License

February 26, 2015

Copyright Litigation: Nike Sued for Infringement of Michael Jordan Photo – 1

Portland, Oregon – Copyright attorneys for Jacobus Rentmeester of Westhampton Beach, New York sued for copyright infringement in the District Court of Oregon, Portland Division alleging that Nike, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon infringed Rentmeester’s copyrighted photo of Michael Jordan. This photo, Registration Number VA0001937374, has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Rentmeester, a New York photographer, commenced this litigation against Nike for Nike’s use of the iconic “Jumpman” photo in promoting its Jordan brand. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff Rentmeester contends that Nike directly, contributorily, and vicariously infringed his copyrighted image of Michael Jordan.

Rentmeester claims that he created the “Jordan Photo” for inclusion in a 1984 Olympic edition of Life Magazine, as part of a photo essay that he produced for the magazine. Among the athletes featured in Rentmeester’s photo essay, in addition to Jordan, were Carl Lewis and Greg Louganis.

At issue in this litigation is Rentmeester’s Jordan Photo. Rentmeester contends that he “conceived the central creative elements of the photograph.” These elements included portraying Jordan alone against the sky, “soar[ing] elegantly” and in a modified version of a grand jeté, a ballet jump during in which the person performs the splits in midair. According to the complaint, this type of jump was not typical for Jordan.

Rentmeester states that, after his photo was published, he agreed to accept a fee of $150 from Nike for temporary use of the photo for a “slide presentation only, no layouts or any other duplication.”

Nike later paid Rentmeester $15,000 for a limited license to use a modified work, although Plaintiff states that this agreement was reached only after Nike had already begun infringing use of the work and Rentmeester had complained to Nike of copyright infringement. Rentmeester contends that this license was limited to two years of use, on posters and billboards only, and for use within North America only. Rentmeester alleges that Nike exceeded the terms of that limited license by using the modified image other than on posters or billboards as well as outside North America. He also asserts that Nike’s use of the Jordan Photo constitutes willful copyright infringement as of the expiration of the license in 1987.

In the complaint, filed by copyright lawyers for Plaintiff, the following counts are enumerated:

• First Cause of Action: Copyright Infringement

• Second Cause of Action: Vicarious Copyright Infringement

• Third Cause of Action: Contributory Copyright Infringement

• Fourth Cause of Action: Violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Rentmeester, via his copyright attorneys, asks the court for a judgment of infringement; for an injunction; for impoundment of all infringing works; for actual and statutory damages, including profits attributable to infringement of Rentmeester’s copyright; for punitive damages; for a finding that neither Nike nor any independent infringers can assert copyright protection in any of the infringing works; and for costs and attorneys’ fees.

December 22, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Zip-A-Tee Sues for Declaration of Non-Infringement and Damages

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – James Cross acting pro se, and Zip-A-Tee Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos (“CAPS”) of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, including both trademark and patent protection. Also named as Defendant is Debevoise & Plimpton LLP of New York City.

Zip-A-Tee owns Trademark Registration No. 4,343,916, which was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Patent Nos. D580,633 and D581,136, which were also issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In 2012 and 2013, CAPS sent several letters to Zip-A-Tee claiming trademark infringement and counterfeiting by Plaintiffs of various trademarked sports logos. Among CAPS’ assertions was that Cross and/or Zip-A-Tee had offered for sale jerseys bearing “Lakers” and “Bulls” trademarks. CAPS also contacted GoDaddy.com and other website-hosting companies asserting that CAPS’ intellectual property had been infringed. In response, those companies apparently suspended Zip-A-Tee’s websites.

Cross, acting as his own Indiana trademark counsel, has sued Defendants on behalf of himself and the corporation. He makes the following claims for relief:

• Declaratory Relief of Non-Infringement of Trademark

• Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also ask to be awarded statutory damages of $700 million “for each website removed by CAPS member Infringement request and claims [sic]” as well as $500,000 “per domain name change.” Additionally, Plaintiffs request an award of punitive damages of $5 billion due to the “willfully [sic], wanton, egregiously [sic] and insidious” nature of Defendants’ conduct.

November 19, 2014

Indiana Copyright Law: Seventh Circuit Holds that Subsequent Copyrighted Works Do Not Extend Copyright Period for Earlier Works

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – California attorney Leslie S. Klinger, co-editor of multiple collections of annotated works based on Arthur Conan Doyle‘s Sherlock Holmes fiction sued Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. under the Declaratory Judgment Act in the Northern District of Illinois seeking a declaratory judgment that he may freely use material from those Sherlock Holmes works for which copyright protection has expired. The district court held that Klinger’s use of material that was no longer subject to copyright was permissible. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Arthur Conan Doyle published 56 stories and 4 novels featuring the fictional character Sherlock Holmes. Of these stories, only the final 10, published between 1923 and 1927, are still protected by copyright.

