105 F.4th 1
1st Cir.2024Background
- El Gran Combo is a prominent Puerto Rican band, organized as a corporation (EGC Corp.) and led by founder Rafael Ithier.
- Carlos Aponte-Cruz was a member and lead vocalist for El Gran Combo from 1973 to 2014, performing on more than 200 recordings.
- Under 17 U.S.C. § 114(g), a 45% share of digital performance royalties is allocated to the “featured recording artist or artists” on each sound recording.
- After Aponte-Cruz left the band, he sought royalties as a featured artist for recordings on which he performed; SoundExchange paused payments during the dispute.
- Ithier and EGC Corp. sued Aponte-Cruz, arguing only the band as a corporate entity should receive the featured artist royalties, with Aponte-Cruz eligible at most for a share as a non-featured vocalist.
- The district court sided with Ithier and EGC Corp., granting summary judgment for them; Aponte-Cruz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ithier/EGC) | Defendant's Argument (Aponte-Cruz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is the "featured artist" under § 114(g) for a band’s sound recordings? | Only the band as a corporate entity (El Gran Combo/EGC), not individual members, is the featured artist if the album cover names only the band. | The individual members who performed—here, Aponte-Cruz as lead vocalist—are the "featured artists," regardless of whether the cover names the band only. | The individual performers (band members) on the recordings are the "featured artists." |
| Is Aponte-Cruz entitled to a share of the 45% statutory royalties? | No; as a former band member, Aponte-Cruz is only eligible as a non-featured vocalist (small royalty share). | Yes; Aponte-Cruz performed as a lead vocalist and is thus a "featured artist" entitled to a share of the 45%. | Yes; Aponte-Cruz is a "featured artist" and entitled to the 45% royalty share. |
| Does the text and legislative history of § 114(g) support the band-entity-only rule? | Yes; focuses on cover attribution and the dictionary definition of "featured" to argue only the entity is entitled. | No; text and legislative history indicate Congress intended royalties to go directly to the actual performing artists—the natural persons. | No; statutory and legislative context favor payment to the natural persons performing. |
| Is SoundExchange’s longstanding royalty distribution practice relevant? | Practice is not dispositive; statutory text controls. | Distribution to individual performers reflects correct statutory interpretation and industry norms. | Practice is consistent with statutory text and supports interpretation favoring individual performers. |
Key Cases Cited
- SoundExchange, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 904 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (describes SoundExchange’s statutory role in distributing digital royalties)
- SoundExchange, Inc. v. Muzak LLC, 854 F.3d 713 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (describes process for royalty collection and distribution by SoundExchange)
- Pleasantdale Condos., LLC v. Wakefield, 37 F.4th 728 (1st Cir. 2022) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Borges ex rel. S.M.B.W. v. Serrano-Isern, 605 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard)
- Wightman v. Springfield Terminal Ry. Co., 100 F.3d 228 (1st Cir. 1996) (cross-motion summary judgment review)
- In re Graves, 33 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 1994) (statutory construction should avoid confusion)