Rotardier v. Entertainment Co. Music Group
| Decision Date | 22 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | 80 Civ. 2753 (KTD). |
| Citation | 518 F. Supp. 919 |
| Parties | Kingsley Rogers ROTARDIER, Plaintiff, v. The ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY MUSIC GROUP, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Kingsley Rogers Rotardier, plaintiff pro se.
Rosenblum & Freedman, New York City, for defendant The Entertainment Company Music Group; Martin Bandier, New York City, and Jeffrey L. Zivyak, New York City, of counsel.
Plaintiff brings this action claiming that the defendants have infringed the copyright to plaintiff's musical composition, "Live, Laugh and Love." Plaintiff asks this court to enjoin defendant from any further commercial exploitation of this composition and to grant it declaratory and compensatory relief. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment.
Defendant Entertainment Company Music Group1 cross-moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It claims that the fundamental controversy involves a breach of contract claim which invokes state court jurisdiction where, as here, there is no diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiff is the composer of the musical score, "Every Kid You See On The Street Ain't Bad," which includes the subject matter of this controversy, the composition, "Live, Laugh and Love." On December 16, 1971, plaintiff assigned the copyrights for this score to Godspell Music Corp. "Godspell". Godspell reassigned the copyrights to plaintiff on August 29, 1972.
The present dispute arises from an agreement executed that same day between plaintiff and Godspell. The contract provided that Godspell would retain the copyright to the composition, "Live, Laugh and Love" with a condition to reassign that copyright to plaintiff if Godspell did "not cause a commercial recording of "Live, Laugh and Love" to be released or printed music in any form to be placed on sale ..." within one year from September 1, 1972.
In July, 1974, plaintiff discovered that his composition had been publicly performed. Plaintiff acknowledged in his complaint that Godspell registered an arrangement of his composition with the Copyright office on July 19, 1973, and that the composition was in fact published within the requisite time period.2 While such publication satisfies the one year time limit provided in the contract, plaintiff claims that Godspell was unauthorized under the contract to publish the composition without his consent. Accordingly, plaintiff asserts that the condition of commercial exploitation was not satisfied as of September 1, 1973 (one year from the date of the agreement); that the copyright therefore automatically reverted to plaintiff; and that all subsequent exploitation of the composition infringed upon his exclusive ownership of this copyright.
Defendant Entertainment Company Music Group succeeded to the interests of Godspell Music Corp. on December 1, 1975. Defendant asserts that printing and placing the composition on sale before the year expired satisfied the condition set forth in the contract; that the Entertainment Company Music Group therefore owns the copyright to the composition; and that plaintiff's claim of copyright infringement has no basis.
The prerequisites to federal jurisdiction in copyright cases are set forth in section 1338(a) of Title 28 which provides:
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, ... and copyrights .... Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states ...."
28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (emphasis added).
In order to determine whether an action arises under a federal copyright law, the complaint must be:
... for a remedy expressly granted by the Act, e. g., a suit for infringement or for the statutory royalties for record reproduction, ... or asserts a claim requiring construction of the Act, ..., or, at the very least and perhaps more doubtfully, presents a case where a distinctive policy of the Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim.
T. B. Harms v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1534, 14 L.Ed.2d 435 (1965).
The principal issue in this action is who owns title to the copyright of the composition, "Live, Laugh and Love." There is no provision in the contract that in the event of nonfulfillment of the condition, the copyright shall automatically revert to plaintiff. The controversy, therefore, ultimately depends upon whether there is a right to automatic reversion, and if so, whether there has been noncompliance with the contract to warrant reversion or reassignment. See, e. g., Stepdesign, Inc....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bear Creek Productions, Inc. v. Saleh
...971 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). 7 See Stepdesign, Inc. v. Research Media, Inc., 442 F.Supp. 32 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Rotardier v. The Entertainment Co. Music Group, 518 F.Supp. 919, 921 (S.D.N.Y.1981); Keith v. Scruggs, 507 F.Supp. 968, 971 (S.D.N.Y.1981); Elan Assocs., Ltd. v. Quackenbush Music, Ltd., 339 ......
-
Peay v. Morton
...was who owned the copyrights. Id. See also Simon & Flynn, Inc. v. Time, Inc., 513 F.2d at 833-834; Rotardier v. Entertainment Company Music Group, 518 F.Supp. 919 (S.D.N. Y.1981); Keith v. Scruggs, 507 F.Supp. at These cases do not, of course, stand for the proposition that the federal cour......
-
Maxey v. R.L. Bryan Co., Inc.
...as including "[the] paramount purpose of the complaint" and "the principal purpose of [the complaint]"); Rotardier v. Entertainment Co. Music Group, 518 F.Supp. 919, 921 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (jurisdiction depends on whether federal copyright laws determine "[t]he principal issue" or "[t]he contro......
-
Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc.
...state court property dispute which does not necessarily confer federal copyright jurisdiction. See Rotardier v. Entertainment Co. Music Group, 518 F.Supp. 919, 921 (S.D.N.Y.1981) (following T.B. Harms and concluding that the "controlling issue involves a dispute over title to a copyright ar......