254 F. Supp. 3d 584
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs LAMCO (a New York music publisher) and ACEMLA (a Puerto Rico licensing society) sued Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (SBS) for copyright infringement alleging SBS played six identified songs without licenses.
- Trial was a bench trial; plaintiffs presented one witness, LAMCO/ACEMLA president Luis Raúl Bernard, who submitted an affidavit and testified.
- Bernard claimed LAMCO owned the copyright registrations and personally recorded instances of SBS playing the Songs at specific dates/times, but the underlying audio recordings were not produced in discovery and were excluded at trial.
- Documentary evidence and Bernard’s cross-examination showed (1) LAMCO had transferred copyrights to a third party (Dolores Vera) in 2002, (2) a sub-publishing agreement purportedly granted LAMCO limited enforcement rights but terminated upon insolvency, and (3) LAMCO entered bankruptcy in 2014 for more than 30 days.
- Bernard’s testimony was internally inconsistent and contradicted by documents; the Court found his testimony not credible.
- After plaintiffs rested, the Court granted defendant’s Rule 52(c) motion and entered judgment for SBS because plaintiffs failed to prove ownership or that SBS played the songs as alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing/ownership of copyrights | LAMCO/ACEMLA (via Bernard) asserted ownership of copyright registrations and enforcement rights. | Documents show LAMCO transferred copyrights to Dolores Vera in 2002; sub-publishing enforcement rights terminated upon LAMCO's bankruptcy. | Plaintiffs failed to prove they are owners or exclusive licensees; no standing established. |
| Evidence SBS played the Songs (infringement) | Bernard testified he heard and recorded specific broadcasts at stated dates/times. | Bernard’s testimony was inconsistent, recordings were not produced, and other details were unreliable. | Plaintiffs failed to prove by preponderance that SBS played the Songs as alleged. |
| Admissibility/preservation of recordings | Plaintiffs later claimed Bernard retained recordings. | Recordings were not produced in discovery; Court excluded them for discovery/preservation failures. | Exclusion upheld; recordings not considered. |
| Appropriateness of Rule 52(c) judgment | Plaintiffs argued their submissions sufficed to proceed. | Defendant moved under Rule 52(c) after plaintiffs rested, arguing plaintiff had not met burden. | Court weighed evidence, found plaintiffs failed to meet burden, and granted judgment for defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metro. Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 521 U.S. 121 (court may assess credibility and preponderance standard)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright infringement requires ownership and copying of original elements)
- Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc’ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) (Rule 52(c) judgment applicable where plaintiff fails to show right to relief)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2011) (ownership and copying elements restated)
- Urbont v. Sony Music Entm’t, 831 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2016) (ownership is required for standing to sue)
- ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 944 F.2d 971 (2d Cir. 1991) (third parties may not sue on owner’s behalf)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (defining scope of infringing acts under section 106)
- Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 571 U.S. 204 (copyright plaintiff bears burden to prove infringement)