518 F.Supp.3d 719
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Chapman Roberts (Plaintiff) created and copyrighted vocal arrangements for the Broadway musical Smokey Joe’s Café (created 1994; copyright registered 1995) and alleges exclusive ownership.
- BTN (Brandwen Corporate Defendants) recorded two performances in 1999 without Roberts’s permission; BTN/Brandwen distributed the recording (pay-per-view ~2000–2001 and continued distribution through 2013).
- Leiber & Stoller entities (L&S Defendants) licensed or reassigned publishing/distribution rights in the late 1990s and later sold or gave administration rights to Sony/ATV (SATV) in 2007.
- Broadway Worldwide licensed additional rights from SATV in 2018 and BroadwayHD streamed/promoted the recording starting 2019 (including via Amazon), allegedly without Roberts’s authorization or attribution.
- Roberts sued (2019) for direct and contributory copyright infringement, false copyright management information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. §1202, and unjust enrichment. Motions to dismiss followed.
- Court rulings: Brandwen’s motion denied (claims against him survive); L&S Defendants’ and SATV’s motions granted (their claims dismissed). Court reserved decision on leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Individual liability of Bruce Brandwen for copyright infringement and CMI/unjust enrichment | Roberts alleges Brandwen personally controlled Brandwen companies, knew of Roberts’s ownership, participated in distribution, profited, and enabled downstream infringement | Brandwen contends corporate veil/corporate status shield him from individual liability | Denied Brandwen’s motion: FAC sufficiently alleges Brandwen’s personal participation, control, knowledge, and benefit to state plausible individual liability (vicarious/contributory theories) |
| Contributory copyright infringement against L&S Defendants | L&S aided, induced, or materially contributed to downstream distribution; had actual or constructive knowledge; some later acts (allegedly) within limitations | L&S: claim is an ownership claim that accrued in 1999 (when Recording was made/licensed), so barred by the Copyright Act’s 3-year limitations period; other acts outside limitations | Granted: Court treats plaintiff’s theory as an ownership claim that accrued in 1999; contributory claim time-barred and dismissed |
| Contributory copyright infringement against SATV (successor-in-interest) | SATV knew or should have known, granted later licenses (2018), facilitated downstream infringement | SATV: as successor to L&S, accrual dates back to 1999; plaintiff’s ownership-based claim is untimely | Granted: claim dismissed as untimely for same reasons as L&S (successor accrual applies) |
| False CMI (17 U.S.C. §1202) and unjust enrichment vs. L&S and SATV | Roberts alleges distribution without attribution (false CMI) and seeks disgorgement for unjust enrichment | Defendants: FAC fails to allege they provided/distributed false CMI (no specifics); unjust enrichment is preempted/duplicative of copyright claims; §1202 claims untimely | Granted: §1202 claims dismissed for lack of specific allegations and limitations; unjust enrichment dismissed as preempted by Copyright Act (no extra element making it qualitatively different) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts accept well-pleaded facts and draw reasonable inferences)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (explains exclusive rights and secondary liability framework)
- Spinelli v. Nat’l Football League, 903 F.3d 185 (2d Cir.) (contributory infringement requires intentional inducement/encouragement of direct infringement)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir.) (distinguishes ownership claims; accrual when plaintiff put on inquiry notice)
- Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir.) (accrual when reasonably diligent plaintiff would be on inquiry)
- Briarpatch Ltd. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir.) (Copyright Act preemption: state claim must have an extra element that makes it qualitatively different)
- Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.) (analysis of what rights/claims copyright law protects)
- Simmons v. Stanberry, 810 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.) (untimely ownership claims cannot be revived by later infringing acts)