Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc.

Last updated
Gershwin Publishing Corporation, Columbia Artists Management Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameGershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc.
ArguedApril 19 1971
DecidedMay 24 1971
Citation(s)443 F.2d 1159; 14 A.L.R. Fed. 819; 170 U.S.P.Q. 182
Case history
Prior history312 F. Supp. 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
Holding
The court established that defendant CAMI could not avoid paying license fees when music in plaintiff ASCAP's catalogue is performed at concerts, even when such events are sponsored by local organizations rather than directly by CAMI itself. Southern District of New York affirmed.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Henry Friendly, Chief Judge, Robert P. Anderson, Circuit Judge, Levet, District Judge
Case opinions
MajorityJudge Robert P. Anderson
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1909

Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971), [1] was a copyright infringement case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second District ruled that defendant Columbia Artists Management, Inc. was liable for vicarious copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement. Plaintiff American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers ("ASCAP"), on behalf of Gershwin Publishing Corp., sued Columbia Artists Management, Inc. ("CAMI") on the premise that CAMI had no permission to use a song from its repertory for a public, for-profit concert in which artists managed by CAMI performed. The final court decision established that contributory infringement can still be liable for copyright infringement if the party has knowledge of the violating activity, whether or not they are directly involved in the violation. [1]

Contents

Background

On January 9, 1956, Todd Duncan and Camilla Williams, artists managed by CAMI, performed "Bess, You Is My Woman Now" at a public, for-profit concert in Port Washington, New York. [1] The concert was sponsored by the Port Washington Community Concert Association. The song was performed without the artist nor the local association getting permission from Gershwin Publishing Corporation, who owned the copyright to the song. [2]

Subsequently, ASCAP sued CAMI for allowing not paying license fees while gaining financial profit from the performance. ASCAP used this scenario as a test case to determine whether CAMI could continue to avoid paying license fees when music from ASCAP's catalogue is played at local community concerts. [3]

CAMI's "Community Concert Associations"

CAMI has two main business enterprises. The first is managing artists. [1] Secondly, CAMI has a local organization division, called the Community Concerts Division, whose main purpose is to organize and upkeep hundreds of nonprofit organizations ("Community Concert Associations") for the reason that some communities are too small to support professional managers and producers. [3] Community Concert Associations sponsor annual concert series, totaling to approximately 3,000 concerts per year. [4]

For its Community Concerts Division, CAMI sends one of its field representatives to meet with members of a community if it is seen as being able to support a local association. The representative helps the community form its own association by explaining CAMI's program, meeting with the officers of the local association, and reviewing the expected budget for the season. He also helps determine how the association will pay for the artists. In addition, the representative helps plan a one-week membership campaign, during which the association sells tickets for the concert season. CAMI also provides publicity material for the membership campaign as well as guidance on how to utilize them. [3] These materials include press releases, proclamations by the mayor, editorials in the newspaper, and radio speeches delivered by well-known locals. The representative also helps keep record of the progress of the campaign in addition to personally delivering speeches on the radio at local clubs. [1]

Despite the field representative's duties, CAMI's goal is to create the sense that the local association is the one in total control. CAMI's role in planning seems to diminish as representatives continue to teach local leaders how to organize these events, but CAMI still largely dominates much of the association's activities. Besides being heavily involved in the managing of the event, CAMI is also compensated for all of their efforts. [3]

CAMI and Port Washington Community Concert Association

Much like their involvement in their "Community Concert Associations" division, CAMI played a role in organizing the 1964 Port Washington Association-sponsored concert. First, a field representative from CAMI launched an initial meeting to start planning for the concert season during which he estimated a budget, brought up potential musical talents, and helped plan the membership campaign week. The representative spent all of the membership campaign week in Port Washington and attended a "kick off" dinner for the campaign workers during which he instructed on how to sell tickets. Throughout the week, the representative also spent time at campaign headquarters, spoke to local civic clubs, gave advice on how to use promotional materials, and kept records on the campaign's progress. The representative also helped prepare a budget from all receipts and disbursements. [1]

In general, there are two types of commission for community concerts. One is a differential that all artists pay CAMI for organizing and maintaining community concert associations. In addition, artists under contract pay CAMI a 15% management fee of their compensation after subtracting the differential. Artists not under contract with CAMI only pay the differential and not the management fee. There is more money available for the artists the more the membership campaign makes. Therefore, CAMI charges profitable concerts more for successful artists, which is beneficial for the artist and for CAMI, whose management fees increases. Following this process, Port Washington Association paid the artist's fees to CAMI after the concert. CAMI then deducted its commission from the fee and gave the remaining amount to the artist. [3]

Opposing Arguments

ASCAP/Gershwin Publishing Corp.'s Argument

ASCAP argued that CAMI had substantial knowledge of the artists' and community associations' copyright violation during the planning process between the field representative and the local association. Therefore, ASCAP deemed CAMI as liable for infringement of their music repertory by organizing, supervising and controlling the local community concert associations. [1]

CAMI's Argument

CAMI admitted to the fact that music belonging to ASCAP was played publicly and for-profit at community concerts without permission. Moreover, they acknowledged this was a violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 1(e), and that the Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 133. [3] However, CAMI's main premise was that it was not responsible for such infringement. Instead, it argued that the performing artists and local associations should be held them. It claimed the artists were direct infringers since they violated the idea that only copyright holders can perform the work in public, and the local association became contributory infringers because they had sponsored the concert. Further, CAMI maintained that they purposely did not make an effort to obtain copyright clearance for the community concerts. CAMI did not feel these clearances were necessary because it did not claim any responsibility for infringement that might occur. [4]

