Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
5
6
LECLAIRRYAN, LLP
Christiane C. Kinney (State Bar No. 199056)
Christiane.Kinney@leclairryan.com
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
Los Angeles, California 90017-5455
Telephone: (213) 488-0503
Fax: (213) 624-3755
Attorneys for Third Party Defendants
JOSH GREENE and SQUAREPLAY, INC.
(erroneously sued and served as SQUAREPLAY, INC.
d/b/a SQUAREPLAY ENTERTAINMENT)
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
v.
BURBANK HIGH SCHOOL VOCAL
MUSIC ASSOCIATION; BRETT
CARROLL and JOHN DOE CARROLL, a
married couple; ELLIE STOCKWELL and
JOHN DOE STOCKWELL, a married
couple; MARIANNE WINTERS and
JOHN DOE WINTERS, a married couple;
GENEVA TARANDEK and JOHN DOE
TARANDEK, a married couple; LORNA
CONSOLI and JOHN DOE CONSOLI, a
married couple; CHARLES RODRIGUEZ
and JANE DOE RODRIGUEZ, a married
couple,
Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
1
2
Pursuant to Local Rule 16-4 of the Local Rules for the Central District of
California, Third Party Defendants JOSH GREENE (Greene) and SQUAREPLAY, INC.
This main action involves a claim of copyright infringement asserted against the
Burbank High School Vocal Music Association Booster Club (BHSVMA) and various
10
the song Magic. The alleged performances occurred during the 2010-2011 school year.1
11
BHSVMA filed a Third Party Complaint against one of Burbank High Schools
12
vocal music association arrangers, Josh Greene, and his company Squareplay, Inc., for
13
indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief, along with claims for breach of oral or
14
implied contract, and breach of implied warranties. BHSVMA alleges that it entered into
15
an oral contract with Greene and Squareplay during the 2010-2011 school year to prepare
16
musical arrangements for Burbank High School show choirs, including one such
17
arrangement containing an excerpt from the musical composition Magic, and that during
18
negotiations for the arrangements, Greene/Squareplay represented and/or implied that the
19
Arrangements could be used in the show choir, so that, in exchange for the fees paid, if any
20
licenses and permissions were necessary for Carroll and the Burbank High School show
21
choirs to use the Arrangements, such licenses and/or permissions had been or would be
22
23
24
///
25
///
26
27
28
All other songs originally at issue in this lawsuit were eliminated as a result of Judge Wilsons In Chambers Order
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Brett Carrolls Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on 12/22/16.
JOSH GREENE AND SQUAREPLAY, INC.S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS
OF FACT AND LAW PURSUANT TO L.R. 16-4
U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:16-cv-04781-SVW-FFM
2
1
2
3
Plaintiff Trsona Multimedia, LLC has a single claim for copyright infringement of
the song Magic, which was performed by a high school show choir during spring 2011
Trsona Multimedia, LLC must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
plaintiff is the owner of a valid copyright; and the defendant unlawfully copied original
10
expression from the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. 501. In this action, the unlawful
11
12
derivative work under the copyright act. Specifically, Plaintiff must show that the
13
arrangement in which the pre-existing work is incorporated has been recast, transformed,
14
15
Josh Greene and Squareplay, as Third Party Defendants in a separate third party
16
complaint for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief, have raised several
17
affirmative defenses to the copyright infringement claims that would support that they
18
should not be found secondarily liable in an infringement cause of action. The key
19
20
21
22
Actions for copyright infringement must be commenced within three years after the
23
claim accrues. 17 U.S.C. 507(b). The Ninth Circuit employs a discovery rule, in
24
which the statute of limitations begins to run on the date that plaintiff knew, or should have
25
known, that the infringement occurred. See Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp.,
26
384 F.3d 700, 705-06 (9th Cir. 2004). The parties do not dispute that the high school show
27
choir in question, In Sync, performed Magic in 2011, more than three years before filing
28
this case. There is also evidence that Trsona gained actual knowledge of this infringement
at least by November of 2014. The question, for purposes of this defense, is whether
Trsona or its publisher, PEN Music Group, Inc., should have discovered the infringing
activity earlier specifically, before June 29, 2013 (three years before the case was filed).
Judge Wilson considered these issues in Carrolls Motion for Summary Judgment,
and specifically, the facts that: (1) the videos were posted to YouTube in 2011 and 2012
and included in the title In Sync, (2) part of Tresonas business is to sell licenses to show
choirs, and thus they would be incentivized to look for infringing activity, (3) Tresona
knew that Burbank show choirs put videos on YouTube because Tresona sent Carroll an
10
email in 2012 proposing that Tresona and the Burbank show choir team-up to monetize
11
videos posted on YouTube, and (4) PENs President stated in 2015 that he monitored
12
13
While the Court did not grant summary judgment on this ground, it left credibility
14
determinations and weighing of evidence to the jury with respect to these material issues of
15
fact.
