Luar Music Corp. v. Universal Music Group, Inc.
861 F. Supp. 2d 30
D.P.R.2012Background
- Luar Music Corp. owns the Copyrighted Work “Dale Don Dale.”
- Defendants Universal Music Group and UMG Recordings allegedly included the Copyrighted Work in Reggaeton Latino and a remixed version in Fiebre de Reggaeton.
- Plaintiff moves for summary judgment; Defendants cross-move for summary judgment.
- Re-Mixer and Revised Re-Mixer Agreements were drafted to authorize remix and inclusion, but were never signed by Luar’s authorized agent Raul, though emails show some discussions.
- Reggaeton Latino distribution involved unsigned authorizations and disputed authority to grant licenses; Fiebre de Reggaeton was released in Mexico, with questions about who released it and whether extraterritorial application applies.
- Court must determine (a) whether a license (exclusive or nonexclusive) existed to authorize the remix, and (b) whether the predicate-act exception allows U.S. infringement liability for acts abroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an exclusive license existed. | Luar did not authorize an exclusive license. | Re-Mixer and emails constitute a written exclusive license. | No exclusive license; unsigned authorization prevents validity. |
| Whether a nonexclusive license was granted orally. | Plaintiff acquiesced; Raul granted consent. | Consent via Gustavo’s statement supports nonexclusive grant. | Questions of material fact on nonexclusive license preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the predicate-act exception makes US infringement actionable abroad (Mexico). | Infringement in the US plus ability to yield reproduction abroad. | Extr at territorial reach; Mexico release not actionable. | Predicate-act exception not established; extraterritorial claims fail absent domestic act. |
| Whether Fiebre de Reggaeton’s Mexico release falls within Copyright Act reach. | Act occurred abroad but predicate acts may apply. | Extraterritorial application barred absent predicate acts. | Claims fail absent domestic act facilitating reproduction abroad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (ownership requires original contribution; copying elements needed for infringement)
- I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.1996) (license types: exclusive and nonexclusive; burdens on proving licenses)
- Winchester-Conant Props., Inc. v. John G. Danielson, Inc., 322 F.3d 26 (1st Cir.2003) (duly authorized agent concept; written licenses require authorized signatory)
- Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Commn’ns Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.1994) (extraterritorial reach generally limited; predicate acts analyze domestic infringement)
- Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publ’g, Ltd., 843 F.2d 67 (2d Cir.1988) (premises for predicate-act exception; domestic act enabling foreign reproduction)
- Elsevier Ltd. v. Chitika, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 398 (D. Mass.2011) (predicate-act framework; domestic act permitting export of copies)