Leslie Klinger, Plaintiff-Appellee, co-edited an anthology called A Study in Sherlock: Stories Inspired by the Sherlock Holmes Canon. Klinger had not sought a license from Doyle’s estate, presuming that one was not necessary, as the copyrights on most of the works in the “canon” had expired. The estate disagreed and demanded that Random House, which had agreed to publish Klinger’s book, pay $5,000 for a copyright license. Random House acquiesced and, in 2011, the anthology was published.

The trouble began when Klinger and his co-editor decided to create a sequel, “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes” and entered into negotiations with Pegasus Books, a publisher. The Doyle estate again demanded a fee for a copyright license and threatened to interfere with distribution of the book if that copyright license fee was not paid, telling Pegasus, “If you proceed instead to bring out Study in Sherlock II [the original title of “In the Company of Sherlock Holmes”] unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers. We work with those compan[ies] routinely to weed out unlicensed uses of Sherlock Holmes from their offerings, and will not hesitate to do so with your book as well.” No threat of a lawsuit for copyright infringement was explicitly made. Pegasus subsequently refused to publish the book unless and until Klinger obtained a copyright license from the Doyle estate.

Instead of purchasing a license, Klinger sued the estate seeking a declaratory judgment that he could freely use any material from the Sherlock Holmes works for which the period of copyright protection had expired.

The district court held in Klinger’s favor. The estate appealed to the Seventh Circuit on two alternative grounds. The estate first contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act because there was no “actual case or controversy.” Second, it asserted that a copyright on a “complex” character, whose full complexity is not revealed until a later story, remains protected under copyright law until the later story falls into the public domain.

Circuit Judge Posner, writing for the court, rejected both arguments. The “case or controversy,” necessary for federal jurisdiction was demonstrated by the estate’s “twin threats” of blocking the distribution of the book and the implied threat of a copyright lawsuit against the publisher, Klinger and the book’s co-editor for copyright infringement if the book were published without a license. That such a case or controversy existed was also demonstrated by the fact that Klinger could have sued on a claim of tortious interference with advantageous business relations as a result of the estate’s intimidation of his publisher.

The court then considered the question of “whether copyright protection of a fictional character can be extended beyond the expiration of the copyright on it because the author altered the character in a subsequent work.” The estate urged the court to grant additional copyright protection in its case, arguing that characters such as Sherlock Holmes were “round” and/or “complex” and thus deserving of greater shelter under copyright law than fictional characters that were “flat” and/or “simple.”

The court could find no basis in statute or case law to support the extension of a copyright beyond its expiration. Thus, it affirmed the uncontested matter of copyright protection for the later works – namely, a right to recover for copyright infringement still existed for some portions of the Sherlock Holmes works for which the copyrights had not yet expired. However, that protection was limited to only those elements of the later Sherlock Holmes works that included “incremental additions of originality.” The remainder, the court opined, had passed into the public domain, regardless of the dimensions of the characters portrayed.

Practice Tip: The court was also unpersuaded by the Doyle estate’s argument to extend copyright law on the grounds that failure to do so would diminish authors’ incentives to create. After noting that Arthur Conan Doyle had died 84 years prior, thus rendering the argument inapplicable in the current litigation, the court noted that “extending copyright protection is a two-edged sword from the standpoint of inducing creativity, as it would reduce the incentive of subsequent authors to create derivative works (such as new versions of popular fictional characters like Holmes and Watson) by shrinking the public domain.”

October 31, 2014

Indiana Patent and Copyright Litigation: Lake Lite Sues Multiple Defendants for Patent and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – A patent and copyright attorney for Lake Lite Inc. of Laotto, Indiana filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana asserting, inter alia, that Universal Forest Products, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UFP”); Universal Consumer Products, Inc., also of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UCP”); and Maine Ornamental, LLC of Greene, Maine infringed “Solar Dock Light” and “Low Profile Solar LED Lamp,” Patent Nos. D697,246 and 8,845,126, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lake Lite is in the business of designing and selling dock lights and other related products and accessories in the boating/dock industry. Its product line includes solar-related dock lights.

In April 2012, Lake Lite first began to offer a “Solar Dot” line of products. Lake Lite indicates that UFP inquired about collaborating with Lake Lite to offer the Solar Dot products to UFP’s customers and that, in November 2012, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered so that confidential information regarding Lake Lite’s Solar Dot products could be disclosed and the potential collaboration evaluated. The disclosed information included Lake Lite’s copyright applications to now-copyrighted materials, registered as U.S. Copyright Nos. VAu001118627 and VAu001156962.

Lake Lite asserts that, during these negotiations, it made numerous modifications requested by UFP for which it was not compensated. Lake Lite and UFP failed to reach an agreement about licensing terms and discontinued negotiations. Instead, Lake Lite asserts, UFP has now wrongfully begun offering its own “Solar Deck and Dock Lights.”

In this Indiana copyright and patent litigation, Plaintiff Lake Lite’s specific complaints include that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their manufacture, importing, marketing and sale of their solar deck and dock light products. Lake Lite contends that Defendants’ acts include infringement of Lake Lite’s copyrights and patents, unauthorized use and misappropriation of Lake Lite’s confidential information and trade secrets and violation of the mutual non-disclosure agreement between Lake Lite and UCP.

The complaint, filed by a copyright and patent lawyer for Lake Lite, alleges the following:

• Count One – Copyright Infringement

• Count Two – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D697,246

• Count Three – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,126

• Count Four – Breach of Contract

• Count Five – Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Count Six – Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act

• Count Seven – Unjust Enrichment

Lake Lite asks for a judgment of infringement of its copyrights-in-suit, of infringement of its patents-in-suit, that the non-disclosure agreement was violated by Defendants, that Defendants violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in their dealings with Lake Lite regarding the Solar Dot products, that Defendants have misappropriated Lake Lite’s trade secrets and that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Lake Lite seeks injunctive relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

1. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

2. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The four general characteristics of a trade secret are:

1. it is information;

2. that derives independent economic value;

3. that is not generally known, or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

4. that is the subject of efforts, reasonable under the circumstances, to maintain its secrecy.

September 29, 2014

What To Do If You Get a Demand Letter

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

What is a demand letter? Am I legally

obligated to respond?

A demand letter is correspondence that states that you are potentially infringing the claims of a patent and requesting that you pay for a license to use the patented invention. You are not legally required to respond to a demand letter, but in some situations that may be the right course of action. Before deciding, consider your options, described below.

September 24, 2014

J & J Sports Sues Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant and Owner for Illegal Signal Interception

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports Production, Inc. of Campbell, California (“J & J Sports”) sued Minerva Soriano and Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant, LLC, both d/b/a Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant of Indianapolis, Indiana, in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally intercepted and broadcast the Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez WBC Middleweight Championship Fight Program on September 15, 2012.

Defendant Minerva Soriano, alleged to be an owner and/or an individual with control, oversight and management of Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant has been sued for the illegal interception of the Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez WBC Middleweight Championship Fight Program (the “Program”). Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant, LLC, the legal entity which apparently owns the restaurant, has also been sued.

Plaintiff J & J Sports alleges that it was granted the exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to the Program, including all under-card bouts and fight commentary included in the television broadcast of the event. It states that it entered into subsequent sublicensing agreements with various commercial entities, which were, in turn, granted certain commercial sublicensing rights to the Program.

J & J Sports contends that, “with full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received and exhibited by entities unauthorized to do so” Defendants and/or their agents unlawfully published, divulged and exhibited the Program. It further asserts that this conduct was “willful, malicious, and intentionally designed to harm” J & J Sports and to cause economic distress.

In the Indiana intellectual property complaint filed on behalf of J & J Sports, the following is alleged:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553
• Count III: Conversion

Regarding Count I, J & J Sports asks the court for the following: (a) Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

Plaintiff requests the following remedies for the alleged violations of Count II: (a) Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 553 (b)(2) and (b) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553
(c)(2)(C), and (c) and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553 (c)(2)(C).

Finally, for the count of conversion, J & J Sports asks: for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof against Defendants, and for reasonable attorney fees, and for all costs of the lawsuit, including but not limited to filing fees, service of process fees, investigative costs.