16
17
One who is not the owner of a copyright may use the copyrighted work in a
18
reasonable way under the circumstances without the consent of the copyright owner if it
19
would advance the public interest. Such use of a copyrighted work is called a fair use.
20
Defendants contend that any arrangement of the song Magic constituted a fair use of
21
the copyrighted work for purposes of criticism, comment, and teaching. In determining
22
whether use of the work was fair, a jury will consider multiple factors, including the
23
following:
24
Purpose and Character of the Defendants Use, including whether such use is of a
25
26
579-80, 583, 588 (explaining that the purpose of this element is to investigate the
27
commercial nature of the use, whether the use was transformative, whether the use
28
tended to supplant or supersede the infringed work, and whether the use parodied or
conjure[d] up the infringed work); Seltzer, 725 F.3d at 1176-77 (finding bands
transformative because original work took on new and different meaning in video);
SOFA Entmt, Inc. v. Dodger Prods., Inc., 709 F.3d 1273, 1278 (9th Cir.2013)
biographical anchor in musical about band supports finding of fair use); Elvis
Presley Enters., 349 F.3d at 629 (Courts have described new works as
transformative when works use copyrighted material for purposes distinct from
10
11
Nature of Copyrighted Work: Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586 (considering whether work
12
is factual or creative in nature and whether it was published); Seltzer, 725 F.3d at
13
1178 (noting that prior publication by original author tends to support finding of fair
14
use); Bleem, 214 F.3d at 1028 (explaining that nature of copyrighted work is most
15
relevant when the original material and the copy are of a different nature);
16
17
18
19
importance); Seltzer, 725 F.3d at 1178-79 (addressing when original works are
20
21
Effect of Use of Infringing Work on the Potential Market for or Value of the
22
Copyrighted Work: Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590-91, n.21 (assessing harm use can
23
cause to plaintiffs market and market effect if others also infringe through such
24
use; considering if use displaces or substitutes for original work; examining effect
25
of use on derivative market for protected work; noting that the importance of this
26
[fourth] factor will vary, not only with the amount of harm, but also with the
27
relative strength of the showing on the other factors); Harper & Row, Publishers,
28
471 U.S. at 566 (noting that effect of defendants infringing work on market for or
value of plaintiffs work is most important of fair use factors); SOFA Entmt, Inc.,
709 F.3d at 1280 (explaining that this factor favors finding of fair use when use
advances [the alleged infringers] own original creation without any reasonable
threat to [the original authors] business model); Dr. Seuss Enters., 109 F.3d at
1403 (balancing public benefit that will result from defendants use against personal
Additional Factors: Campbell, 510 U.S. at 585 n.18 (considering defendants state
of mind and explaining that permission is not necessary if use is fair); Harper &
10
Row, Publishers, 471 U.S. at 562 (stating fair use presupposes good faith and fair
11
dealing); Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432, 437 (9th Cir.1986) (courts may weigh the
12
13
determination).
14
15
The reason Greene and Squareplay were not named in the main action for direct
16
17
custom arrangements through their system moving forward, to sign the required work for
18
hire agreements, and to obtain the necessary permissions to arrange in the future, in
19
20
Further, Greene, in spite of having immunity, proposed payment for the charts he
21
wrote for the last two years, to send a good message to the show choir community.
22
Trsonas response was that they were taking it in trade, and as such, his offer to pay for
23
24
25
26
unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing a claim. In the instant case, the evidence
27
will show that publishers were uninterested in custom arrangement licenses back in 2011.
28
Even after Trsona entered the scene and attempted to secure licenses for alleged past
infringements, they only pursued infringements from 2013 2015. As such, any alleged
infringement from 2011 should be eliminated from this case under the doctrine of laches.
