Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co.

Decision Date16 September 2009
Docket NumberNo. 05 Civ. 9922(BSJ)(JCF).,05 Civ. 9922(BSJ)(JCF).
Citation658 F.Supp.2d 571
PartiesBarbara MASON, Intervention Plaintiff, v. JAMIE MUSIC PUBLISHING CO. d/b/a Dandelion Music Co., et al., Intervention Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Michael S. Elkin, Shari Hope Markowitz, George Thomas Soterakis, Winston & Strawn LLP, Roger Juan Maldonado, Balber, Pickard, Battistoni, Maldonado, & Van Der Tuin, Stephen Jeffrey Dallas, Law Office of Daniel S. Braverman, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Andrew Harrison Bart, Carletta Flora Higginson, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

Oren J. Warshavsky, Baker & Hostetler LLP, New York City, NY, for Movant and Counter Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

BARBARA S. JONES, District Judge.

Before this Court is a motion for summary judgment brought by Intervention-Plaintiff Barbara Mason ("Mason") against Jamie Music Publishing Co. d/b/a/ Dandelion Music Co., et al. ("JMP" or "Dandelion" or "Plaintiff/Intervention Defendants") (collectively "Defendants").1 This action arises out of a dispute over the ownership of the copyright in a musical composition, "Yes I'm Ready" (the "Composition"), that Mason wrote in 1965.2 Mason seeks a declaratory judgment that she is the owner of the copyright to the Composition and she petitions the Court to deny JMP's request for a declaratory judgment of ownership in its own name.3 (Mem. in Supp. of Mason's Mot. For Summ. J. ("Mason's Mem.") at 1.) Mason's motion is based upon claims arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and the Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(b). For the reasons stated below, Mason's motion is granted.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only if "there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party establishes its right to judgment as a matter of law." EMI Catalogue P'ship v. Hill, 228 F.3d 56, 61 (2d Cir.2000) (citing Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c)); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, "all ambiguities must be resolved and all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the party opposing the motion." See EMI Catalogue P'ship, 228 F.3d at 61 (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND4

Mason is the sole author of the song and lyrics to the Composition, which she wrote in early 1965 when she was seventeen years old. (Decl. of Barbara Mason in Support of Mot. For Summ. J.5 ("Mason Decl.") ¶¶ 2-3.) At that time Mason resided with her parents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Id. at ¶ 3.) In April 1965, the Philadelphia Orphan's Court (the "Orphan's Court") appointed Norman A. Jenkins, Esq. as guardian ("Jenkins" or the "Guardian") for Mason, who was still a minor.6 (See April 30, 1965 Decree (the "April 30 Decree"), (annexed as Ex. 1 to February 23, 2007, Decl. of Chuck Rubin in Support of Mason's Mot. to Intervene ("Rubin Decl.")), No. 05 Civ. 9922, Doc. No. 30.) The Orphan's Court required that "[a]ll proposed contracts on behalf of the said minor [Mason] shall be submitted to this Court for approval prior to execution by the Guardian, copies of which proposed contracts shall be attached to a Petition requesting approval thereof and authority to be given the Guardian for execution thereof...."7 (Id.) Jenkins submitted a petition to the Orphan's Court to authorize execution of the following three agreements on Mason's behalf: (1) a recording agreement with Artic Record Co. (the "Recording Agreement"); (2) a management agreement with James Bishop (the "Management Agreement"); and (3) an author's and composer's Contract with Stilran Music & Dandelion Music Co. (the "Songwriter's Agreement") (collectively the "Agreements"). (See Petition to Authorize Execution of Agreements to the Orphan's Court (the "Authorization Petition"), (annexed as Ex. 1 to Rubin Decl.))8 The Orphan's Court directed Jenkins to execute the Agreements by decree dated June 3, 1965 (the "June 3 Decree"), which stated that copies of the Agreements were attached to the Guardian Petition. (See June 3 Decree (annexed as Ex. 1 to Rubin Decl.).) The Agreements were the only written contracts that were approved by the Orphan's Court and that Jenkins executed on Mason's behalf with JMP. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement at 7.)

The Songwriter's Agreement was executed by Mason and Stilran Music & Dandelion Music Co. on May 21, 1965.9 (JMP's Local Rule 56.1 Statement at 6; Rubin Decl. Ex. 1.) The Songwriter's Agreement provided that Mason agreed to "sell, transfer, assign and deliver to [Dandelion and Stilran] all music, melodies, lyrics, verses, songs and musical compositions that [Mason] shall write and/or compose during the term hereof and any extensions and renewals thereof. . . ." (Songwriter's Agreement (annexed as Ex. 1 to Rubin Decl.) at ¶ 1.) The Songwriter's Agreement provided for an initial one-year term that commenced on May 21, 1965, and terminated on May 20, 1966, and it included two successive options for one-year renewal terms. (Songwriter's Agreement ¶ 2.) The Songwriter's Agreement also stated that Mason would assign her rights to any previously composed songs that were mentioned on an attached list of musical songs and compositions marked as Schedule B.10 (Id. at ¶ 7.) Schedule B was never filed with the Orphan's Court and none of the documents on file with the Orphan's Court contain any mention of the Composition. (Rubin Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 & Ex. 1; Defs. Rule 56.1 Statement at 7-8.)

