FL District Court Sanctions Karaoke Bar Owners for Unlicensed Performance of Copyrighted Songs

Holding:

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued sanctions against owners of a karaoke bar for performing copyrighted songs without necessary licenses. According to the District Court, the logical interpretation of "public performance" is a performance at a place open to the public; proprietors are generally liable if their entertainers or employees perform copyrighted works. Defendants Julie Ann’s, Inc. and Julie Ann Bible owned and operated the Pegasus Lounge and were responsible for determining its music policy. They had been on notice of copyright infringement for four years, but refused to obtain the required licenses which would have cost them $3,375.46 during that period. Accordingly, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs statutory damages in an amount three times the amount of the unpaid fees, that is, $10,126.38 plus $774.49 in investigative costs, for a total of $10,900.87. Further, finding that the acts of infringement were intentional, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs an additional $12,987.08 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Detailed Summary:

On October 16, 2006, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”), a performing rights licensing organization, filed a complaint with MLE Music, Hampshire House Publishing Corp., and Sony/ATV Tunes, LLC, against Defendants, Julie Ann Bible and Julie Ann’s, Inc.  Plaintiffs asserted four causes of action for copyright infringement based on Defendants’ public performance of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted musical compositions.  Plaintiffs claimed that on May 3-4, 2006, four of their copyrighted songs were performed for profit and without their permission at Pegasus Lounge.  Order, p. 2, citing Dkt. 1, citing 17 U.S.C. Sections 101-810.  Plaintiffs requested an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ copyrights with respect to the compositions at issue and any related copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502(a).  Additionally, Plaintiffs requested an award of $24,987.08 against Defendants, which consisted of $12,000.00 in statutory damages and $12,987.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 8 504(c)(l) and 505. Id., citing Dkt. 13.

To prevail in their motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs met the requirements for a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The District Court found that the record contained sufficient undisputed evidence of infringing acts to warrant summary judgment.  Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs failed to present evidence that Defendants publicly performed the musical compositions at issue, but the District Court rejected the argument.

The District Court cited Section 106(4) of the Copyright Act that gives copyright owners the exclusive right to publicly perform their copyrighted works or to authorize the performance to other parties.  According to the District Court, the logical interpretation of “public performance” is a performance at a place open to the public. Even if a proprietor is unaware of the violation, he or she is generally liable if his entertainers or employees perform copyrighted works. Id., p. 5, citing Int ‘I Korwin Corp. v. Kowalczyk, 855 F.2d 375, 378 (7th Cir. 1988). Since Defendants owned and operated Pegasus Lounge and were responsible for determining its music policy, Defendants exercised sufficient control over the establishment to get held legally responsible for any copyright infringement.  In so holding, the District Court rejected Defendants’ claim that they could not be held liable because they did not personally perform the songs.

It was similarly undisputed that Defendants failed to enter into a licensing agreement with ASCAP authorizing the public performance of its member’s copyrighted musical compositions. In discovery, Defendants admitted that they did not have permission by ASCAP to publicly perform any of the songs.  Further, Defendants failed to offer evidence that their karaoke operator had a license to perform Plaintiffs’ copyrighted songs.

Defendants asserted that summary judgment was inappropriate because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether their karaoke machine operator could or could not obtain a license authorizing performance of Plaintiff’s copyrighted works.  The District Court relied on precedent that a non-moving party “may not rest upon its mere allegations”, but must present “significant probative evidence” that shows there is more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”  Id., p. 7, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e);  Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,  477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. H.S.I., Inc., No. C2-06-482, 2007 WL 4207901 at *3 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 26, 2007). Here, Defendants’ mere assertion that their karaoke operator could have obtained authorization to perform Plaintiffs’ musical works was insufficient to preclude summary judgment.

Plaintiffs asked the District Court to enjoin Defendants from further copyright infringement. Id., p. 8, citing the Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. Section 502(a).  Because Defendants received several notices from ASCAP instructing them to obtain a license, but failed to do so and continued performances without permission in violation of the Copyright Act, the District Court found injunctive relief was appropriate to prevent and deter future acts of infringement. Id., citing Chi-Boy Music v. Charlie Club, Inc., 930 F.2d 1224 (7th Cir. 1991).

In addition to permanent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs also requested statutory damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  Id., citing 17 U.S.C. Sections 504, 505.  Considering that Defendants were on notice of their infringing conduct for four years and refused to obtain the required license, which would have cost them $3,375.46, the District Court awarded statutory damages in an amount three times the cost of the unpaid license.  As such, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs $10,126.38, plus $774.49 in investigative costs, for a total of $10,900.87 in statutory damages.  Further, under the Copyright Act, it is within the court’s discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id., p. 10, citing 17 U.S.C. Section 505. The factors a court considers in calculating attorneys’ fees include: the frivolousness of the suit; the motivation of the litigants; the objective unreasonableness in the factual and legal components of the case; and the need to advance compensation and deterrence. Id., citing Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 535 (1994). Because the acts of infringement at issue were intentional, the District Court awarded $12,987.08 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Also See:

FCC Adopts New Rules Permitting TV Channel Sharing by Broadcasters; Enacts First Step Towards Freeing UP Spectrum under Incentive Auction

FCC Modernizes Broadcast Television Public Inspection Files to Give the Public Online Access to Information Previously Available Only at TV Stations

Copyright Office Conducts Proceedings on Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems

Legislation to Deregulate Television Market Introduced in House and Senate

Copyright Office Proposes New Fee Schedule