Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. James Griffith, Jr.
49 F.4th 1018
6th Cir.2022Background:
- Joe Hand Promotions (JHP) obtained a Commercial Licensing Agreement from Mayweather Promotions on Aug 1, 2017, giving JHP the exclusive right to license and authorize public commercial exhibitions of the Mayweather–McGregor pay‑per‑view (the "Fight") in a defined territory.
- Showtime produced the Fight, contracted with Mayweather on June 20, 2017 (Distribution Agreement), and later registered the Fight with the Copyright Office on Oct 26, 2017.
- On Nov 21, 2017, Showtime and JHP executed a short Copyright Agreement stating JHP had the exclusive commercial rights to distribute and enforce rights for the August 26, 2017 live broadcast; Mayweather also signed that agreement.
- Defendants Griffith and Lesley livestreamed the Fight at their bar on Aug 26, 2017 using a $99 personal stream and an HDMI hookup, charged admission, and did not buy a commercial license; JHP sued for copyright infringement.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding JHP lacked ownership of an exclusive right on the date of the infringement because the Copyright Agreement was executed after the broadcast and (effectively) only granted a bare right to sue.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed: reviewing the Distribution Agreement and the Commercial Licensing Agreement together with the Copyright Agreement and the parties’ pre‑broadcast conduct, the court held JHP held an exclusive commercial right on Aug 26, 2017 and that the post‑registration Copyright Agreement simply formalized existing rights; JHP therefore has standing and met the live‑broadcast registration timing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did JHP own an exclusive right in the Fight on Aug 26, 2017? | JHP: Yes — Mayweather granted JHP an exclusive commercial license before the Fight and JHP acted as the exclusive distributor. | Defendants: No — the Copyright Agreement was signed after the Fight and at best created a retroactive or bare right to sue, not ownership at the time. | Held: Yes — earlier Distribution and Commercial Licensing Agreements and JHP’s pre‑broadcast conduct show JHP held the exclusive distribution right on Aug 26, 2017; Copyright Agreement reaffirmed that. |
| Can a post‑broadcast transfer that purports to be retroactive supply ownership? | JHP: Not necessary here — the post‑registration agreement formalized preexisting rights. | Defendants: If treated as retroactive, such a transfer is illusory and cannot create ownership after the fact. | Held: Court avoided deciding legality of retroactive transfers; found no retroactivity problem because rights were conveyed pre‑broadcast. |
| Is a "bare" right to sue sufficient to confer ownership under the Copyright Act? | JHP: Not applicable — JHP holds substantive exclusive rights, not merely a bare right to sue. | Defendants: Precedent (2d & 9th Circuits) holds bare suit‑rights are insufficient for standing. | Held: Court did not resolve the bare‑suit rule but concluded JHP had an actual exclusive right independent of any bare right to sue. |
| Was the registration requirement for suits on live broadcasts satisfied? | JHP: Yes — Showtime registered the copyright within three months of the live broadcast, enabling suit for unregistered live telecasts per §411(c). | Defendants: Standing defect would render registration irrelevant. | Held: Yes — registration occurred within three months of the live broadcast; because JHP held the exclusive right at the time, JHP may sue. |
Key Cases Cited
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo, 882 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2018) (discusses whether an assignee holding only a bare right to sue has standing under the Copyright Act)
- Silvers v. Sony Pictures Ent., Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (holds that a bare right to sue, without ownership of an exclusive right, does not confer standing)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. WB Music Corp., 508 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2007) (elements of copyright infringement include ownership of a valid copyright)
- Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2004) (copyright infringement framework and infringement elements)
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall‑Street.com, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) (registration as an administrative‑exhaustion requirement and timing rules for bringing suit)