Saregama India Ltd. v. Mosley
635 F.3d 1284
11th Cir.2011Background
- Saregama sued Tim Mosley et al. for copyright infringement based on sampling from the Indian BMBH sound recording in PYOG.
- BMBH ownership purportedly rests on a 1967 agreement between Shakti Films and Gramophone (Saregama's predecessor) governing Shakti's film recordings.
- The agreement lasted two years (Jan 15, 1967–Jan 15, 1969) with a potential one-year extension; Indian law governs the contract terms.
- Clause 7 assigned Gramophone’s gramophone recording rights; Clause 5 made the re-recording exclusivity for pre-recorded songs limited to the two-year term.
- Clause 6 and Clause 10 described royalties and world-wide production rights; the district court held the rights were only two-year exclusive rights that expired, leaving no current sound-recording copyright in BMBH.
- The Eleventh Circuit held Saregama does not currently own a sound-recording copyright and lacks standing to sue, regardless of whether BMBH was covered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Agreement conveyed a current sound-recording copyright to Saregama | Saregama contends the Agreement transferred a persisting copyright in BMBH. | Defendants argue the rights were limited to a two-year exclusive license that expired, not a continuing copyright. | Two-year exclusive right expired; no current sound-recording copyright. |
| Whether Saregama has statutory standing to sue in the US | Saregama asserts ownership of a sound-recording copyright with standing. | Without current ownership, there is no standing to bring a federal infringement claim. | Saregama lacks standing; no current exclusive rights. |
| If BMBH were covered, does ownership transfer permit infringement claim | Even if covered, Saregama would retain exclusive rights to the sound recording. | Even if covered, the rights were time-limited and non-exclusive after termination. | In any event, ownership did not persist post-term; no infringement claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peter Letterese & Assocs., Inc. v. World Inst. of Scientology Enters., Int'l, 533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008) (copyright ownership requires a valid underlying ownership.)
- Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998) (origin of copyright ownership governs initial ownership.)
- Davis v. Blige, 505 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2007) (exclusive licenses may affect standing to sue.)
- Orkin Exterminating Co. v. FTC, 849 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir. 1988) (parol evidence doctrine limits consideration of extrinsic evidence in contract interpretation.)