P. 1
50 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop Opinion

50 Cent v. World Star Hip Hop Opinion

|Views: 42,506|Likes:
Published by Mark H. Jaffe
Court finds in favor of 50 Cent on his copyright infringement and right of publicity claims. The other claims, including trademark infringement, will proceed.

The website worldstarhiphop (perhaps more famous for its viral videos of street fights than of music) had posted unauthorized images of 50 Cent, from the cover art of his mixtapes.

On the copyright infringement claim, the defendants argued that the photographs were not properly registered because they were registered as part of the sound recordings instead of separately as photographs. However, the copyright office permits copyright owners to register separate copyrightable works that a part of a sound recording in the single sound recording copyright registration - see pages 9-10 of the opinion.

For informational purposes only. Not legal advice. I am not representing any parties in this action. For more information about our practice, see:
http://torekeland.com/about/mark-h-jaffe
and legal tidbits on my twitter feed:
@MarkJKings
Court finds in favor of 50 Cent on his copyright infringement and right of publicity claims. The other claims, including trademark infringement, will proceed.

The website worldstarhiphop (perhaps more famous for its viral videos of street fights than of music) had posted unauthorized images of 50 Cent, from the cover art of his mixtapes.

On the copyright infringement claim, the defendants argued that the photographs were not properly registered because they were registered as part of the sound recordings instead of separately as photographs. However, the copyright office permits copyright owners to register separate copyrightable works that a part of a sound recording in the single sound recording copyright registration - see pages 9-10 of the opinion.

For informational purposes only. Not legal advice. I am not representing any parties in this action. For more information about our practice, see:
http://torekeland.com/about/mark-h-jaffe
and legal tidbits on my twitter feed:
@MarkJKings

More info:

Published by: Mark H. Jaffe on Mar 26, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/17/2015

pdf

text

original

limitations defense in their answer as to the Plaintiffs’ New

York Civil Rights Law claim, and now seek leave to amend. (Def.

Reply Mem. 4 n.7.) Because we are well past the December 15,

2009 deadline to amend pleadings, Defendants must show good

cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

The touchstone of good cause is the moving party’s

diligence. See Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir.

2009). Defendants’ only justification for not pleading the

statute of limitations defense is that they meant to interpose a

general statute of limitations defense but erroneously tied the

defense to the copyright claim. They had over four months after

they interposed the answer to catch their mistake before the

Court’s scheduling deadline. After the deadline, they had over

three years to bring the mistake to the Court’s attention. That

Defendants’ June 7, 2011 letter suggested the defense does not

save the defense because that was nearly a year and a half after

the missed deadline. This does not demonstrate diligence. See

Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003)

– 17 –

(holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying leave to amend complaint after delay of more than a

year); Scott v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Corr., No. 04 Civ. 9638,

2007 WL 4178405, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2007) (finding that

counsel’s mistake or inadvertence did not support good cause).

Leave to amend is therefore denied, and the statute of

limitations will not bar entry of judgment in favor of

Plaintiffs on this issue.

D. Plaintiffs’ False Endorsement Claim

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->