• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
FILEDU.S. COURT OF
 
APPEALSELEVENTH CIRCUITMARCH 25, 2011JOHN LEYCLERK 
[PUBLISH]IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT________________________ No. 10-10626________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-20373-PASSAREGAMA INDIA LTD.,lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,versusTIMOTHY MOSLEY,a.k.a. Timbaland,AFTERMATH ENTERTAINMENT,G UNIT RECORDS, INC.,name amended per DE #66Amended Complaint,INTERSCOPE RECORDS,UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, et al.,lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.________________________ Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida________________________ (March 25, 2011)
 
Before BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
*
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:This case concerns a copyright infringement action brought by Saregama IndiaLtd. (“Saregama”) against the Defendants for copying, or digitally sampling, a portionof the Indian song, “Baghor Mein Bahar Hai” (“BMBH”), in the hip-hop song, “PutYou on the Game” (“PYOG”). Saregama, an Indian music production anddistribution company, claims that it owns a copyright in the sound recording of BMBH pursuant to a 1967 agreement (the “Agreement”) between the Indian filmproducer, Shakti Films (“Shakti”), and Saregama’s predecessor in interest,Gramophone Company of India, Ltd. (“Gramophone”). At the core of its claim,Saregama says that the Defendants’ digital sampling of BMBH infringed on itsalleged sound recording copyright. Saregama appeals the district court’s grant of final summary judgment in the Defendants’ favor.The single question before us is whether the Agreement conferred on Saregamaa copyright in the sound recording of BMBH that Saregama continues to own today.After closely examining the Agreement, we hold that the Agreement unambiguouslyconferred on Saregama only a two-year exclusive right, or copyright, to re-record any
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
*
designation.2
 
pre-recorded song covered by the Agreement -- a right that became non-exclusive,and thus ceased being a copyright, at the conclusion of the Agreement’s two-year term. Thus, even if BMBH were covered by the Agreement (a question we need notdecide), Saregama would not currently own a copyright in the BMBH soundrecording and thus lacks statutory standing to bring this copyright infringementaction. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgmentfor the Defendants.
I.
The essential facts surrounding this copyright dispute are these. Since theresolution of this lawsuit turns on the interpretation of the Agreement, we detail itsprovisions at some length.On April 24, 1967, Shakti and Gramophone, Saregama’s predecessor ininterest, entered into an agreement regarding the production and distribution of themusical soundtracks accompanying Shakti’s films. By its terms, the Agreement took 
1
effect on January 15, 1967 and was to last for two years, until January 15, 1969. (DE
Both Shakti and Saregama are companies located and incorporated in India. As
1
Saregama explains it, in March 1995, Gramophone transferred all of its copyrights to GramcoMusic Publishing Private Ltd. (“Gramco”), and, after Gramco merged into Gramophone in June2000, all of Gramco’s assets, including any copyrights, were transferred to Gramophone.Appellant Br. at 4. In March 2000, Gramophone changed its name to “Saregama India Ltd.” Id.Saregama is, therefore, the successor in interest to both Gramco and Gramophone. Id. Thus, indescribing the Agreement, this opinion refers to “Gramophone” and “Saregama” interchangeably,given that any rights the Agreement conferred on Gramophone currently belong to Saregama.3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...