This now may come down to whether Mr. Grant's record company was duly diligent in protecting his US copyright privileges.
There are certainly common law copyright privileges, as well -- but the able Judge seems to be looking for a knockut punch here, early on, related to a statutory violation by Tangerine's 2020 campaign. Here's the order, entered as text yesterday in Manhattan:
. . .ORDER
The plaintiffs are directed to advise the Court by August 16, 2024, (a) whether, by the terms of the May 3, 2001 Agreement (the "Agreement") or otherwise, London Records owned all of the rights in the sound recording of "Electric Avenue" such that London Records could have registered the copyright for the sound recording of "Electric Avenue," and (b) whether the subsequent copyright registration of the collective work also included the copyright registration for the sound recording of "Electric Avenue."
See Morris v. Bus. Concepts, Inc., 283 F.3d 502, 506 (2d Cir. 2002); see also 17 U.S.C. § 408(a) ("[T]he owner of copyright or of any exclusive right in the work may obtain registration of the copyright claim). . . .
The plaintiffs should point to the specific terms of the Agreement, any other agreements, and the relevant case law to answer this question. The defendants are directed to respond by August 23, 2024.
(Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 8/9/2024). . . .
We will keep you posted. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment