box1 header1
Search Results
Search Results 79 results
Showing Records 1 - 20
Showing Page 1 of 4
Options Conduct New Search
 
1. Wu-Tang Claimant vs. Wu-Tang Clan
Highest Court New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Ghostface Killah
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
RZA
Wu-Tang Clan
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Ghostface Killah was once a prominent member of hip-hop luminaries Wu-Tang Clan, alongside RZA, GZA, Ol' Dirty, and all da rest. This suit relates directly to Killah's activities in the Clan, particularly his co-authorship of songs in which he provided lyrics over RZA's production work. Plaintiff alleged that he was not paid appropriately by RZA, Wu-Tang, or the band's publishing entity, and sued for compensation. After a non-jury trial found that Killah was owed for his contributions to the co-authored songs, the court reduced his award by 25%, which was the amount determined in the artists' publishing agreement to be retained by Wu-Tang's publishing entity. The court initially found that Killah did not adequately allege RZA to be personally liable for the entity's activities, because no evidence was presented to show the company was RZA's "alter ego," but later found that Killah could amend his complaint to state claims against RZA personally for designating 50% of royalty income to himself as an unauthorized "producer's fee." - LSW


view more detail
 
2. Coca-Copyright Case
Highest Court S.D. Florida
Year Ended 2011
Plaintiffs Vergara, Rafa
Defendants Coca-Cola
Other Bisbal, David
K'naan
Short Description Rafa Vergara isn't as well known as the other names associated with this suit, but he is a very accomplished songwriter, producer, and performer, whose contributions to Latin stars like Marc Anthony and Jaci Velasquez have garnered significant success in the music business. Coca Cola, through Universal Music, contacted Vergara about adapting English lyrics by the artist K'naan into Spanish, to be sung by David Bisbal, for an upcoming Coca Cola advertisement during the 2010 FIFA World Cup Soccer Games. Vergara, with full permission, translated the lyrics and also produced the song. When Vergara sent a bill to Universal, they asked him to sign a document clarifying that his work was done "for hire," which means he did not own the copyright in his own contributions. Vergara brought suit, alleging copyright infringement and requesting a preliminary injunction preventing Coca-Cola from airing the commercial without proper attribution, as he was guaranteed. The court granted Vergara's request, finding that the work was not "for hire," and, further, that he was not a joint author but the sole author of the derivative composition. Irreparable harm was also likely without injunctive relief. However, summary judgment was later granted to Coke's on the copyright infringement claim, despite Vergara's contentions, because Vergara had, in writing, assigned his copyrights to Coke via email communications; the Copyright Act requires assignments to be in writing, and the communications met this requirement. Nonetheless, a preliminary injunction was upheld against Coke in a later opinion because the lack of attribution, which was plainly promised to Vergara, was still likely to cause harm. - LSW


view more detail
 
3. 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
 
4. Marley Artist: "Don't Use My Art!"
Highest Court D. Massachusetts
Year Ended 2010
Plaintiffs Visual Artist(s)
Defendants Fifty-Six Hope Road Music
Music Publisher(s)
Zion Rootswear
Other Marley, Bob
Short Description An artist who created three images of Bob Marley sued Marley's estate and other associated entities for copyright infringement, when the images were used on T-shirts and other merchandise. Plaintiff alleges an earlier licensing agreement did not grant ownership in the images, and the current uses were infringement. Despite claims that Plaintiff put off bringing a lawsuit out of respect for Marley, the court held the suit time-barred for not being brought within the statutory period. - LSW


