United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRYANT v. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS INC Anne BRYANT, Ellen Bernfeld, Gloryvision, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC.,...

1 answer below »
this is about a case briefing, it is a group work my section is to do the LEGAL ANSWERSPlease try to assign the old writer for that they did several of this cases for me


United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRYANT v. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS INC Anne BRYANT, Ellen Bernfeld, Gloryvision, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS, INC., Douglas Maxwell, Orchard Enterprises, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. Docket No. 09-2600-cv. 09-2600-cv (2d Cir. April 27, 2010) Argued: March 10, 2010. -- April 27, 2010 Before LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge, and WOOD,District Judge.*** Patrick J. Monaghan, Jr., Michael Korik, Monaghan, Monaghan, Lamb & Marchisio, LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.Mitchell C. Shelowitz, Shelowitz & Associates PLLC, Montvale, NJ, for Appellees. Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Young, J.) holding that Defendants-Appellees committed direct copyright infringement, and awarding Plaintiffs-Appellants statutory damages but denying them attorneys fees. Appellants produced two copyrighted albums of music, each of which was composed of ten songs. Appellee Media Right Productions, Inc. (“Media Right”) gave the albums to Appellee Orchard Enterprises, Inc. (“Orchard”), who copied and sold them without authorization. The Court awarded Appellants one statutory damage award for each album infringed by each Appellee, a total of four awards, rather than one statutory damage award for each of the songs on the albums (which would have totaled forty awards), as Appellants had sought. The Court also found that Appellants had not proven that the infringement was willful, that Orchard had proven that its infringement was innocent, and that profits from infringing sales were low; the Court thus awarded a total of only $2400 in damages. We conclude that the District Court (1) correctly awarded statutory damages for each album infringed; (2) did not commit clear error in finding that Appellants had failed to prove willfulness and that Orchard had proven its innocence; and (3) correctly calculated damages. Accordingly, we affirm. I. Background 2 Appellants Anne Bryant and Ellen Bernfeld are songwriters who own a record label, Appellant Gloryvision Ltd (collectively with Bryant and Bernfeld, “Appellants”). In the late 1990s, Appellants created and produced two albums, Songs for Dogs and Songs for Cats (the “Albums”). They registered the Albums with the United States Copyright Office. They also separately registered at least some of the twenty songs on the Albums. On February 24, 2000, Appellants entered into an agreement with Media Right (“Media Right Agreement”), which authorized Media Right to market the Albums in exchange for twenty percent of the proceeds from any sales. The Agreement did not grant Media Right permission to make copies of the Albums. If Media Right needed more copies of the Albums, Appellants would provide them. The Media Right Agreement resulted from conversations between Appellant Ellen Bernfeld (“Bernfeld”) and Appellee Douglas Maxwell (“Maxwell”), President of Media Right, during which Maxwell told Bernfeld that Media Right would be distributing music through Orchard, a music wholesaler. Media Right entered into an agreement with Orchard on February 1, 2000 (“Orchard Agreement”). The Orchard Agreement authorized Orchard to distribute on Media Right's behalf eleven albums listed in the Agreement, two of which were the Albums (apparently in anticipation of the Media Right Agreement). The Orchard Agreement provided, in relevant part, that: [Media Right] grant[s] [Orchard] ․ non-exclusive rights to sell, distribute and otherwise exploit ․ [Media Right's albums] by any and all means and media (whether now known or existing in the future), including ․ throughout E-stores including ․ those via the Internet, as well as all digital storage, download and transmission rights, whether now known or existing in the future. In the Orchard Agreement, Media Right warranted that Orchard's use of the Albums would not infringe any copyrights. Maxwell gave Orchard physical copies of the Albums, which bore copyright notices stating that the copyrights for the Albums were held by Appellants. When Media Right entered into the Orchard Agreement in 2000, Orchard sold only physical copies of recordings. In about April 2004, however, Orchard began making digital copies of the Albums to sell through internet-based music retailers such as iTunes. Internet customers were able to purchase and download digital copies of the Albums and individual songs on the Albums. Orchard did not inform Media Right or Appellants that it was selling digital copies of the Albums and individual songs on the Albums. From April 1, 2002 to April 8, 2008, Orchard generated $12.14 in revenues from sales of physical copies of the Albums, and $578.91 from downloads of digital copies of the Albums and of individual songs. Media Right's share of these revenues was $413.82, of which $331.06 should have been forwarded to Appellants pursuant to the Media Right Agreement. Because the $413.82 was aggregated with other monies Orchard paid to Media Right, Media Right overlooked that it owed a portion of the payments to Appellants. Media Right, therefore, did not pay Appellants the $331.06 to which they were entitled. In 2006, Appellants discovered that digital copies of the Albums were available online. On April 16, 2007, Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees in the Southern District of New York, alleging direct and contributory copyright infringement, and seeking statutory damages. In 2008, Appellants and Appellees both moved for summary judgment in the case. They agreed to permit the District Court to treat the motions as a case stated. The Court conducted two evidentiary hearings before issuing its order. The Court held, in relevant part, that Appellees had committed direct copyright infringement by making and selling digital copies of the Albums and the individual songs on the Albums. The Court awarded Appellants statutory damages in the total amount of $2400, pursuant to Section 504 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Act”). 