Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Asociación De Compositores Y Editores De Música Latinoamericana
678 F.3d 102
1st Cir.2012Background
- BPPR sought a declaratory judgment on copyright and royalty ownership for 1993–1999 Christmas concerts, depositing royalties with the district court.
- LAMCO/ACEMLA and GVLI countersued for copyright infringement; the district court consolidated actions and denied summary judgment on most issues.
- A 2009 settlement resolved most disputes and excluded the 12 Undisputed LAMCO songs and GVLI's Genesis dispute from settlement; BPPR challenged whether four 1999 songs fell within the settlement.
- A July 2010 bench trial determined GVLI owned Genesis rights 1993–1997 and LAMCO/ACEMLA infringed by retroactive licensing; GVLI damages awarded.
- A August 2010 jury found BPPR infringed Fichas Negras and Madrigal (with BPPR deemed an innocent infringer) and awarded damages; the district court issued injunctions related to the 1999 concert.
- The court later addressed BPPR’s offset requests and ownership issues for Genesis and Ojos Chinos, maintaining the injunction and denying offsets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of settlement on Undisputed LAMCO songs | BPPR argues the twelve Undisputed LAMCO songs include excluded items. | LAMCO/ACEMLA contends the twelve songs remain litigable per agreement. | Settlement allowed further litigation of the twelve Undisputed LAMCO songs. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for LAMCO/ACEMLA ownership of Fichas Negras and Madrigal | BPPR asserts LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to prove ownership/valid registrations; claims lack of licenses. | LAMCO/ACEMLA presented registrations and ownership evidence; BPPR misuses defenses. | Evidence supported ownership and infringement finding; copyright misuse defense rejected. |
| Admissibility of Johnny Rodriguez's will evidence | BPPR seeks newly discovered will to prove ownership; argues discovery violation. | LAMCO/ACEMLA contends late disclosure would delay trial and require further discovery. | District court did not abuse discretion; late evidence excluded. |
| Genesis ownership and liability for infringement | LAMCO/ACEMLA argues no exclusive Genesis rights; BPPR argues retroactive licenses were valid. | GVLI had exclusive rights 1993–1997; LAMCO/ACEMLA infringed by licensing. | GVLI held exclusive rights; LAMCO/ACEMLA infringed by retroactive licensing. |
| BPPR offset claims for Genesis and Ojos Chinos | BPPR seeks refund/offset for payments under retroactive licenses. | Funds were transferred to GVLI for Genesis; Ojos Chinos ownership not proven to negate licenses. | Offsets denied; GVLI damages upheld; injunction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Venegas-Hernández v. ACEMLA, 424 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (ownership and rights issues in music publishing dicta regarding ownership.)
- Archdiocese of San Juan v. Roman Catholic Church, 499 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2007) (Lamco/ACEMLA ownership and licensing discussed; Genesis exposure.)
- Galarneau v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 504 F.3d 189 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on appeal.)
- Quint v. A.E. Staley Mfg. Co., 246 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2001) (clear error vs de novo review framework.)
- Kenda Corp. v. Pot O'Gold Money Leagues, Inc., 329 F.3d 216 (1st Cir. 2003) (evidentiary and sufficiency standards in evaluating verdicts.)