view more detail
 
5. 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
 
6. 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
 
7. Israeli Rocker Stiffed by Clinton?
Highest Court W.D. Wisconsin
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Recht, Coby
Defendants MGM Pictures
Other Clinton, George
Recht, Iris
Short Description Plaintiff, Coby Recht, along with his wife, Iris Recht (who motioned to intervene after Coby's filing) are Israeli songwriters who wrote a rock opera called "The Apple," which was adopted for American release with lyrics and songs by Plaintiff and George Clinton. The movie, based on a futuristic plotline derived from the Adam and Eve story, was a failure in the U.S., perhaps due to its emphasis on disco, which by 1980 was waning in popularity. As part of the initial agreement, the Rechts supposedly transferred their copyrights interests in the movie (though not necessarily the songs), to Defendant. However, Defendant never paid all amounts promised to the Rechts, and the movie was "shelved." When Defendant re-released the movie in the 2000s on DVD, without any Recht permission, Coby Recht sued. The Wisconsin federal District Court initially found validity in Recht's claims, finding him to be a valid copyright owner who had not transferred copyrights to Defendant, and finding breach of contract claims sufficiently stated. Later, however, the court transferred the case to California, where it was found that George Clinton, as co-author along with the Rechts, had transferred his ownership interest to Defendant as a work-for-hire, even if Recht was not an employee himself. The court apparently dismissed the case with prejudice, though the reasoning isn't so clear. When Recht re-filed a similar complaint in Wisconsin, the court once again transferred the action, unable to determine if California's earlier dismissal had been on the merits. We're going back to Cali. - LSW


view more detail
 
8. Esther Williams: "Let Me Sue You!"
Highest Court D. District of Columbia
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Williams, Esther
Defendants Bullseye Records
Interscope-Geffen-A&M Records
Island/Def Jam Records
Other Ghostface Killah
Shakur, Tupac
Short Description Williams released the album "Let Me Show You" in 1975, containing the song "Last Night Changed It All (I Really Had A Ball)," which was licensed by Defendant as samples in Ghostface Killah and 2pac tracks in 2002. Plaintiff says she has owned the copyright since 1977, when the label for whom she recorded the album allegedly breached the recording contract through nonpayment and failure to account. Defendant, who was a producer and publisher ar the label, claims he became a partner and is now the owner. The label went out of business in the 1980s. Williams sued Defendant for copyright infringment and other claims, alleging his licensing the song to third parties violated her rights. The two parties differ markedly in their accounts of her contract, Defendant saying 1) she was a "work-for-hire" for the record label, 2) the contract provided for the label's ownership, and 3) Williams received no royalties because there were none to be paid (the album sold only 14 copies and her $11,000 advance was to be recouped before she received any royalties). Since many issues of fact existed regarding both parties relationship to the copyrights, the court refused Defendants motions for summary judgment on copyright infringement and false light invasion of privacy (she didn't approve of rap music). However, Plaintiff could not proceed on copyright claims based on infringement more than three years before her complaint, and her right of publicity action was held preempted by copyright. - LSW


view more detail
 
9. Lil' Jon's Copyright Trouble (III)
Highest Court Eleventh Circuit
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Music Producer(s)
Defendants Artist(s)
Lil' Jon (and the East Side Boys)
Record Label(s)
TVT Records
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Plaintiff was a friend of Lil' Jon, hanging out at the studio, when they decided to buy some weed. Good call. After an impromptu song, "The Weedman" emerged from the experience, Lil' decided to record it, and Plaintiff, who was neither given copyright interest in the song nor reimbursed, sued. The court held that by teaching the song to Lil' Jon without any restrictions, Plaintiff had granted Lil' an implied license, and Defendant's summary judgment was granted on the infringement. Similarly, Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty was summarily dismissed. - LSW


view more detail
 
10. Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (I)
Highest Court N.D. Indiana
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Individual(s)
Lawyer(s)
Nonprofit Organization(s)
Other Stormy Weather
Short Description As the District Court stated in its first opinion in this set of cases, "This is one of those cases that gives lawyers a bad name." Keep in mind, the three opinions summarized here are only follow-ups to the TEN opinions that preceded them in "Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (I)." In the original lawsuit, Cheryl Janky, a member of the Northwest-Indiana Doo-Wop group, Stormy Weather, brought copyright infringement complaints against her fellow bandmates and Indiana's Visitors Bureau for using a song she'd written, entitled "The Wonders of Indiana," at a visitors center without her permission. Though Defendants in that case presented valid defenses, such as saying the song was work-for-hire or was a product of joint authorship, the jury ultimately found in Janky's favor for $100,000. The problem was, to get that amount, Janky and her lawyers did so many ridiculous things in court they'd racked up sanctions equalling around $20,000 and spent well more on attorneys' fees than the jury's verdict. Though some appeals were legitimately (though unsuccessfully) filed in that suit, Janky and her attorneys simultaneously brought THIS suit, which alleged various theories, including state constitional violations and the tort of "Abuse of Process," claiming Defendants' various defenses in the first suit were frivolous, despite the earlier judge already ruling they were not. The continuation of the lawsuit, the court found, was a paradigm of the "sunk-cost fallacy"; that, since so much money was already lost on the effort, losing a little more might be able to make it back. WRONG. In this case, not only were Janky's complaints dismissed, but more and more sanctions were filed against her and her lawyers for bringing a lawsuit blatantly contradicting earlier unsuccessfully appealed findings of fact in the same federal court. In addition to pointlessly prolonging litigation, Janky's complaints were absurd and tainted by "numerous typographical mistakes, run-on sentences, spelling errors, and pervasive inability to put down on paper a cogent, comprehensible English sentence." After all this, Plaintiff and her lawyers were collectively fined another $25,000 in sanctions. Then, to top it all off, the final decision was rendered in "Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (I)," and the $100,000 jury verdict was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which found the song was co-authored. Janky ended up with thousands of dollars in fines, and NONE in damages. Intense. - LSW


view more detail
 
11. Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (II)
Highest Court Seventh Circuit
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Individual(s)
Lawyer(s)
Nonprofit Organization(s)
Record Label(s)
Other Stormy Weather
Short Description This "over-litigated" case was mired by subpar lawyering and excessive legal filings, turning what could have been a rather straightforward copyright lawsuit into a pathetic symphony of sanctions, bogus motions, and attorneys' fees. The case revolves around the song "The Wonders of Indiana," written and performed by the Gary, Indiana doo-wop group, Stormy Weather. The band's leader Henry Farag, told the band that an Indiana visitors' center was interested in a song about the state, and songwriter, Cheryl Janky, took to the task of penning the tune. After some small changes were made, at Farag's suggestion, Janky regsitered the song in both of their names. When the song was released on CD, used at the visitors center, and included as "hold music" for the center's phone lines, Janky adjusted her registration to remove Farag's name and filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. A slew of motions, appeals, etc., followed, many of which pertained to procedural issues or to the numerous sanctions granted against Janky and her lawyers. These are well summarized in "Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (II)." At trial, Defendants presented various theories as defenses, including 1) the song was a work-for-hire, and thus owned by the visitors center or Farag and 2) the song was co-authored by Farag and Janky, as evidenced by her initial copyright registration naming Farag. After many motions were filed by Plaintiffs and denied, around $50,000 in sanctions were levied against Plaintiff and her lawyers (possibly more, since it's difficult to discern) over the course of this lawsuit. At trial, the jury returned a verdict for Janky, finding Defendants liable for $100,000 in damages, though around $15,000 in sanctions (against Janky herself) offset that amount. After more appeals and an alternate lawsuit was filed ("Stormy Weather for Doo Wop Song (II)"), the case found itself in the federal Court of Appeals. There, the court reversed the lower verdict in Plaintiff's favor, finding the song was co-authored by Janky and Farag; though Janky denied as much, the court held that the song was written with mutual intentions to be merged into an inseparable whole, and that Farag's contributions were independently copyrightable. The case was reversed and remanded, and Janky--facing tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions--seemed S.O.L. - LSW


view more detail
 
12. Reggaeton Showdown
Highest Court D. Puerto Rico
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Eliel
Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Defendants Daddy Yankee
El Cartel Records
Luny Tunes
Music Publisher(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Three of the biggest names in "reggaeton" music production and performance are represented in this suit, between the genre's godfather, Daddy Yankee, and producers Eliel and Luny Tunes. Eliel originally brought suit against Yankee, alleging that he was a co-author of certain Yankee songs for which he was not given proper credit. He filed a declaratory judgment action, requesting accounting. Yankee originally tried dismissing the complaint because Eliel failed to follow registration formalities, but the court held, as Plaintiff asserted, that registration is only a prerequisite for an infringement action, not declaratory judgment. The district court then denied Plaintiff's summary judgment. Though evidence supported Eliel's contentions, there were issues left to be litigated. Joint authorship requires both (1) that the two parties' contributions are independently copyrightable, and (2) that the parties intended to join their work into a final product. In this case, not enough was known about the circumstances of the song's production to rule summarily. In a later opinion, after Eliel added Luny Tunes as co-Defendant, the court dismissed Luny Tunes' counterclaims against Eliel, since they were based on earlier songs outside the limitations period and were not part of the same transaction as the songs Plaintiff sued on; the counterclaims were time-barred and, since they were not compulsory, were not tolled by the filing of Plaintiff's suit. - LSW


view more detail
 
13. Cam'ron: "Nike's Song is Mine!"
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2009
Plaintiffs Diplomatic Man Music
Defendants Blaze, Just
Nike, Inc.
Santana, Juelz
Other Cam'ron
Short Description Plaintiff is Diplomatic Man, production and publishing entity for hip-hop superstar Cam'ron, who was not personally party to this lawsuit. Defendants are Juelz Santana, an urban music artist, and Just Blaze, an urban songwriter/producer, as well as the famous shoe company Nike, all of whom were involved (in obvious ways) with the production of a Nike marketing campaign featuring a Santana/Blaze song, "The Second Coming," which Plaintiff alleged was his and was infringed by Defendants' use. Plaintiff was clearly the production company for Santana's output, and, through contractual assignment, owned the copyrights to all of Santana's songs. However, Plaintiff's case was very thin: not only had Plaintiff earlier assigned its copyrights to Island Def Jam, Santana's label, but Plaintiff had also actively participated in a "making of" production for the marketing campaign without protesting to the song's use. The court determined that Plaintiff's lawsuit was "objectively unreasonable" for these reasons (assignment and implied license). Furthermore, the song was a joint work between Santana and Blaze; since Plaintiff had no ownership interest in Blaze's output, Blaze had every right to grant Nike a license to use the song, whether Plaintiff agreed or not, which Blaze did in fact do. Defendants were granted attorneys' fees equaling around $415,000, after an initial grant was added to on Nike's request. - LSW


view more detail
 
14. Author: "You Infringed My Book About You!"
Highest Court E.D. Texas
Year Ended 2008
Plaintiffs Estate of Author(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Other Book Author(s)
Four Seasons
Short Description Writer and Defendant, a member of the band the Four Seasons, agreed that the former would author a book about the latter's life and both would be listed as co-authors. After the book was finished, they could not secure a publisher, and the Defendant author died. Author's heirs learned that the musical Jersey Boys was based on the book, and sued for declaratory judgment of co-ownership, asking for an accounting and profits. Defendant sought to transfer venue to the federal district court in Las Vegas, Nevada, which was granted by the court. - LSW & SKR


view more detail
 
15. "Yes, I'm Ready" to Sample
Highest Court S.D. New York
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Mason, Barbara
Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Defendants Cam'ron
Diplomatic Man Music
Diplomats
Heatmakerz
Island Def Jam Music
Jones, Jim
Music Publisher(s)
Record Label(s)
Rock-A-Fella Records
Rsonist
Santana, Juelz
Thrilla
Universal Music
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Barbara Mason wrote the song "Yes, I'm Ready" in 1965 at the age of 17. Jamie Music Publishing, purporting to own the copyright, sued Cam'ron and assorted associated entities for infringing the composition. Mason intervened, arguing that she was the owner of the song, by virtue of her statutory renewal right, which she'd exercised (and registered). Even after the court allowed her intervention, JMP sought to deny her standing, since she'd recently transferred the copyrights to a third party. However, she remained a beneficial owner and therefore had standing. Then the court examined the songwriter agreement she signed as a minor, and reviewed the text of the various royalty payments she'd received from JMP over the years, and held that none of them constituted a writing sufficient to transfer either the original copyright or the renewal rights to this composition. The agreement contained no mention of the song and its reference to "Schedule B" was irrelevant, because there was no "Schedule B." Thus Mason was the owner, and the agreement between her and JMP was viewed as license, not an assignment. The lawsuit was set to continue, with the correct parties now in position. - LSW


view more detail
 
16. Songwriter Wants His Cut
Highest Court First Circuit
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Songwriter(s)
Defendants Music Director(s)
Record Label(s)
Other Gozadera
Short Description Plaintiff authored a song called "Noche de Fiesta" for his friend to perform with his band. When his friend joined a new band and released the song through them, Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement. Unfortunately, the "copy" Plaintiff deposited with the Copyright Office was not an original, but just a recreation he made from his memory. This cannot constitute a copyright in the original work, and thus he has no registered copyright, depriving the court of federal subject matter jurisdiction. - LSW


