On September 28th, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joanne B. O’Donnell ruled that Ricky Nelson’s estate can pursue a lawsuit against Capitol Records regarding royalties due to the late singer’s estate from digital downloads.  The case, which has been pending for some time, alleges that Nelson’s 1958 contract was breached due to Capitol Records underpaying royalties for music recorded by the singer.  The decision made by the judge is one of much interest to the music industry, an industry which has been greatly affected in recent years due to digital downloads on the internet.

A royalty of 50% is being sought by Nelson’s estate on sales of Nelson recordings by Capitol licensees.  The contract between the estate and Capitol Records allows for a 10% royalty rate; however, Nelson’s estate argues that the 1958 contract refers only to “physical copies” of Nelson’s music and therefore does not apply to digital distribution.  Neville Johnson, the estate’s attorney, argued that Nelson’s master recordings are only covered for use in a “tangible physical form” in the 1958 contract in a hearing on Capitol’s motion to dismiss the case.

Capitol Record’s attorney Melinda LeMoine stated that regardless of whether the 1958 contract only governs the physical uses of a master recording, “We can still make reproductions of it in whatever format we like.  That’s what digital distribution is.”  Estate attorney Johnson said following the hearing that the interpretation of the contract by Judge O’Donnell could affect any musician with a contract which does not cover digital downloads specifically.  Johnson said that this is a very important case that could set a precedent.

Capitol stands its ground saying that the language used in the 1958 contract is broad enough to include digital downloads.  The contract was originally between Nelson and Imperial Records, which as acquired by Capitol at a later date.  The contract defines a master recording as “any original recording, whether on magnetic recording tape or wire, a lacquer or wax disc, or on any other substance or material, whether now known or unknown.”  Further, the contract granted Imperial permission to reproduce a master “by any method now or hereafter known.”

The question now is whether parties to the contract could have possibly foreseen the dramatically changed landscape of music production and distribution that the industry faces today.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has successfully represented clients in hundreds of cases involving royalty and music industry agreements, film, movie and television production and development contracts, matters involving entertainment litigation and more.  Count on our capable and aggressive team of Los Angeles entertainment lawyers for your legal needs.

In April of this year, CBS claimed that ComStar Media, who acquired FamilyNet Television in 2009, failed to pay licensing fees beginning in 2010.  FamilyNet Television broadcast shows targeted at families and sitcoms including My Three Sons, Family Ties and Happy Days.  CBS owned many of the shows, and said in their complaint that licensing payments stopped coming in 2010.

In 2009, a licensing agreement remained in place for the specified television shows; ComStar also acquired AmericanLife Television Network, and touted that the library of sitcoms, including Happy Days and My Three Sons, owned by CBS, would be available to some 50 million households.  When payments stopped in 2010, ComStar resisted payments according to the complaint.  In fact, ComStar claimed in the original lawsuit that when they acquired the assets of FamilyNet, they did not acquire the liabilities corresponding to the assets, and therefore were under no obligation to make license payments to CBS, who alleged $1.5 million in damages in the complaint.

ComStar is owned by Robert Schuller, “Hour of Power” minister and GodTube founder Chris Wyatt.  Originally, FamilyNet and CBS had come to an agreement in December of 2008 regarding licensing the television shows; when ComStar acquired FamilyNet, license payments stopped soon after.

While CBS and ComStar came to an agreement on Friday October 19th, the financial terms of the settlement were not revealed to the public.  Chairman of Family Net Management Robert A. Schuller stated, “I am pleased that we have been able to reach an amicable resolution to this matter.  We look forward to the opportunity to do business with CBS in the future.”

At the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles entertainment attorneys are skilled in many aspects of entertainment law, including licensing agreements, film, movie, and television contracts, royalty and management agreements and other business matters.  We offer a hands-on approach and take a personal interest in reaching positive results for every client we represent.

Stan Lee Media, an internet based company founded in 1998 (and not Stan Lee, the creator of Marvel comics), recently filed a lawsuit against Disney claiming that the company was infringing on Stan Lee Media’s copyrights through Marvel movies including Spider-Man, Captain America and The Avengers.  According to news reports, Stan Lee Media is asking that the rights to the Marvel characters revert back to them, and for $5.5 billion in profits that Walt Disney Company allegedly made through merchandise and super-hero movies Stan Lee created.

The Walt Disney Company states that they indeed own the copyright to these super-hero characters, and hundreds more created by Stan Lee, who signed over rights to characters that he had already created or would create to SLMI (Stan Lee Media, Inc.) in October of 1998.  Although Stan Lee was paid when SLMI took over rights to the comic book characters, the company soon sought bankruptcy protection when the late 1990s experienced a dot-com market crash.  Stan Lee sued Stan Lee Media for copyright infringement himself in 2007.

