Dre., Etc.
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Black Wall Street Records
Game (The)
Interscope Records
Music Publisher(s)
UMG Records
Universal Music Group
Warner-Chappell Music
Other 50 Cent
Che Pope
Dr. Dre
Mike Elizondo
The Madd Rapper
Short Description Anyone who has perused this website for any length of time will probably be aware of how common it is in the hip-hop industry for "demo tape Plaintiffs" (as The Discography likes to call them) to sue artists, record labels, publishers (everyone involved in production of a rap song) for copying songs Plaintiffs sent in or, perhaps, played once or twice for one of the many people involved in writing, recording, and releasing some uber-popular urban hit. In this case, Plaintiffs wrote a song called "Elevator" in 2002, which contained the hook "This Is How We Do." The song was recorded but never released, distributed, or provided to the public in any way. It was, however, included on a demo tape the Plaintiffs used to shop for a record deal, which they purportedly played for some people in the industry. When Jayceon Taylor, a.k.a., The Game, released a song called "This Is How We Do," co-written by 50 Cent, Dr. Dre, and Mike Elizondo, Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement. In arguing their case, they pointed out that, as an employee of Sam Ash Music, one of the Plaintiffs had met Che Pope, a producer who has previously worked with Fitty, Dre, Game, and others on different songs. Pope was allegedly a regular customer, and Plaintiffs played their songs for him at the store; Pope, however, does not remember meeting them. Based on these facts, the court refused Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The court found that Plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to raise the question of whether Defendants had access, through their connection with Pope, to Plaintiff's "Elevator." Further, both sides presented expert musicologist witnesses (Defendants' was Dr. Lawrence Ferrara, a common expert for industry parties) regarding the similarity of the songs and how common the similar elements were in the industry. Summary judgments denied. - LSW


view more detail
 
6. Salsa Rap Goes to Court
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Music Producer(s)
Universal Music Group
Other Nieves, Tito
White, Barry
Short Description Plaintiff was an unknown songwriter who penned rap lyrics for a Tito Nieves version of Barry White's song, "I'm Gonna Love You Just a Little Bit More Baby." Tito Nieves is a well-known salsa singer who apparently experimented with including rap influences in his music during the early 1990s, when Plaintiff wrote the lyrics at issue in this suit. When Plaintiff provided the lyrics to Nieves's producer, a Defendant in this suit, the producer asked Plaintiff to sign certain documents pertaining to ownership and compensation, but Plaintiff refused. In the 20-ish years since Plaintiff wrote the lyrics, the song was released on at least two different albums, copyrighted to Defendant Universal Music. Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, which the court interpreted as a claim for co-ownership of the song. Either way, said the court, this case was barred by the statute of limitations. Even taking the last possible date of accrual, in 2004, when Plaintiff's counsel sent a letter to Defendant about his claims, the lawsuit was brought over 5 years later, outside the Copyright Act's three year limitation. - LSW


view more detail
 
7. Ex-Recording Artist vs. Usher and Alicia
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Arista Records
Business Entity of Artist(s)
Dre & Vidal
Dupri, Jermaine
EMI April Music
EMI Music
Film Studio(s)
Hitco Music
Keys, Alicia
La Face Records
Music Executive(s)
Music Manager(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Songwriter(s)
Sony BMG Music Entertainment
Sony Music
Sony/ATV Music
Toby, Ryan
Universal Music
Usher
Zomba Records
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description The facts of this immense lawsuit--which involves numerous defendants--are somewhat unique. Oftentimes, unknown artists sue huge companies and successful artists alleging copyright infringement, usually with little-to-no evidence that the defendants ever knew of the plaintiff or plaintiff's songs. In this case, Plaintiff was a songwriter and recording artist who signed briefly with Alicia Key's record label, a subsidiary of J Records, and began recording songs to be released. After some of the songs were finished, the record label offered to buy some of her songs for use with other artists on the label, such as Usher. Plaintiff, recognizing that the agreements would divest her of all royalty and ownership rights--she'd be a "ghost writer"--refused the deal. According to Plaintiff, Defendants nevertheless used her songs on Usher's album, "Confessions," as well as with other artists on the label's roster. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, her song, "Caught Up," which was one that Defendants wanted to use, was nothing like the Usher song of the same name. The court compared both lyrics and melody between the two songs and found that, despite Plaintiff's allegations and undeniable claims of access, the Usher song was not copied from Plaintiff's. Perhaps the phrase "caught up" was copied, but that in-and-of-itself was insufficient to comprise copyright infringement. With the sole federal claim dismissed, the court declined jurisdiction over the remaining state claims, and Plaintiff's action was disposed of entirely. - LSW


view more detail
 
8. Rappers Receive Enough Royalties?
Highest Court Second Circuit
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Band Member(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Robinson, Sylvia
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Sanctuary Records
Other Grand Master Flash and the Furious Five
Grand Master Melle Mel
Sugar Hill Gang
Wall Street Mob
Short Description The Sugar Hill Gang, Grand Master Flash, The Wall Street Mob, The Furious Five, and Grand Master Melle Mel, along with Sylvia Robinson, founder of Sugar Hill Records, godmother of rap music, and former member of Mickey and Sylvia, which had a few hits back in the day, sued Sanctuary Records Group for release from record contracts. After obtaining a default judgment for rescission of the contracts, Plaintiffs sought damages in the realm of $30 million, even though they'd initially only sought rescission. and damages from unpaid royalties. Artists were released from contracts after default judgment, but were awarded no damages. Both Sanctuary and the Plaintiffs appealed, the former seeking to vacate the default and the latter requesting monetary relief. After first being unsuccessful, the Court of Appeals later remanded to the District Court to reconsider their denial to vacate the default; it is the preference of the courts to resolve disputes on the merits. - LSW


view more detail
 
9. Early Member: "I Co-Wrote 'B.Y.O.B.!'"
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Former Band Member(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Other Amen
Scars on Broadway
System of a Down
Short Description Plaintiff is a former-friend of Daron Malakian (songwriter, guitarist and occasional singer for System of a Down, and singer for the band Scars on Broadway). Plaintiff has, at various times, been associated with the band Amen and with Scars on Broadway, Malakian's side project. Plaintiff was signed to record deal with Malakian's imprint of Columbia. However, their relationship broke down over time. Plaintiff now claims that he co-wrote "B.Y.O.B," with Malakian, which became a major hit for System of a Down. Malakian granted Plaintiff a 2% interest in the song, though not apparently because he felt there was a legal obligation of any kind. The court held that Plaintiff's depiction of the songwriting process was not credible, and that his contributions (which consisted essentially of a single reference to "fascist nations") were not independently copyrightable. Malakian wrote the song with System of a Down, not Plaintiff. Plaintiff is not an owner. - LSW


view more detail
 
10. Latin Songs Sold Without License
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs EMI Entertainment
Harry Fox Agency
Defendants Karen Records
Other Aguilar, Grover Walter Leon
Berti, Vico
Favio, Leonardo
Mano, Nacho
Sanz, Alejandro
Short Description The Defendant is a Latino music recording company. This case involved the licenses to four songs granted by a large mechanical licensing company. The publisher later terminated the licenses due to a lack of payments. The same parties had been involved in prior copyright infringement, and as part of the settlement, the publisher audited the Defendant's books, finding over $500,000 in unpaid royalties. After more rounds of litigation, this current suit was filed, as the Plaintiff alleged that the publisher had again terminated the licenses. The Defendant claimed it had valid licenses and argued the suit was barred by procedural hurdles. The Court found the Defendant had acquired the licenses, although there were some harmless defects in the licensing requests. The Court declined to answer whether a license could be denied if there were unpaid prior licenses, but found that the licenser acted as an agent of the Plaintiff, a publishing company. The licenses can easily be terminated for failure to pay royalties. The Court also found that the three-year statute of limitations, which does not fall under a continuing harm theory, would not bar claims for sales of albums made before that cut-off. The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiff waived all claims by accepting royalty payments for other claims and that the history of litigation between the two parties stopped the Defendant from claiming a defense of laches. The Defendant later attempted to have the default reconsidered but was denied because it inappropriately raised new arguments. - JMC


view more detail
 
11. Songwriter: "Fat Joe Stole My Thunder!"
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Motown Records
Universal Music Group
Other Fat Joe
Short Description After Fat Joe released his successful rap song "Lean Back" in the summer of 2004, he was sued by Plaintiff for infringing his song, which also happened to be named "Lean Back". The court held that Plaintiff could not prove that Fat Joe and his record company infringed his copyright to the song, since he could not demonstrate that Fat Joe had access to his song before Fat Joe released his rendition of "Lean Back". Fat Joe's motion for summary judgment was granted. - SKR


view more detail
 
12. Composer Wants "Medici" Trademark
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Rose, Jerome
Defendants Film Distributor(s)
Film Producer(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Plaintiff, a company created by accomplished concert pianist Jerome Rose to market his DVDs and CDs, sued Defendant, a distributor of classical music under the labels "Medici Arts" and "Medici Masters", for infringement and unfair use of its trademark under the Lanham Act and NY state law. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the trademarks in dispute are dissimilar and unlikely to cause confusion among prospective purchasers, and that Plaintiff failed to establish bad faith, actual confusion, or a likelihood of confusion. - SKR


view more detail
 
13. Snuff Sells Songbook
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Business Entity of Artist(s)
Garrett, "Snuff"
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Thomas "Snuff" Garrett is successful record producer whose client list includes Gary Lewis and the Playboys, Sonny & Cher, and many others, and who is well-known for having hired Phil Spector as a producer at Liberty Records, where Snuff was on staff. In this case, Snuff and Defendant reached an agreement wherein Defendant would purchase Snuff's music publishing back catalog. The agreement had two parts: first, Defendant would purchase the bulk of his catalog for over $500,000, and, second, if Snuff was able to obtain all the appropriate rights from the songwriters for the song "Half Breed," which was a big hit in 1973 for Cher, Defendant would buy that song alone for over $300,000. However, Defendant only guaranteed it would purchase the latter song if Snuff could clear the rights within 30 days of the first transaction. After the first transaction took place, as the 30 day window was narrowing, communications between the parties led Snuff to believe the 30-day restriction had been waived, or at least momentarily extended. When Snuff tendered the cleared rights, Defendants refused to purchase. On Snuff's breach of contract claim, the court was unsympathetic. The contract clearly required him to tender "Half Breed" within 30 days. However, because Defendants' lawyers' conduct could be interpreted as waiving the requirement, the court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment, saying a jury could find Defendant was equitably estopped from enforcing the provision. Snuff's fraud claim was disposed of, however. - LSW


view more detail
 
14. Davy DMX Wants DMC Royalties
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Music Publisher(s)
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Warner-Chappell Music
Other Def Jam Records
DMX, Davy
Run DMC
Short Description Plaintiff is a music publisher that was assigned copyright interest in Run DMC's mid-1980s output by the band's early producer, sampling progenitor Davy DMX, who also DJ'd for Kurtis Blow and produced Lovebug Starski. Davy co-authored the eight musical compositions at issue in this suit, for which Rush Groove (the music publisher loosely-associated with Def Jam Records) owed him royalty payments. At some point prior to this suit, Rush transferred its contractual duties and interests to Defendant music publisher. Defendant refused to acknowledge Davy's interest in the compositions, and did not account to Davy for profits as the contract required Rush to do. Plaintiff brought suit, requesting a declaratory judgment of co-ownership and an accounting. Defendants counterclaimed. Unfortunately, when Davy contracted with Rush, he assigned copyright ownership to Rush, and thus only retained a royalty interest. More importantly, the agreement contained a provision releasing Defendant specifically from any lawsuits arising thereunder. In other words, Plaintiff's copyright claims were insufficient, and demands for overdue payments lay not with Defendant, but with Rush, regardless whether Defendant was then obligated to pay Plaintiff's royalties. The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to show why the entire cause of action should not be dismissed. - LSW


view more detail
 
15. Intruders Intruding on Intruders
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Band Member(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Business Entity of Artist(s)
Other Intruders
Short Description This is a classic type of case, in which an old R&B band, here The Intruders (the foundation for the "Sound of Philadelphia"), split off into multiple touring units, each managed by a former prominent member of the band. Plaintiff claimed to have been transferred ownership of the name, and sued Defendants for various counts, including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with performance contracts, the latter arising from Defendant calling clubs and advising them that Plaintiff was not the "real" Intruders. Over several opinions, the court found that neither faction had received title to the name from the name's original owner, but that Defendants had a license, which they could enforce against Plaintiff. To determine this, the court followed the "chain of title" to the band's name. - [This entry is not yet complete or has not been edited/checked.]