view more detail
 
17. Co-writer vs. Slim Thug
Highest Court S.D. Texas
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Copyright Owner(s)
Defendants Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI)
EMI Music
Jones, Mike
Slim Thug
Wall, Paul
Watts, Michael "5000"
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Co-author of an early version of "Still Tippin'," the song that made Slim Thug a well-known rap artist, sued when the chorus hook was re-used in the song that was publicly released. The court found that joint authorship in a work does not imply joint authorship in derivative works, and further that Plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. - LSW


view more detail
 
18. Bodyguard: "I'm R. Kelly's Mentor!"
Highest Court N.D. Illinois
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Individual(s)
Defendants Kelly, R.
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description The former security guard for R. Kelly claimed to have been more than hired muscle, but also a close friend and "mentor," who advised Kelly to learn a dance style known as "steppin,'" taught Kelly how to do the move, and helped Kelly write the song, "Step in the Name of Love." Plaintiff argued he'd offered his assistance and talents at a time when Kelly's public reputation was suffering, and, after the song and dance were released, Kelly's career was revitalized. Plantiff alleged Kelly promised him half the proceeds, and sued R. for breach of oral contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and even assault. Kelly removed the case to federal court, saying Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claims were simply disguised copyright actions, and the court agreed. Misappropriation of Plaintiff's song and dance is either infringement or an argument for joint authorship, both falling within copyright's ambit, and does not contain the "extra element" necessary to remove it from exclusive federal jurisdiction. While the fraud, contract, and assault claims may stand, they will be tried in federal court as well. - LSW


view more detail
 
19. Loretta Lynn vs. Music Publisher
Highest Court Sixth Circuit
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Lynn, Loretta
Defendants Music Publisher(s)
Other No Other parties on file
Short Description Loretta Lynn is a longstanding country superstar whose career dates back to the 1960s and continues until today. This lawsuit arose from a music publishing contract she signed in 1961, at the beginning of her career, with Defendant Sure-Fire Music. According to the agreement, the relationship would cease if Defendant's ownership changed hands, as Lynn wished to retain assocation with specific management. By 2003, only two of the original owners still controlled the company, and Lynn believed this meant their agreement was at an end. She sued in state court alleging various causes of action, principally a declaratory judgment that her copyrights were no longer owned by Defendants, but also alleging breach of contract and good faith/fair dealing and conversion. In state court, Defendants successfully argued the action was federal in nature and thus completely preempted by the Copyright Act. Lynn filed the same suit in federal court, who decided the action was state-based after all, and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Seeking to avoid re-litigation, Defendants appealed, arguing federal jurisdiction existed. The Circuit Court disagreed and affirmed the dismissal. Under the "equivalency" test for federal preemption, the court found Lynn's actions were not merely rephrasing copyright theories, but were based on contract interpretation, contract breach, and property ownership. Dismissal affirmed. - LSW


view more detail
 
20. Puddle of Mudd Ditches Members (II)
Highest Court W.D. Missouri
Year Ended 2007
Plaintiffs Former Band Member(s)
Defendants Band Member(s)
Other Limp Bizkit
Puddle of Mudd
Short Description This isn't the only case against entities related with Puddle of Mudd regarding the circumstances of their record contract and subsequent popularity (see also "Puddle of Mudd Ditches Members (I)," filed by other members of the band). According to the facts presented in this opinion, Plaintiff and others founded the band without lead singer Wes Scantlin, though he joined later. When the band came to the attention to Fred What's-his-Name from Limp Bizkit, Scantlin apparently seized the negotiations for his own benefit and ditched the other band members, though they'd founded the band, co-written songs and even auditioned for record labels alongside Scantlin. Plaintiff sued for an accounting and various other state and federal causes of action, though he attempted to disguise some as state claims (perhaps to have the advantage of a longer statute of limitations). However, any state claims premised on copyright infringement would be susceptible to copyright's three-year limitation, and Plaintiff's claims fall within copyright law anyway. However, because there are issues of fact regarding when Plaintiff's claim accrued, Plaintiff was granted time to amend his complaint appropriately. - LSW


view more detail
 
< prev 1 2 3 4 next >