SLMI claims that it clearly has rights to the characters, and that in fact in March of 2000, an amended version of the 1998 agreement was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Although Lee himself no longer owned the rights to the characters in 1998, he reportedly gave Marvel the rights to them in a signed written agreement in November of that year.  The lawsuit notes that the agreement between Lee and Marvel actually assigns nothing, because Lee no longer owned the characters.  In August of 2009, Disney purchased Marvel for $4 billion

In 2009, a lawsuit was filed against Stan Lee and Marvel by SLMI in a New York federal court over ownership of the characters; however, it was dismissed.

At the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, our Los Angeles entertainment attorneys specialize in many legal aspects that pertain to the entertainment industry including licensing, management and publishing agreements, film, television and movie production, development and distribution contracts and more.  Contact our office for unparalleled legal guidance and representation in all entertainment business matters.

As thousands of authors claim that search engine giant Google is illegally profiting from their works, a 7 year long legal battle between several members of the Association of American Publishers and Google over digital copyrights has been settled.  On Thursday, October 4th announcements were made that a federal lawsuit filed in 2005 by Penguin Group, Simon & Schuster, McGraw-Hill Companies and other publishers has ended.  The lawsuit was filed by members of the Association of American Publishers after Google made it possible for users to find books in digital form by performing a search on the Internet.  These digital duplicates were allegedly scanned from libraries.

In 2011, a $125 million settlement was reached by the involved parties, however a judge rejected the settlement.  A press release issued by both parties as part of the latest agreement states, “U.S. publishers can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project.  Those deciding not to remove their works will have the option to receive a digital copy for their use.”

Google has long stood on the premises that their Library Project should be an “opt-out” program wherein publishers have the option to remove their works, whereas publishers felt that it should be an “opt-in” program.  According to the press release and recent agreement, it appears more in favor of Google’s theory.

The $125 million settlement basically unraveled as it was felt that Google would have the authority to duplicate books; if a publisher or author did not want their books copied, they would have to notify Google.

The new agreement is not a big change from how Google had been handling copyright-protected books since legal issues began back in 2005.  Basically, it is believed the scaled-down agreement will make more books that are copyright-protected available online, the majority of them through Google Play.  Publishers will have the authority to completely remove their works from Google’s search index, or release digital copies in Google Play.

Because the number of people reading digital books has grown exponentially over the past few years, publishers and Google have been motivated to determine a way to work together, Google in particular since the release of Google’s tablet computer the Nexus 7 in July.

Terms of the recent settlement have not been revealed, however it has been stated that court approval will not be required due to the terms being applicable only to the parties signing on.

A woman who worked as vp-director of sales at CBS Corp. has filed a lawsuit against the company claiming gender discrimination.  Kathryn Pavelonis, who worked in her capacity at various CBS affiliate radio stations from April of 2004 until August 23, 2011, the date she was fired, filed the lawsuit in Missouri state court.

The lawsuit filed by Pavelonis claims that female managers who worked for CBS were treated less favorably than male managers.  Pavelonis complained among other things that herself and other female employees were often assigned heavier work loads, and were not included in social events which were corporate-related.  According to Pavelonis she was terminated due to “serious misconduct;” the complaint doesn’t get into details about this issue.

Essentially, Pavelonis claims that she was let go from her job for being a female in the media conglomerate’s “boys club.”  She denies having committed the serious misconduct allegations she was accused of.  She also states that a male counterpart with CBS engaged in similar misconduct to what Pavelonis was accused of, and did not get fired.  She alleges that after being fired her position was filled by a male.

Pavelonis is seeking lost wages, benefits and punitive damages from CBS, claiming that the gender discrimination caused mental anguish as well as emotional distress.  Defendants names in the lawsuit include CBS Corp., CBS Radio, CBS Radio Holdings, CBS Radio Stations and CBS Radio Sales.

In a response statement, CBS Radio said, “We believe Ms. Pavelonis’s claims are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.”

As a trusted Los Angeles business and entertainment litigation law firm, we understand the complexities of these types of issues.  In cases of “he said, she said” it’s often tough to get to the truth of the matter.  We work aggressively, putting our skill, knowledge and expertise to work for every client we service to secure the best possible outcome.

If you feel you have been discriminated against by a large corporation or organization for which you have worked in a management or executive position, contact the Law Offices of Spotora & Associates today.