`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`07 Civ. 8233 (SAS)
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`RICHARD REINHARDT (p/k/a RICHIE
`
`RAMONE and RICHIE BEAU),
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`- against -
`
`WAL—MART STORES, INC., APPLE, INC.,
`
`REALNETWORKS, INC., ESTATE OF
`
`JOHN CUMMINGS (a/k/a JOHN RAMONE
`
`and JOHNNY RAMONE), TACO TUNES,
`
`INC., RAMONES PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
`
`HERZOG & STRAUSS, and IRA HERZOG,
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 18
`
`and Ramones Productions. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended
`
`Complaint pursuant to Rule l2(b)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
`
`lack of subject matter jurisdiction and pursuant to Rule l2(b)(6) for failure to state
`
`a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons, the motion to
`
`dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted and the case is dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Facts‘
`
`Richard Reinhardt was a member of the punk band the Ramones2
`
`from 1983 to 1987.3 During that time he authored six songs — Smash You,
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 18
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 3 of 18
`
`Now, and (You) Can ’t Say Anything Nice (the “Compositions”).4 He was the sole
`
`author of each Compositions Reinhardt filed copyright registration applications
`
`for the Compositions with the U.S. Copyright Office sometime before the
`
`Complaint was f1led.6
`
`In 1984, Reinhardt entered into a recording agreement (“Recording
`
`Agreement”) with Ramones Productions] a corporation engaged in the business of
`
`“exploiting” the intellectual property, merchandise, and other products associated
`
`with the Ramones.8 The Recording Agreement provided for Ramones Productions
`
`to “engage Plaintiff to record with the Ramones.”9 The Recording Agreement also
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 4 of 18
`
`Taco Tunes is a corporation engaged in the business of “exploiting
`
`musical compositions owned by certain members of the Ramones.”” The
`
`Recording Agreement “contemplates” a music publishing agreement between
`
`Reinhardt and Taco Tunes, but no terms were ever agreed to and no contract was
`
`completed.”
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (“Wal-Mart”), Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), and
`
`RealNetworks, Inc. (“RealNetw0rks”), are businesses which, inter alia, distribute
`
`sound recordings and other digital media over the Internet and in other electronic
`
`forms.” Taco Tunes authorized these defendants to electronically distribute and
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 5 of 18
`
`lead man, who was known professionally as Johnny Ramone.‘8 These defendants,
`
`along with Ramones Productions, have controlled in whole or in part, the policies
`
`and operations of Taco Tunes for over twenty years.”
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Reinhardt filed suit against Defendants on September 21, 2007, for
`
`copyright infringement and brought an additional claim against the Estate of John
`
`Cummings, Herzog, Herzog & Strauss, and Ramones Productions for contributory
`
`infringement of his copyrights. He seeks damages as well a declaratory judgement
`
`that he, and not Ramones Productions or Taco Tunes, is the sole owner of all the
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 6 of 18
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 6 of 18
`
`the Compositions under the Express License.”2‘
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(b)(1) — Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
`
`Federal courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases
`
`arising under the Copyright Act.” However, a case does not automatically fall
`
`within the jurisdiction of the federal courts simply because it concerns a
`
`copyright.” If the dispute is about the ownership of a copyright, and turns on the
`
`interpretation of a contract, then no federal question is presented. Unless the
`
`complaint asserts a remedy expressly granted by the Copyright Act, such as
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 7 of 18
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 7 of 18
`
`Civil Procedure l2(b)(6), the court must “accept as true all of the factual
`
`allegations contained in the complaint
`
`and “draw all inferences in the light most
`
`3726
`
`favorable to the non—moving party .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”27 Nevertheless, the court need not accord
`
`“[l]egal conclusions, deductions or opinions couched as factual allegations .
`
`.
`
`. a
`
`presumption of truthfulness.”28
`
`In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court is not limited to the face of
`
`the complaint, but “may [also] consider any written instrument attached to the
`
`complaint, statements or documents incorporated into the complaint by reference,
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. and documents possessed by or known to the plaintiff and upon which it relied
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 8 of 18
`
`plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”’3‘ To
`
`survive a l2(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the allegations in the complaint must meet
`
`the standard of “p1ausibi1ity.”32 Although the complaint need not provide
`
`“detailed factual allegations,”33 it must “amplify a claim with some factual
`
`allegations .
`
`.
`
`. to render the claim plausible.”34 The standard is no longer that a
`
`complaint can be dismissed only if there is “no set of facts” that plaintiff could
`
`prove “which would entitle him to relief.’’35 Rather, the complaint must provide
`
`“the grounds upon which [the plaintiff’ s] claim rests through factual allegations
`
`sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative 1evel.”’36
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 9 of 18
`
`.
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 9 of 18
`
`A
`
`protection to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
`
`expression,” including musical works and accompanying words.” Moreover,
`
`under the Copyright Act, copyright in a protected work “vests initially in the
`
`author or authors of the work.”38 The Second Circuit has held that “copyright
`
`ownership is a ‘bundle of discrete rights’ regarding the owner’s ability to use his
`
`property.”39 Additionally, a copyright owner may bring an infringement action
`
`against those who exploit her work without permission or assignment.“ A
`
`copyright owner may convey the rights, either temporarily or permanently, to
`
`another, although the copyright owner may not convey more than the copyright 5
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 10 of 18
`
`_
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 10 of 18
`
`author brings an infringement action against a purported licensee, the license may
`
`be raised as a defense.”43 When the dispute is over whether a license exists, the 1
`
`alleged infringer has the burden of proving its existence.“ However, determining
`
`whether a defendant’s activities fall within the scope of an existing license
`
`essentially involves a question of contract interpretation.“ If the contract
`
`language is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning, its interpretation is a
`
`question of law for the court. However, if “‘the language used is susceptible to 1
`
`differing interpretations, each of which may be said to be as reasonable as
`
`another,’ then the interpretation of the contract becomes a question of fact for the
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 11 of 18
`
`law,”48 it is “‘suitable for disposition on a motion to dismiss.”’49
`
`The Second Circuit continues to rely, in part, on Bartsch 12. Metro-
`
`Goldwyn—Mayer, Inc.,5° for determining whether the use of a new technology is
`
`covered by an existing license.“ The preferred approach, used in Bartsch and
`
`reaffirmed in Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd., v. Walt Disney Co., is
`
`“‘that the licensee may properly pursue any uses that may reasonably be said to
`
`fall within the medium as described in the 1icense.”’52 This “new—use” analysis
`
`relies on neutral principles of contract interpretation — if a license is more
`
`reasonably read to benefit one party, that party should be able to rely on it.” A §
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 12 of 18
`
` ‘
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 12 of 18
`
`party seeking a departure from the most reasonable reading of the contract bears‘
`
`l
`
`the burden of supporting its interpretation of the contract.54
`
`D.
`
`Contributory Infringement
`
`‘
`
`‘“[O]ne who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces,
`
`causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held
`
`liable as a ‘contributory’ infringer.”’55 Contributory infringement includes
`
`personal conduct that encourages or assists the infringement.“ There can be no
`
`contributory infringement absent actual infringement.”
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
`‘
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 13 of 18
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 13 of 18
`
`i
`
`allegedly not paid to him under the Recording Agreement, not copyright
`
`infringement.” Additionally, Defendants claim that Reinhardt cannot bring two
`
`suits against identical defendants — one for improperly collecting royalties
`
`attributed to lawful use and the other for unlawful copyright infringement of the
`
`same works.
`
`Reinhardt has properly alleged a federal claim. Reinhardt has alleged
`
`that Defendants have infringed his copyright by exceeding the scope of their
`
`license. Accordingly, he seeks damages for copyright infringement under the
`
`Copyright Act. That Reinhardt has other grievances with Defendants related to
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 14 of 18
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 14 of 18
`
`the Recording Agreement to argue that their use of the Compositions, in a digital
`
`format, is licensed by Reinhardt. Because the Recording Agreement is heavily
`
`referenced by Reinhardt in the Complaint, it is incorporated by reference and 1 will
`
`consider it on this motion to dismiss.“
`
`In pertinent part, section 5(a) of the Recording Agreement authorizes
`
`Ramones Productions “to manufacture, advertise, sell, distribute, lease, license or
`
`otherwise use or dispose of the Masters and phonograph records embodying the
`
`Masters, in any or all fields of use, by any method now or hereafter known.”62
`
`The Recording Agreement also provides that “‘Records,’
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 15 of 18
`
`sided recording embodying the recorded performances by the Ramones.’’64
`
`This language is clear and unambiguous and conveys a definite
`
`meaning. The contractual language defining “phonograph records,” when read
`
`together with the provisions of section 5(a), clearly authorizes the digital uses
`
`employed by Defendants. The phrase “now or hereafter known,” when referring
`
`to forms of reproduction, reveals that future technologies are covered by the
`
`agreement.“ This language creates an expansive rather than a restrictive
`
`conveyance of rights.
`
`It is not reasonable to construe the phrase “all forms
`
`now
`
`7) CC
`
`or hereafter known” to exclude Defendants’ alleged digital download form, which
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 16 of 18
`
`Additionally, this result is consistent with the “new—use” analysis of
`
`Boosey & Hawkes. The Recording Agreement is more reasonably read to convey
`
`to Ramones Productions the right to sell and distribute the “phonograph records”
`
`through new technologies, including digital formats. The language authorizes use
`
`in “all fomis,” “now or hereafter known.”67 The most reasonable reading of this
`
`language supports Defendants’ use in digital form.
`
`Reinhardt argues that the license refers only to “all forms” that are
`
`“manufactured or sold,” and digital downloads do not fall within its purview
`
`because they are transmitted and licensed to end users rather than manufactured or
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 17 of 18
`
`C.
`
`Contributory Infringement
`
`Reinhardt also alleges that the Estate of John Cummings, Herzog &
`
`Strauss, Herzog, and Ramones Productions knowingly and willfully directed the
`
`policies, activities, and operations of Taco Tunes, which is one of the parties that
`
`allegedly infringed on Reinhardt’s copyright.” Because I hold that there is no
`
`copyright infringement, there cannot be any contributory infringement. Therefore,
`
`that claim is dismissed. Additionally, because there is no copyright infringement
`
`or contributory infringement, I need not address whether the claims are barred by
`
`the statute of limitations or the doctrines of laches, estoppel or implied consent.
`
`
`
`Case 1:07-cv-08233-SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`Case 1:O7—cv—O8233—SAS Document 12 Filed 04/18/08 Page 18 of 18
`
`-Appearances-
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
`Jeff Sanders, Esq.
`Roberts & Ritholz LLP
`
`183 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor
`
`New York, New York 10016
`
`(212) 448-1800
`
`For Defendants:
`
`Stewart L. Levy, Esq.
`James E. Doherty, Esq.
`Eisenberg Tanchum & Levy
`675 Third Avenue
`
`New York, New York 10017