FACTOID # 97: Got a parking ticket in Finland? Better just pay up - it is the least corrupt nation in the world.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   Countries A-Z   Flags   Maps   Education   Forum   FAQ   About 
 
WHAT'S NEW
RECENT ARTICLES
More Recent Articles »
 

FACTS & STATISTICS    Simple view

  1. Select countries to view: (hold down Control key and click to select several)

     

     

    Compare:

     

     

  1. Select fact or statistic: (* = graphable)

     

     

     

  2. (OPTIONAL) Compare to statistic: (both need to be graphable)

     

     

     

  3. View result as:

     

       
(OR) SEARCH ALL encyclopedia, stats & forums:   

Encyclopedia > Grand Upright Music Ltd v. Warner Bros Records
Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

December 17, 1991
Full case name: Grand Upright Music Limited v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., WEA International Inc., Marcel Hall, professionally known as Biz Markie, Biz Markie Productions, Inc., Cool V Productions, Inc., Cold Chillin' Records, Inc., Biz Markie Music, Inc., Cold Chillin' Music Publishing, Inc., Tyrone Williams, and Benny Medina
Citations: 780 F.Supp. 182, 1992 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,878, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1556, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18276
Subsequent appellate history: None
Presiding judge
Kevin Thomas Duffy
Holding
That the Defendants had tried to secure a license from plaintiff prior to sampling its copyrighted song helped establish that their copyright infringement was knowing and intentional and that plaintiff was the valid copyright holder. Preliminary injunction granted.
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976 (not cited)

Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), was a copyright case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court granted an injunction against the defendants to prevent further copyright infringement of the plaintiff's song by sampling and referred them for criminal prosecution. The judgment helped change the conduct of the rap and hip hop music industries, guaranteeing that any future music sampling would be preapproved by the original copyright owners to avoid a lawsuit.


Biz Markie, a Warner Brothers rap musician, had sampled three words and a portion of the music from the song "Alone Again (Naturally)" by singer/songwriter Gilbert O'Sullivan, for use in Markie's third album, I Need A Haircut. Biz Markie and his production and recording companies were listed as co-defendants with Warner Brothers in the subsequent lawsuit.


Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy granted an injunction against the defendant, Warner Brothers Records, despite Warner Brothers' claim that that Grand Upright did not own a valid copyright in the sampled song. Warner Brothers denied that Grand Upright owned the copyright to the song, though Grand Upright produced documentation that O'Sullivan had transferred title to them, and O'Sullivan himself testified to that regard. It also appears that the defendants unsuccessfully urged the court to take note of how common unapproved sampling was in the industry, because the court noted that "the defendants...would have this court believe that stealing is rampant in the music business and, for that reason, their conduct here should be excused."


The decision received some criticism for stating that "the most persuasive evidence that the copyrights are valid and owned by the plaintiff" was that Warner Brothers had previously attempted to obtain permission to use the song. However, this would not legally establish that Grand Warner was in fact the owner, but only that Warner Brothers' believed that the song was copyrighted by someone, which would make their infringement knowing and willful. As Grand Upright had provided evidence that specifically established the copyright was theirs, the ruling did not hinge on this point, however.


The court wrote that "it is clear that the defendants knew that they were violating the plaintiff's rights as well as the rights of others. Their only aim was to sell thousands upon thousands of records. This callous disregard for the law and for the rights of others requires not only the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiff but also sterner measures." The judge then referred the matter to a United States Attorney for criminal prosecution due to the defendants' intentional copyright infringement.


  Results from FactBites:
 
Referenced Case (7470 words)
The analysis that is appropriate for determining infringement of a musical composition copyright, is not the analysis that is to be applied to determine infringement of a sound recording.
The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged,remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality.
Also, the record reflects that although there were extensions of discovery beyond that date, extensions were only granted to allow the completion of certain depositions and did not affect the deadline for filing dispositive motions.
  More results at FactBites »


 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments
Please enter the 5-letter protection code

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Lesson Plans | Student Area | Student FAQ | Reviews | Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms.