Brown v. Ames

201 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Collectibles is a record label that distributes and sells music recordings, especially repackaged vintage recordings. D is a music producer specializing in Texas blues. Ps are individual blues musicians, songwriters, music producers, or heirs of such. D d/b/a Home Cooking Records, licensed to Collectibles for commercial exploitation master recordings that included performances by Ps. The written license agreements purported to give Collectibles the right to use the names, photographs, likenesses, and biographical material of all those whose performances were on the master recordings. D represented and warranted to Collectibles that D was entitled to convey these rights. Collectibles manufactured and distributed cassettes and CDs, as well as music catalogs, with the names and sometimes the likenesses of the performers on or in them. D also sold posters or videotapes with the names or likenesses of Ps. Ps sued D, Collectibles, and Jerry and Nina Greene, the owners of Collectibles. The district court dismissed Ps' negligence and conversion claims as preempted by the Copyright Act, and dismissed without prejudice the copyright claims of those Ps who had not timely obtained registration certificates. The remaining causes of actions for copyright infringement, violations of the Lanham Act, and for misappropriation of name or likeness under Texas state law proceeded to a jury trial. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law for Jerry and Nina Greene, and the jury found in favor of all defendants on the Lanham Act claims. The jury found that Ds had misappropriated the names and likenesses of Ps and had infringed (in the case of Collectibles, innocently) copyrights held by some of the Ps. Collectibles was liable for $1,800 for copyright infringement and for $27,000 for misappropriation and Ames liable for $ 22,500 for copyright infringement and for $ 100,000 for misappropriation. Ds appealed. Ds contend that the Copyright Act preempts the misappropriation claims.