Court Decision

A summary judgement was given on May 24, 1971 in which the court held that CAMI was a contributory infringer that was vicariously liable for its concert performers. Judge Henry Friendly served as the Chief Judge, Judge Robert P. Anderson served as Circuit Judge, and Judge Levet served as District Judge. The judges affirmed that CAMI was liable for copyright infringement because it had knowledge of the violation taking place and thus possessed the power to stop the infringement. Further, the Court established that CAMI could not avoid paying license fees when music in ASCAP's catalogue is performed at concerts, even when such events are sponsored by local organizations rather than directly by CAMI. [1] [5]

District Judge Anderson authored the final court's opinion. Based on the ways in which CAMI was involved in the copyright infringement, he stated that CAMI was liable for their involvement in planning and looking over the Port Washington Association's concert series. While CAMI did not have direct control over the artists it managed or over the local organization, the court deemed that the local association heavily depended on CAMI to produce the concert. Anderson additionally stated that CAMI had enough strength to stop their artists from copyright infringement and had a great part in creating and attracting the audience. In addition, CAMI took a significant financial profit from the copyright violation. [1] By stating that CAMI's knowledge of the violation was enough to make CAMI liable, the court established an extension of the definition of contributory infringer. [2]

Influence on Subsequent Cases

Although Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C.S. § 1(e) does not explicitly state that only those directly involved in the infringement can be liable, it been assumed that parties indirectly involved in the infringement can still be held responsible for infringement. [6] [7] [8] Therefore, the summary judgement for this case set the definition for cases involving secondary liability, for all works protected under the Copyright Act of 1909. [9] The court established a piece of the definition of contributory liability, in that a party associated with the secondary infringer may still be held to copyright litigation if it has sufficient knowledge of or involvement in the infringing act. [1]

Criticism

Professor Tim Wu argues that the court decision was and is not helpful for subsequent cases. He contends that because CAMI was plainly guilty, what the court established was too specific and not pertinent to cases in which the copyright infringer does not know full details or is not involved in the violation. [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled unanimously that the defendants, peer-to-peer file sharing companies Grokster and Streamcast, could be held liable for inducing copyright infringement by users of their file sharing software. The plaintiffs were a consortium of 28 entertainment companies, led by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Secondary liability, or indirect infringement, arises when a party materially contributes to, facilitates, induces, or is otherwise responsible for directly infringing acts carried out by another party. The US has statutorily codified secondary liability rules for trademarks and patents, but for matters relating to copyright, this has solely been a product of case law developments. In other words, courts, rather than Congress, have been the primary developers of theories and policies concerning secondary liability.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

<i>Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.</i> 2007 American legal decision

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc. The court held that framing and hyperlinking of original images for use in an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10's images because the use was highly transformative, and thus not an infringement of the magazine's copyright ownership of the original images.

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n is a court case in which the pornography magazine Perfect 10 filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard for copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hotfile</span> File hosting website

Hotfile was a one-click file hosting website founded by Hotfile Corp in 2006 in Panama City, Panama. On December 4, 2013, Hotfile ceased all operations, the same day as signing a $4 million settlement with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); the settlement had previously been misreported as $80 million.

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001). The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i> 2010 United States district court case

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

ReDigi was an online marketplace for used digital music, eBooks, games, apps, and software. It claims to be the only cloud storage service that verifies whether each digital file uploaded for storage was legally acquired from an eligible source. ReDigi's Cloud and Marketplace only accept lawfully purchased digital media. The service allowed users to buy and sell pre-owned digital content directly from one user to another. As of December 2020, the website is offline and redirects to a removed LinkedIn profile.

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the playing video cassettes in-store of a video sale and rental store. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures.

<i>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung</i>

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Fung 710 F.3d 1020 No. 10-55946, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which seven film studios including Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney and Twentieth Century Fox sued Gary Fung, the owner of isoHunt Web Technologies, Inc., for contributory infringement of their copyrighted works. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of United States District Court for the Central District of California that the services and websites offered by isoHunt Web Technologies allowed third parties to download infringing copies of Columbia's works. Ultimately, Fung had "red flag knowledge" of the infringing activity on his systems, and therefore IsoHunt was held ineligible for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act § 512(c) safe harbor.

<i>Warner/Chappell Music Inc. v. Fullscreen Inc.</i>

Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472) was a case against multi-channel network Fullscreen, filed by the National Music Publishers Association on behalf of Warner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers, which alleged that Fullscreen illegally reaped the profits of unlicensed cover videos on YouTube without paying any royalties to the rightful publishers and songwriters.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but, induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 443F.2d1159 (2d Cir.1971).
  2. 1 2 3 Reimer, Richard (February 2004). "ASCAP Licensing for Bars, Restaurants and Other Venues and the Interne" (PDF). North Carolina Bar Association's Sport and Entertainment Law Section. 4 (2): 3. Retrieved 21 March 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, Inc., 312F. Supp.581 (S.D.N.Y.1970).
  4. 1 2 Giblin, Rebecca (2011). Code Wars: 10 Years of P2P Software Litigation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 26–27. ISBN   978-1849806213.
  5. ↑ Wan, Ke Steven. "MONOPOLISTIC GATEKEEPERS' VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT" (PDF). Regent University Law Review. 23 (65): 70–71.
  6. ↑ National Institute, Inc. v. Nutt, 28F.2d132 (D. Conn.1928).
  7. ↑ Horace, Ball (1944). Law of Copyright and Literary Property. United States, Great Britain: Banks and Company. p. 146.
  8. ↑ Nimmer, Melville (1969). Nimmer on Copyright. pp. 141–142.
  9. ↑ MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913, 931 (2005).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.