get these nets
Veteran
*Artist Sherman Newly and attorney speaking about the case last month
May 9, 2024
Deciding a case that labels called "vitally important to the music industry," the high court says copyright accusers can recover money reaching back decades.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Florida music producer in a legal battle against Warner Music over a song by the rapper Flo Rida, ruling that he can seek monetary damages dating all the way back to the 2008 release of the track.
Resolving a case that music companies had called “exceptionally important,” the justices ruled by a 6-3 vote in favor of Sherman Nealy, a Miami producer who sued Warner over claims that Flo Rida’s “In the Ayer” featured an unlicensed sample from the 1984 song “Jam the Box.”
The case before the high court dealt with a major unresolved question: Are copyright damages limited to just the last three years before a case was filed? Or can owners like Nealy seek damages ranging back decades, adding potentially many more millions to the total?
In Thursday’s ruling, the justices said it was the latter, affirming a lower appeals court that had rejected the three-year cap. “There is no time limit on monetary recovery,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her brief opinion. “So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.”
Though it dealt with esoteric questions of copyright law, Nealy’s case was closely-watched by the music industry, which has seen a large increase in decades-delayed copyright lawsuits over the past decade, targeting Led Zeppelin, U2, Meatloaf and many others. Thursday’s ruling, which creates a far larger potential prize in such cases, could encourage even more accusers to try their hand at litigation.
Crucially, however, the ruling sidestepped questions that could have created an even bigger impact. In her opinion, Kagan explicitly noted that she was not deciding an even-more-important issue: Whether someone like Nealy could file a lawsuit in the first place many years after his song was first infringed.
That question, which has divided lower courts in dueling camps with two different approaches, will need to be resolved in a future case. In Thursday’s decision, Kagan simply said that, assuming that such years-delayed cases can indeed be filed, then there should be no cap on how far back an accuser can seek to recover money.
“We do not resolve today which of those two rules should govern a copyright claim’s timeliness,” the justice wrote, referring to the split over the issue. “But we reject applying a judicially invented damages limit to convert one of them into the other.”
A rep for Warner did not immediately return a request for comment
=========================
Rest in Peace to Biz
May 9, 2024
Supreme Court Rules Against Warner Music In Producer’s Battle Over Flo Rida Song
Deciding a case that labels called "vitally important to the music industry," the high court says copyright accusers can recover money reaching back decades.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Florida music producer in a legal battle against Warner Music over a song by the rapper Flo Rida, ruling that he can seek monetary damages dating all the way back to the 2008 release of the track.
Resolving a case that music companies had called “exceptionally important,” the justices ruled by a 6-3 vote in favor of Sherman Nealy, a Miami producer who sued Warner over claims that Flo Rida’s “In the Ayer” featured an unlicensed sample from the 1984 song “Jam the Box.”
The case before the high court dealt with a major unresolved question: Are copyright damages limited to just the last three years before a case was filed? Or can owners like Nealy seek damages ranging back decades, adding potentially many more millions to the total?
In Thursday’s ruling, the justices said it was the latter, affirming a lower appeals court that had rejected the three-year cap. “There is no time limit on monetary recovery,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her brief opinion. “So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.”
Though it dealt with esoteric questions of copyright law, Nealy’s case was closely-watched by the music industry, which has seen a large increase in decades-delayed copyright lawsuits over the past decade, targeting Led Zeppelin, U2, Meatloaf and many others. Thursday’s ruling, which creates a far larger potential prize in such cases, could encourage even more accusers to try their hand at litigation.
Crucially, however, the ruling sidestepped questions that could have created an even bigger impact. In her opinion, Kagan explicitly noted that she was not deciding an even-more-important issue: Whether someone like Nealy could file a lawsuit in the first place many years after his song was first infringed.
That question, which has divided lower courts in dueling camps with two different approaches, will need to be resolved in a future case. In Thursday’s decision, Kagan simply said that, assuming that such years-delayed cases can indeed be filed, then there should be no cap on how far back an accuser can seek to recover money.
“We do not resolve today which of those two rules should govern a copyright claim’s timeliness,” the justice wrote, referring to the split over the issue. “But we reject applying a judicially invented damages limit to convert one of them into the other.”
A rep for Warner did not immediately return a request for comment
=========================
Rest in Peace to Biz
Last edited:
