Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment
863 F. Supp. 2d 279
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Urbont sues Coles, Sony Music/ Epic Records, and Razor Sharp for infringement of the Iron Man Theme’s musical composition and sound recording.
- Urbont contends copyright renewal and registration were properly done; he alleges infringement by Coles on Supreme Clientele tracks and by Sony via distribution.
- Urbont learned of alleged infringement in late 2009 or early 2010 and entered a tolling agreement as of May 21, 2010.
- Complaint filed June 30, 2011; amended complaint filed August 29, 2011 asserting federal and state-law claims (common law copyright, unfair competition, misappropriation).
- Sony moves to dismiss federal claims prior to May 21, 2007 as untimely and to dismiss all state-law claims.
- Court holds: federal claims pre-May 21, 2007 are time-barred; state-law claims survive only for acts after that date and tolling considerations are addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| accrual rule for federal copyright claims | Urbont argues discovery rule should apply to accrual. | Sony argues injury rule applies, accrual at each act. | Injury rule adopted; pre-2007 acts time-barred. |
| timeliness of state-law claims for infringement | State claims timely post-2007 acts; pre-2007 barred. | All time-barred state claims should be dismissed. | State claims limited to acts after May 21, 2007; pre-2007 time-barred. |
| equitable tolling and its impact on accrual | Tolling could revive or extend rights due to concealment or other factors. | Equitable tolling does not create a discovery rule; fraudulent concealment tolling is limited. | Court recognizes tolling possibilities but ultimately applies injury rule; Urbont withdrew any claim for equitable tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Williams, 970 F.2d 1043 (2d Cir.1992) (discusses accrual and ownership vs infringement distinctions)
- Kwan v. Schlein, 634 F.3d 224 (2d Cir.2011) (ownership accrual may differ from infringement accrual)
- Auscape Int’l v. Nat’l Geographic Soc., 409 F.Supp.2d 235 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (injury-rule accrual for infringement claims adopted by court)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (U.S. 2001) (limits discovery-rule considerations; discusses accrual concepts)
- Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 131 S. Ct. 2501 (U.S. 2011) (discovery rule as an exceptional doctrine; fraud context emphasis)
- Gabelli v. SEC, 653 F.3d 49 (2d Cir.2011) (discovery rule limited; fraud tolling distinguished from accrual)
- Sporn v. MCA Records, Inc., 58 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y.2d 1983) (accrual under New York CPLR on master recording rights (conversion vs trespass))
- SongByrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman, 206 F.3d 172 (2d Cir.2000) (timeliness of claims involving master recordings)
- Sporn v. MCA Records, Inc., 58 N.Y.2d 482 (N.Y.2d 1983) (accrual and misappropriation of tangible property in master recording context)