Alicea v. MacHete Music, 744 F.3d 773

Background

Four Massachusetts reggaeton producers (Martinez, Montalvo, Rivera, Colon) worked on recordings for Erre XI produced by Mas Flow; seven songs later appeared on an Erre XI album distributed by Machete/UMG with many plaintiff contributions replaced.
Plaintiffs sued (copyright infringement, breach of contract, etc.) against Mas Flow principals and distributors; claims against several defendants were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, leaving Machete/UMG as defendants.
At summary judgment, defendants argued plaintiffs had not satisfied 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) registration prerequisites and had no direct contracts or third‑party beneficiary rights under the Profit Share Agreement between Machete and LT/Benjamin.
Plaintiffs had submitted copies of the distributed recordings to the Copyright Office; the Office questioned whether non‑original (unauthorized) deposited tracks met deposit requirements and had not issued composition registrations by the summary judgment ruling.
The district court granted summary judgment for UMG/Machete (copyright claims for lack of registration; contract claims for no direct contract and no intended third‑party beneficiary status) and denied plaintiffs’ motions for additional discovery, transfer, and reconsideration; plaintiffs later obtained two composition registrations and some rejections.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §411(a) preregistration/registration satisfied	Plaintiffs argued they filed applications/deposits and later produced Copyright Office email showing applications pending; later obtained two registrations	Defendants argued no completed registration or adequate deposit existed at time of suit/summary judgment	Court: SJ for defendants — plaintiffs had not shown complete applications or acceptable deposits at summary judgment; later registrations do not cure that for reconsideration
Whether plaintiffs can assert sound‑recording infringement or joint‑authorship	Plaintiffs implied claims in registrations and sought declaration of joint authorship	Defendants argued complaint pleaded only composition claims and did not plead sound‑recording or properly pleaded joint authorship	Held: Claims not pleaded below cannot be raised on appeal; district court did not err in excluding these theories
Whether Rivera/others had direct contracts with UMG or were third‑party beneficiaries of the Profit Share Agreement	Plaintiffs contended Rivera had expectation/industry practice that UMG would pay royalties and that the Agreement intended to benefit producers	Defendants argued Agreement showed LT—not Machete/UMG—was responsible for producer compensation; extrinsic evidence cannot contradict clear contract language	Held: SJ for defendants — Agreement unambiguously made LT responsible; no intended beneficiary status shown; no direct UMG contract proven
Whether district court abused discretion re: Rule 56(d) discovery and §1631 transfer	Plaintiffs sought further discovery to authenticate documents and transfer to Puerto Rico	Defendants opposed as unnecessary or untimely; court had jurisdiction over UMG so §1631 transfer inapplicable	Held: No abuse — plaintiffs failed to show additional discovery would defeat SJ; transfer inappropriate because no want of jurisdiction and transfer not in interest of justice

Key Cases Cited

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (registration is a precondition to filing an infringement action)
Latin Am. Music Co. Inc. v. Media Power Grp., Inc., 705 F.3d 34 (discussing circuits’ split on application vs. registration approach)
Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (registration prerequisites and summary judgment context)
Geoscan, Inc. v. Geotrace Techs., Inc., 226 F.3d 387 (upholding SJ where Copyright Office indicated registration incomplete for lack of proper deposit)
Betterbox Commc'ns Ltd. v. BB Techs., Inc., 300 F.3d 325 (post‑judgment PTO actions are not "newly discovered" facts for reconsideration purposes)
Emmanuel v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local Union No. 25, 426 F.3d 416 (Rule 59(e) relief requires due diligence; cannot present evidence that could have been earlier)
Miller v. Mooney, 725 N.E.2d 545 (Mass.) (third‑party beneficiary requires clear and definite intent to benefit)