Practice Tip:

J & J Sports is a frequent litigant but it is relatively infrequent that a trial on the merits of its intellectual property claims is held. In 2010, it sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging unauthorized interception and broadcast of the December 2007 “Undefeated” match between Floyd Mayweather and Ricky Hatton. Defendants argued that the broadcast had been authorized by its cable provider. Specifically, Time Warner Cable, which had been licensed to provide the non-commercial rights, expressly admitted that it had inadvertently authorized the commercial display of the broadcast. Time Warner Cable had also offered to pay to J & J Sports the liquidated damages that the contract required in cases of such a breach. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with J & J Sports’ allegations that either a violation of § 605 or § 553 had occurred and awarded to J & J Sports statutory damages of $350 and costs and attorneys’ fees of $26,780.30.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The issue of whether § 605 applied was one of first impression for the court. It stated that § 605 did not apply to that case, holding that the receipt or interception of communications by wire from a cable system was not governed by § 605. The court then evaluated Defendants’ conduct under the “safe harbor” provision of § 553. That provision exempts from liability any cable recipient who is authorized by a cable company to receive a transmission. In this case,Time Warner Cable’s representative admitted that it had inadvertently sold the broadcast of the fight to Defendants for a non-commercial price, despite knowing that Defendants ran a commercial establishment. This, held the Fifth Circuit, was enough to create a material fact regarding whether Defendants in that case had violated § 553 making the trial court’s grant of summary judgment reversible error.

August 28, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Photographer Sues Theater and Publisher for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Larry G. Philpot, a professional photographer from Indianapolis, Indiana, filed two new Indiana copyright infringement lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana. These lawsuits are in addition to another intellectual property lawsuit filed by Philpot recently.

On October 4, 2009, Plaintiff Philpot photographed Willie Nelson during a performance in St. Louis, Missouri (“Nelson photograph”). On August 2, 2013, he photographed Chris Daughtry during a performance in Indianapolis, Indiana (“Daughtry Photograph”).

In an effort to increase his marketability and reputation and to gain more work, Philpot made the photographs of Nelson and Daughtry generally available through Wikimedia under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license (“CC BY 2.0”). Philpot asserts that CC BY 2.0 requires a licensee to (a) reference CC BY 2.0 with every copy of the photo used and (b) provide attribution in the manner specified by the author. He claims that these requirements applied to republication of his copyrighted photos of Nelson and Daughtry. The two new Indiana copyright infringement complaints assert that Defendants did not comply with these licensing requirements and are, consequently, liable for copyright infringement.

In the first complaint, Mansion America, LLC d/b/a Oak Ridge Boys Theater of Branson, Missouri is accused of copyright infringement of Philpot’s Willie Nelson photograph, Certificate Number VAu 1-132-411, which was issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In the second complaint, Everything Brooklyn Media, LLC d/b/a The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, is accused of copyright infringement of Philpot’s Nelson photograph and also the Daughtry Photograph, Certificate Number VAu 1-164-624, which was also issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In the copyright complaint against Mansion, filed by Philpot acting as a pro se litigant, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
• Count II: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Material
• Count III: Removal of Identifying Information

The copyright complaint filed against The Brooklyn Daily Eagle asserts only the first count (copyright infringement and unfair competition).

In both complaints, Philpot asks the court for an injunction, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #1: Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages. Statutory damages range from a sum of not less than $750 to not more than $30,000 per infringed work.

Practice Tip #2: The claims in these complaints may trigger the “advertising injury” clause of many general business liability insurance policies. If a defendant has applicable business insurance, it may provide coverage for the expenses of a legal defense and damages found due as a result of unintentional copyright infringement. Overhauser Law Offices, publisher of this Site, counsels clients on insurance coverage for insurance claims.

August 25, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bake Me A Wish Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Larry G. Philpot, a professional photographer from Indianapolis,

picture of a camera.jpg

Indiana, sued asserting a violation of his intellectual property rights by Bake Me A Wish, LLC of New York. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Defendant Bake Me A Wish infringed the copyright of Philpot’s photograph of Willie Nelson, Certificate No. VAu 1-132-411, which was issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

On October 4, 2009, Plaintiff Philpot photographed Willie Nelson during a performance in St. Louis, Missouri. In an effort to increase his marketability and reputation and to gain more work, on May 31, 2011, Philpot made the photograph of Nelson generally available through Wikimedia under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license (“CC BY 2.0”). Philpot asserts that CC BY 2.0 requires a licensee to (a) reference CC BY 2.0 with every copy of the photo used and (b) provide attribution in the manner specified by the author. He claims that these requirements applied to republication of his copyrighted photo of Nelson.

Philpot states that Bake Me A Wish owns and operates the website www.bakemeawish.com and a related Facebook page and that those websites are used to generate business. Defendant Bake Me A Wish is accused of placing a copy of the Nelson photo on its Facebook page on April 30, 2013 without displaying the proper attribution to Philpot.