Prior to the appointment of the Guardian and to the execution of the Songwriter's Agreement, Defendants filed an application to register the copyright to the Composition with the United States Copyright Office (the "Copyright Office"). The Copyright Office issued a copyright registration certificate dated March 31, 1965, which listed Dandelion Music Co. and Stilran Music as claimants and Barbara Mason as author. (See March 28, 2008, Decl. of Frank Lipsius ("Lipsius Decl.") at Ex. 1-C.) Defendants obtained a subsequent copyright registration certificate from the Copyright Office dated July 15, 1965.11 (Id.) In 1993, Mason renewed the copyright to the Composition in her own name and received renewal registration certificates from the Copyright Office dated January 8, 1993.12 (Mason's Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 3; Mason Decl. ¶ 9 & Exes. 1, 2.)

On May 1, 2007, Mason entered into a written agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with Embassy Music Corporation ("EMB"), in which EMB agreed to purchase Mason's one hundred percent worldwide copyright interest in and to the Composition. (See Purchase Agreement (annexed as Ex. L to March 28, 2008, Decl. of Roger Juan Maldonado ("Maldonado Decl.") at ¶¶ 1-2; Mason Dep. (annexed as Ex. A to Maldonado Decl.) at 206:9-207:15).) On May 3, 2007, Mason filed a complaint against JMP and other defendants that asserted, inter alia, causes of action for copyright infringement and for a declaratory judgment of copyright ownership in the Composition.13 Mason filed the instant motion for summary judgment on March 18, 2008.

DURATION OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION

The Copyright Act provides that "Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work." 17 U.S.C.A. § 201(a). Works created before 1976 were subject to the protection of the 1909 Copyright Act (the "1909 Act").14 See Nimmer on Copyright [hereinafter Nimmer], § 1-OV (2009); 17 U.S.C. 1. Works created under the 1909 Act that complied with the proper requirements of statutory notice were entitled to statutory copyright protection for a total of fifty-six years—an initial term of 28 years plus a second twenty-eight year renewal term.15 See 3-9 Nimmer § 9.11. The 1909 Act was superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976 (the "Copyright Act"), which became effective on January 1, 1978.16 See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; Nimmer § 1-OV.17 Any pre-1978 cause of action is governed by the 1909 Act,18 "whereas the new law is effective as to subsequently arising undertakings."19 Nimmer § 1-OV.

DISCUSSION

Mason asserts that she is the undisputed author of the Composition and that she owns the copyright, which initially vests in the composer of a musical composition. See 17 U.S.C.A. § 201(a). Mason further asserts that she never assigned her copyright to Defendants and that she filed the copyright renewal registration to the Composition in 1993 pursuant to her statutory right of renewal as its author. Defendants advance several theories under which the Court should find that ownership of the copyright in the Composition was assigned by Mason to JMP.20 Defendants assert that the 1965 Songwriter's Agreement assigned the Composition to Defendants and they urge the Court to consider extrinsic evidence to interpret the Songwriter's Agreement, which they acknowledge is incomplete. Defendants also assert that their 1965 registration of the copyright is prima facie evidence of their copyright ownership and they dispute that Mason's renewal registration of the Composition establishes her ownership in the Composition. Defendants allege that Mason lacks standing to seek a declaratory judgment with respect to her ownership of the copyright because she has assigned her rights in the Composition. Lastly, Defendants assert that the equitable doctrines of laches and estoppel bar this action.

I. Standing

A court's determination of whether a plaintiff has standing "is antecedent to any declaratory judgment determination. A court must first satisfy itself that `the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Hettinger v. Kleinman
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 17 Agosto 2010
    ...the alleged unconscionable conduct must be "directly related to the subject matter in litigation." Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co., 658 F.Supp.2d 571, 588 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (Jones, D.J.); Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 646 F.Supp.2d 510, 533 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (Koeltl, D.J.) (misconduct mu......
  • Dziennik v. Sealift, Inc., 05-CV-4659 (DLI)(MDG)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 30 Septiembre 2013
    ...Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Imclone Sys. Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 570, 629-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co., 658 F. Supp. 2d 571, 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ("Courts enforce the doctrine of unclean hands 'where the party asking for the invocation of an equitable doctrine has......
  • Carfora v. Teachers Ins. Annuity Ass'n of Am.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 27 Septiembre 2022
    ...... remedy.” Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co. , 658. F.Supp.2d 571, 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). ......
  • Complex Sys., Inc. v. Abn Ambro Bank N.V.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 25 Octubre 2013
    ...notice as to the ownership of the copyright and of the facts stated in the registration certificate.”); Mason v. Jamie Music Pub. Co., 658 F.Supp.2d 571, 588 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (citing Latin American Music Company for the proposition that a copyright registration certificate in the Copyright Of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT