Michael Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions, Inc., et
693 F.3d 491
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Baisden sues IRP, Image, A.L.W. Entertainment, Guidry, and Johnson for copyright infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference; defendants cross-appeal attorneys’ fees denial.
- 2001 Men Cry Agreement gave IRP exclusive ownership of the stageplay copyrights and IRP merchandising rights; Baisden to receive 40% of merchandising net profits and 40% of net profits from Baisden-created works for live performances.
- 2002 Maintenance Man Agreement followed, with similar ownership and merchandising terms; December 2002 amendments extended rights upon third-party merchandise deals.
- IRP produced stage plays and toured; 2002–2005 oral/merchandising modifications allegedly allowed each party to keep its own product profits; in 2005 a new tour and a royalties arrangement were enacted.
- IRP and Image entered into a DVD distribution deal; Baisden accused infringement in 2007 after seeing the Men Cry and Maintenance Man DVD recordings.
- A nine-day jury trial yielded a verdict in favor of Defendants on copyright and contract claims; district court denied attorneys’ fees; Baisden timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants infringed copyrights | Baisden argues no valid license and unlawful copying. | IRP/Image had exclusive/nonexclusive licenses; implied license via conduct. | No infringement; exclusive license for Maintenance Man; implied nonexclusive license for Men Cry granted. |
| Whether the district court properly construed IRP copyrights in declaratory judgments | Declarations expand IRP rights beyond agreements. | Declarations align with contract language and preserve plaintiff’s novel copyrights. | Declarations limited to IRP-produced material; preserved Baisden’s copyrights in underlying novels. |
| Whether the denial of a new trial was erroneous | Jury instructions and verdict form flawed; errors warrant new trial. | No reversible error; law-of-the-case issues and burdens properly addressed; no plain error. | Denied; no abuse of discretion; challenged aspects not shown to mandate a new trial. |
| Whether tortious interference lacked standing | Baisden asserts third-party beneficiary status and right to sue. | Baisden not a party to the contract; no standing. | Properly dismissed for lack of standing. |
| Whether defendants’ attorneys’ fees should have been awarded | Defendants Prevail; fees should be awarded under 17 U.S.C. § 505. | Court properly exercised discretion; suit not frivolous or unreasonable. | District court did not abuse discretion; fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flowers v. S. Reg'l Physician Servs., Inc., 247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for judgment as a matter of law and deference to jury verdicts)
- Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of JML with standards applied)
- American Home Assurance Co. v. United Space Alliance, LLC, 378 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for appellate review of jury verdicts and evidence)
- Lulirama Ltd., Inc. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872 (5th Cir. 1997) (implied nonexclusive license by conduct; writing not required)
- Meredith v. La. Fed’n of Teachers, 209 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2000) (evidence supporting oral contract extension)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for verdict form and trial errors)
- Matter of Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 6 F.3d 1119 (5th Cir. 1993) (statute of frauds and performance-related exceptions)
- Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd. v. Occidental Crude Sales, Inc., 848 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1988) (standing and jurisdiction in tortious interference contexts)