4
5
E. Authorization,
License,
Acquiescence,
Ratification,
Consent
PEN Music Group, Inc. entered into an Agreement for License to Arrange, Print
and Sell with Custom Arrangements on June 26, 2013 for Greenes arrangement of
Magic. Custom Arrangements then entered into a Royalty Agreement Contract with
Greene for his arrangement on July 6, 2013. While this license to arrange, print and sell
10
the custom arrangement of Magic was entered into for a three year period that
11
commenced after the alleged infringement, it supports consent and acquiescence with
12
13
14
15
16
willfulness and good faith on their part. An infringement is considered innocent when
17
defendant has proved that it was not aware that his acts constituted infringement of the
18
copyright, and defendant had no reason to believe that his acts constituted an infringement
19
of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2). While any infringement in this case is wholly
20
denied, if infringement was found, defendants contend that their innocence mandates a
21
22
23
24
BHSVMA has asserted affirmative claims for breach of implied/oral contract and
25
breach of implied warranties. To recover damages for breach of implied or oral contract,
26
BHSVMA must prove all of the following: (1) That BHSVMA and Greene/Squareplay
27
entered into an oral and/or implied contract; (2) that BHSVMA did all, or substantially all,
28
of the significant things that the contract required it to do; (3) that Greene/Squareplay did
something that the contract prohibited him/it from doing; and (4) that BHSVMA was
purported breach of implied warranty, BHSVMA must prove: (1) that BHSVMA and
Greene/Squareplay entered into a contract; (2) that BHSVMA did all, or substantially all of
the significant things that the contract required it to do; (3) that all conditions required for
Greene/Squareplays
Greene/Squareplay unfairly interfered with BHSVMAs right to receive the benefits of the
contract; and (5) that BHSVMA was harmed by Greene/Squareplays conduct. CACI
10
performance
had
occurred
CACI 303.
or
were
With respect to a
excused;
(4)
that
325.2
11
Third Party Plaintiff BHSVMA attempts to shift blame on the schools own
12
arranger, alleging that he either stated or implied that no licenses were required in
13
exchange for his arrangements. Notwithstanding the fact that no school district or booster
14
club in its right mind would leave themselves exposed in this regard by leaving complex
15
copyright and licensing issues in the hands of an independent arranger without bothering to
16
document it no evidence has been offered to support that there was a direct contractual
17
18
19
contract-based claims.
20
21
the claims in the Third Party Complaint. In addition to the affirmative defenses raised
22
above, and without waiving and subject to all affirmative defenses set forth
23
Greene/Squareplays Answer on file, some of the additional key defenses are outlined in
24
25
///
26
27
28
In addition to its contract-based claims, BHSVMA has asserted claims for equitable indemnity, contribution, and
declaratory relief, which will only be relevant if BHSVMA is found liable for copyright infringement in the
underlying action, and further establishes that Greene/Squareplay contributed to the purported copyright infringement.
JOSH GREENE AND SQUAREPLAY, INC.S MEMORANDUM OF CONTENTIONS
OF FACT AND LAW PURSUANT TO L.R. 16-4
U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:16-cv-04781-SVW-FFM
8
3
4
Squareplay on the grounds of estoppel and unclean hands, and lack of mitigation.
California has long recognized the maxim that No one can take advantage of his
own wrong. Civ. Code 3517. In other words, [h]e who comes into equity must come
with clean hands. See, Wilson v. S.L. Rey, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 234, 244; Kendall-
protects judicial integrity because allowing a plaintiff with unclean hands to recover in an
10
action creates doubts as to the justice provided by the judicial system. Thus,
11
precluding recovery to the unclean plaintiff protects the courts, rather than the opposing
12
parties interest. . . . The doctrine promotes justice by making a plaintiff answer for its own
13
misconduct in the action. It prevents a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his
14
transgression . . .
It
15
Greene was hired not by anyone in the BHSVMA, but by a school employee who
16
was recently dismissed from this action under a qualified immunity defense to create an
17
arrangement for the show choir group, In Sync. Squareplay was paid $1,200.00 for its
18
arrangement of Magic. The schools vocal music program then publically performed
19
20
Importantly, when Trsona claimed that licensing fees were owed for these
21
performances many years later, Greene worked out a potential resolution for his and
22
other arrangers charts, under which BHSVMA and the Burbank High School District
23
would owe nothing for alleged past infringements, and would even have a handsome
24
donation made to their vocal music program. They declined that offer. As such, they
25
should be estopped from attempting to shift blame onto their arranger, who went out of his
26
way to insulate them from harm. Their failure to mitigate their own damages or to accept
27
///
28
an offer of amnesty from the publishers and Trsona was the cause of their harm and
nothing more.
III.
3
4
Not applicable.
IV.
5
6
BIFURCATION OF ISSUES
JURY TRIAL
Yes, a timely demand for trial by jury was made by all parties in this case.
V. ATTORNEYS FEES
Plaintiffs Complaint, and each cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient
10
11
12
It is our understanding that Plaintiff has abandoned claims against the spouses of
13
the parent board members. Likewise, since Brett Carroll was recently dismissed from the
14
case, he has not engaged in any trial preparation or other activities with respect to his third
15
party complaint on file as against Josh Greene and Squareplay, Inc. and we contend that
16
17
Respectfully Submitted,
18
LECLAIRRYAN LLP
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28