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). The Act provides that a court can award statutory damages of not less than $750 or more than $30,000, “as the court considers just,” for all infringements with respect to one work, and that all parts of a “compilation” constitute one work. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). If the infringer proves that his infringement was innocent, the court may reduce damages to an amount not less than $200. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). If the copyright holder proves that infringement was willful, the court may increase the award to no more than $150,000. Id. The District Court made the following three rulings regarding damages, all of which Appellants contest on appeal. First, the Court held that the Albums were compilations, and thus that each Appellee was liable for only one award of statutory damages per Album, rather than one award per song, as Appellants had sought. Bryant v. Europadisk Ltd., 07 Civ. 3050(WGY), 2009 WL 1059777, *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 2009). Second, the Court found that Orchard had proven that its infringement was innocent, and thus ordered Orchard to pay only minimal statutory damages of $200 per Album, for a total of $400. Id. at *8-9. Third, the Court found that Maxwell and Media Right had failed to prove that their infringement was innocent, but that Appellants had failed to prove that Maxwell and Media Right's infringement was willful. Id. The Court found that because neither side had met its burden of proof, and because Appellees' revenues from the Albums were very low, Media Right and Maxwell were jointly and severally liable for an award of only $1000 per Album, for a total of $2000. Id. The Court did not award Appellants attorneys fees. Dist. Ct. Order, May 12, 2009. Accordingly, the total award to Appellants was $2400. This appeal followed. II. Discussion Appellants argue that we should vacate the District Court's statutory damage award, contending that: (1) the Court erred in refusing to grant a separate statutory damage award for each song on the Albums; (2) the Court erred in its findings on intent; and (3) the Court erred in determining the amount of damages. Appellants also argue that the Court abused its discretion by refusing to award them attorneys' fees. We address each of these arguments in turn.3 A. The District Court's Decision to Award Statutory Damages on a Per-Album Basis Appellants contend that the District Court erred in holding that the Albums were compilations, and thus limiting statutory damages to one award for each Album. Appellants argue that each song on the Albums qualifies as a separate work because, according to Appellants, each song is separately copyrighted,4 and because Orchard sold the songs individually. The question of whether a work constitutes a “compilation” for the purposes of statutory damages pursuant to Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act is a mixed question of law and fact. See Gamma Audio & Video, Inc. v. Ean-Chea, 11 F.3d 1106, 1116 (1st Cir.1993). We thus review de novo the District Court's decision that the Albums are “compilations.” See APL Co. PTF Ltd. v. Blue Water Shipping U.S. Inc., 592 F.3d 108, 110 (2d Cir.2010). We conclude that the District Court's ruling was correct. The Copyright Act allows only one award of statutory damages for any “work” infringed. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1). It states that “all the parts of a compilation ․ constitute one work.” Id. § 504(c)(1). It defines a “compilation” as “a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship .” Id. § 101. The term compilation includes collected works, which are defined as works “in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective work.” Id. The Conference Report that accompanied the Act and explains many of its provisions, states that a “compilation” “results from a process of selecting, bringing together, organizing, and arranging previously existing material of all kinds, regardless of whether ․ the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to copyright.” H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 162, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659 (emphasis added). An album falls within the Act's expansive definition of compilation. An album is a collection of preexisting materials-songs-that are selected and arranged by the author in a way that results in an original work of authorship-the album. Based on a plain reading of the statute, therefore, infringement of an album should result in only one statutory damage award. The fact that each song may have received a separate copyright is
Answered Same DayMar 21, 2021

Answer To: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRYANT v. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS INC Anne...

Arunavo answered on Mar 22 2021
124 Votes
Running Head: LEGAL WRITING        1
LEGAL WRITING        4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRC
UIT
LEGAL WRITING OF BRYANT V. MEDIA RIGHT PRODUCTIONS INC
In the provided case, the appellants have demanded damage for copyright infringement from Appellee Media Rights Production, Inc for violating the permission to copy the albums and songs and later selling them through other formats, which was not being informed or taken permission from the appellants. According to Anderson (2018), when two parties are going for an agreement of selling and doping business then the rights of selling, copying and the percentage of profits is the sole jurisdiction of the author to protect his work from being labeled by someone else work.
In the presented...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download