In the copyright complaint, filed by Philpot acting as a pro se litigant, the following claims are made:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
• Count II: Unauthorized Distribution of Copyrighted Material
• Count III: Removal of Identifying Information

Philpot asks the court for an injunction, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #1: This complaint suffers from a number of legal and factual deficiencies. Among them is that Philpot simultaneous admits that Bake Me A Wish removed the content when requested and also alleges not only willful conduct but ongoing willful conduct. The allegation of ongoing willful conduct is made by Plaintiff in support of his contention that Defendant’s conduct entitles him to the maximum statutory damages allowable. Statutory damages may be awarded in a sum not less than $750 or more than $30,000 for each finding of infringement. A determination of willful copyright infringement permits the court in its discretion to increase the award of statutory damages up to $150,000 per infringement.

Practice Tip #2: Defendants who fail to appear run a significant risk of having a default judgment entered against them. There is a significant disparity in the dollar amount awarded in default judgments against defendants in copyright infringement cases. In two separate cases, Judge William T. Lawrence ordered defendants who failed to appear to pay $20,000 for the copyright infringement that was deemed to have been admitted by the defendants’ failure to defend against the allegations. See here and here. However, in a similar case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered an entry of default judgment against a defendant for $151,425, the full amount requested.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has represented several hundred persons and businesses regarding copyright infringement and similar matters.

July 28, 2014

Copyright Office Requests Comments on Music Licensing

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Copyright Office has undertaken a study to evaluate the effectiveness of current methods for licensing musical works and sound recordings. It seeks additional comments on whether and how existing music licensing methods serve the music marketplace, including new and emerging digital distribution platforms.

An initial round of written comments and roundtable sessions were held, during which a number of significant issues were discussed. The Copyright Office believes these issues merit additional consideration.

First, the two federal district courts overseeing the antitrust consent decrees governing the largest performance rights organizations (”PROs”), American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (”ASCAP”) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (”BMI”), held in separate opinions that under those decrees, music publishers could not withdraw selected rights – such as ”new media” rights – to be directly licensed outside of the PROs; rather, a particular publisher’s song catalog must either be ”all in” or ”all out.” Following these rulings, both in public statements and at the recent roundtables, certain major music publishers have indicated that, if the consent decrees remain in place without modification, they intend to withdraw their entire catalogs from the two PROs and directly license public performances. Such a move would affect not only online services, but more traditional areas of public performance such as radio, television, restaurants, and bars.

April 18, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: BMI Sues The Irish Exit for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – An Indiana copyright attorney for Broadcast Music, Inc. of New York, New York (“BMI”), Sony/ATV Songs LLC, Fall Out Boy, Inc. d/b/a Chicago X Softcore Songs, Beechwood Music Corporation, and Universal Music-Z Tunes LLC d/b/a Universal Music Z Songs sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that The Irish Exit, LLC d/b/a The Irish Exit and Matthew McMahan, both of New Albany, Indiana, committed willful copyright infringement. All copyrights-in-suit have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In its complaint, BMI states that it has been granted the right to license the public performance rights of more than eight million copyrighted musical compositions, including the compositions at issue. The other plaintiffs are the publishers of the copyrighted music that was allegedly infringed.

The lawsuit, brought under The Copyright Act, alleges that the defendants infringed multiple songs in BMI’s repertoire by performing those copyrighted songs without authorization and/or causing the copyrighted songs to be performed publically in The Irish Exit without authorization. BMI alleges that there were three instances of infringement, with each publisher-plaintiff having at least one copyrighted song infringed by the defendants.

BMI contends that The Irish Exit, LLC (the legal entity) has a direct financial interest in The Irish Exit (the business establishment), as does Matthew McMahan. Further, it is alleged that Matthew McMahan is a member of The Irish Exit, LLC, with responsibility for the operation, management and supervision of the activities of LLC and the business establishment.

The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered great and incalculable damage as a result of the defendants’ actions and that further acts of infringement will injure them irreparably. They ask that the court enjoin the defendant from committing further acts of infringement. The plaintiffs also seek statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c) and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

The Copyright Act empowers a plaintiff to elect to receive an award of statutory damages between $750 and $30,000 per infringement in lieu of an award representing the plaintiffs’ actual damages and/or the defendants’ profits. In a case where the copyright owner proves that infringement was committed willfully, the court may increase the award of statutory damages to as much as $150,000 per infringed work. A finding of willful infringement will also support an award of attorney’s fees.

Furthermore, not only is the performer liable for infringement, but so is anyone who sponsors an infringing performance. A corporate officer will be found jointly and severally liable with his corporation for copyright infringement if he (1) had the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and (2) has a direct financial interest in such activities.