Systems XIX, Inc. v. Parker
30 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish joint authorship of a sound recording under the Copyright Act, a party must show that the authors intended to merge their contributions into a unitary whole and that each author made a copyrightable contribution. For collaborations between performers and producers, intent can be inferred from objective facts and conduct, and the necessary permission to use underlying musical compositions can be established through an implied non-exclusive license.
Facts:
- In mid-January 1997, concert promoter Albert Cook contacted Maritime Hall Productions (Maritime) to arrange a performance by rap artist Lawrence Parker, known as KRS-ONE.
- During negotiations, Cook informed Maritime that recordings of the concert might be used on Parker's upcoming album, and Maritime's president stated that this would require compensation and producer credits.
- The parties failed to sign a formal Artist Engagement Contract, partly due to disagreements over the terms for recording the performance.
- On the day of the concert, March 15, 1997, Parker's road manager, Wesley Powell, asked Maritime to record the show because Parker's own sound engineer was not present.
- Maritime set up and used professional recording equipment, including microphones and cameras, to record the concert.
- After the performance, Maritime provided Powell with a master tape of the sound recording.
- In the summer of 1997, Parker and his record company, Zomba Recording Corporation (Zomba), released an album titled "I Got Next," which included two tracks derived from the sound recording made at Maritime Hall.
- The album liner notes for the two tracks from the Maritime Hall concert did not include any producer credits for Maritime.
Procedural Posture:
- Maritime Hall Productions filed a lawsuit against Lawrence Parker and Zomba Recording Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The complaint sought a declaratory judgment establishing Maritime's joint copyright ownership of a sound recording and, in the alternative, damages for unjust enrichment (quantum meruit).
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to have all of Maritime's claims dismissed before trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a concert venue that professionally records a musical performance at the artist's request become a joint author of the resulting sound recording, entitled to copyright protection, when there is no written agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Illston, District Judge
Yes, a concert venue can potentially become a joint author if it demonstrates that triable issues of fact exist regarding the parties' intent and its own copyrightable contribution. The court determined that the test for intent in a producer/performer relationship for a sound recording is based on an objective, factual standard, not the heightened subjective standard from Childress v. Taylor, because Congress specifically contemplated this type of collaboration as giving rise to joint authorship. A jury could reasonably infer from the defendants' conduct—requesting the recording, observing the professional setup, accepting the master tape, and commercially releasing the tracks—that they intended to create a joint work with Maritime. Furthermore, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Maritime made a copyrightable contribution and received an implied non-exclusive license to use Parker’s underlying musical compositions. This implied license could be inferred from Parker, acting as Zomba's agent, requesting the recording of his performance. Therefore, summary judgment on the copyright claim is denied. However, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Maritime's state law claim for unjust enrichment, finding it was preempted by the federal Copyright Act because the claim sought to vindicate rights equivalent to those protected by copyright law (reproduction and distribution).
Analysis:
This case clarifies the standard for determining joint authorship for sound recordings, distinguishing it from the standard applied to other creative works like plays. It establishes that for producer-performer collaborations, which Congress specifically envisioned, an objective assessment of the parties' conduct is sufficient to establish intent to create a joint work. The decision also reinforces the concept of an implied non-exclusive license, showing that permission to use copyrighted material can be granted through actions rather than explicit words. This lowers the bar for producers and sound engineers in similar situations to claim co-ownership, emphasizing the importance of clear, written agreements to avoid disputes over copyright ownership.
Unlock the full brief for Systems XIX, Inc. v. Parker