ELEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

摘要

A performing arts society won a copyright infringement suit on summary judgment despite disputed issues of fact regarding ownership of the copyrights at question. SeeBroad-cast Music, Inc. u. Evie's Tavern Ellenton, Inc., 772 F.3d 1254, 112 U.S.P.Q.2d 1918 (11th Cir. 2014). Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) is a corporation which "enters into nonexclusive licenses with copyright owners to publicly perform copyrighted musical compositions. . . . BMFs agreements with the copyright owners give BMI the right to operate as the copyright owners' 'true and lawful attorney.' The agreements further note that any actions commenced by BMI to recover for copyright infringement will be for BMI's sole benefit, even if BMI decides to join the copyright owner as a party to the suit. Once BMI has acquired the nonexclusive right to publicly perform the musical compositions from the copyright owners, it contracts with third parties (broadcasters, music halls, bar owners, restaurants, etc.) to perform these musical compositions at their establishments." BMI, 772 F.3d at 1257. BMI (with copyright owners as joint plaintiffs) sued Evie's Tavern for publicly performing six musical works without a license. One work was dropped from the suit. The trial court granted plaintiffs summary judgment that the remaining five works had been infringed. On appeal, Evie's Tavern argued, among other issues, that disputed issues of material fact clouded the chain of title to each of the five works. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the summary judgment, explaining that the Federal Rules allow disturbing a judgment only when a party's substantial rights are affected. If any error had been made, the error was harmless because BMI's agreements specify that any actions commenced by BMI to recover for copyright infringement will be for BMI's sole benefit, [defendant's] substantial rights were impacted only by BMI's ability to maintain a copyright infringement action. Further, as BMI has agreed to be responsible for all costs and expenses of the [other plaintiffs] that are incurred pursuing copyright infringement actions based on the titles BMI licenses from copyright owners, the number of them to whom summary judgment is granted makes no difference in the award of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Accordingly, because the district court properly granted summary judgment in BMI's favor on each title, any error in granting summary judgment to other [plaintiffs] was harmless, and the district court's summary judgment award is affirmed.