view more detail
 
16. Misfits Tick Off Misfits
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Band Member(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Business Entity of Artist(s)
Other Danzig
Misfits
Short Description The Misfits are among the most popular and iconic of the early punk rock boom, with peak years in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Perhaps most famously, the band was the launching pad for lead singer Glen Danzig, better known simply as "Danzig," who has since had a lucrative, if not sometimes comical, solo career. After the band dissolved in the early-mid 1980s, their popularity nevertheless increased, and, in 1992, a lawsuit erupted between the members regarding rights to the songs and other intellectual property. A settlement, reached in 1994, determined that, though Danzig wrote the band's songs, the trademarks and merchandising rights were co-owned by the plaintiffs in that suit and Danzig, and that both parties could exploit the logo and goods without accounting to the other for their profit. Plaintiffs in this suit, members of the band during 1978-1982, were not parties to that suit, but allege they were assured that no member would seek exclusive trademark rights to the name. The band re-grouped shortly after the earlier settlement, and still exist today. When Plaintiffs learned that Defendants, members of the current line-up and the corporation they control, had registered trademarks for the Misfit and its logos, Plaintiffs sued, alleging fraud on the trademark office, a declaratory judgment of co-ownership of the name, and requesting cancellation of the registration and an accounting of profits. However, the court found that New York courts lacked general personal jurisdiction over Defendants, New Jersey residents and a New Jersey corporation, even though Defendants have performed and sold merchandise in New York, because they do not maintain an office, solicit business, keep bank accounts, own property, or have employees or agents there. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' trademark claims do not "arise from" their activities in the state, so no specific jurisdiction was shown either. Last, Plaintiff's claims for an accounting were simply unfounded. - LSW


view more detail
 
17. Raps About Pac Too Similar?
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Interscope-Geffen-A&M Records
Universal Music
Universal Music Group
Other Hamilton, Anthony
Jadakiss
Short Description Plaintiff is an unknown songwriter and hip-hop artist, alleging that Jadakiss and Anthony Hamilton infringed Plaintiff's song, "Thugz Prayer," in Defendants' song, "Why." Both songs deal with the untimely deaths of 2pac, Notorious B.I.G., and Aaliyah, and both songs repeat the word "why" in doing so. Plaintiff brought numerous causes of action, not just copyright infringement, including trademark-related claims. The court held that all but the copyright infringement claim were either preempted by the Copyright Act or, as with the trademark claims, foreclosed by Supreme Court decisions differentiating between copyright and trademark actions. Furthermore, the copyright infringement claim fell short. Both Plaintiff and Defendants' song involve issues in the public consciousness, the death of certain celebrities, and commentary on that subject cannot be protected by copyright. Asking "why," in relation to their deaths is equally unprotectible. The court refused to find "comprehensive non-literal similarity," because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate the "fundamental essence or structure" of his work or how Defendant copied that essence or structure. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, though Plaintiff was given time to amend his complaint. - LSW


view more detail
 
18. Bay City Royalties
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Bay City Rollers
Defendants Arista Records
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description In a case with "unprecedented facts," according to the court, Defendant record label openly admitted to not paying Plaintiffs royalties for roughly 25 years, as they were required to under a record contract signed in 1981. Plaintiffs insist that Defendant repeatedly assured Plaintiffs they would pay the money, or simply said they did not know where to send the payments, even after Plaintiff's supplied the label with contact information. Defendant, however, claims Plaintiffs' cause of action was blocked by the statute of limitations. The court here found that the statute of limitations didnot prevent Plaintiff's contract action, since the pleadings, if taken to be true, stated a cause of action. Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty failed, however, as no fiduciary relationship existed. In a related case, former members of the group sued to be included but were denied. - LSW


view more detail
 
19. Did Black-Eyed Peas Have License?
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Artist(s)
Defendants Cherry River Music
Music Producer(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Universal Records
Will.I.am
Other Black Eyed Peas
Sexual Harrassment
Short Description In the early 1980s, Plaintiff was a radio DJ and unsuccessful band manager, but one group, Sexual Harassment, for whom he wrote and recorded the music, sold about 100,000 copies and were later included on Old School rap compilations and, more importantly, sampled by the Black Eyed Peas in their hit song "My Humps." Defendant, the publisher of the song, paid no royalties to Plaintiff, arguing that the copyright was assigned to him, therefore requiring no payment of royalties. The court held in favor of Plaintiff, finding that copyright transfers are invalid unless in writing, and that none of Defendant's affirmative defenses were valid. - LSW


view more detail
 
20. Salsa Kings Sue Record Label
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Cruz, Bobby
Family of Artist(s)
Music Publisher(s)
Ray, Richie
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Plaintiffs, Richie Ray and Bobby Cruz, are famed salsa musicians who supposedly repudiated their contracts with defendants after Defendants' "breached" by not paying or accounting royalties. They then sued for copyright infringement and rescission of the contract, when Defendants continued to exploit the compositions recorded under the agreement. The court found Plaintiffs were in no position the rescind contract; rescission is an equitable remedy and an extreme measure for the court to take. The contract contained no provision allowing for rescission upon underpayment of royalties, Defendants' actions were not so material as to defeat the object of the contract, and damages would be available to Plaintiffs if Defendant were in breach. Since their repudiation was invalid, there was no action for copyright infringement either. Defendants' summary judgment granted. - LSW


view more detail
 
< prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 next >