Isley v. Motown Record Corp.

69 F.R.D. 12, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15238
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 18, 1975·No. No. 69 Civ. 2556·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

OWEN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, three brothers, are “pop” singers and recording artists. A jury found facts in their favor establishing their right to the income from a “hit” song they recorded with instruments and voices called “It’s Your Thing”. This favorable verdict was based solely upon their own testimony in the course of which they repudiated their own earlier sworn testimony which clearly supported a contrary conclusion, characterizing such earlier conflicting testimony variously as a lie and false.1 Given this basis for the verdict, and there being persuasive documentary and testimonial evidence to the contrary, the plaintiffs’ favorable verdict cannot stand. It is set aside and a new trial is ordered.

In the mercurial field of popular music, the plaintiffs, brothers Ronald, Rudolph and O’Kelly Isley, singers and recording artists under the name Isley Brothers, had had their ups and downs. In 1968 they had been under contract to defendant Motown Record Corporation for several years and were not doing well. Under that contract from time-to-time they would record new songs, sometimes composed by themselves, sometimes by others. The tapes of those recording sessions were then delivered to Motown to press into records and distribute and the Isleys were paid royalties thereon.2 In December 1968, the Isleys applied for and obtained a release from the Motown contract. Thereafter, using two wholly-owned companies, Triple Three for the sheet music and T-Neck for the records,3 the Isleys published and pressed records of “It’s [14] Your Thing” 4 using defendant Buddah Records, an independent firm, merely as a distributor. There is no question that the Isleys’ income was greatly enhanced by marketing “It’s Your Thing” under their own label rather than on the Motown label, for “It’s Your Thing” was a hit and sold 1,750,000 copies.

The basic issue on the trial was the date on which “It’s Your Thing” was first recorded.

Motown offered substantial documentary and testimonial proof to the effect that “It’s Your Thing” was first recorded at the A & R Studios in New York on November 6, 1968 at a session for which Motown had advanced the money on condition the Isleys record original tunes; that at that time the Isleys were under contract to it, and that it was therefore entitled to the income from “It’s Your Thing” less the Isleys’ royalties. The Isleys, to the contrary, testified that “It’s Your Thing” was composed in late December 1968, shortly after they got the release from their Motown contract, was first recorded on January 3, 1969, and that Motown had no rights in it at all.

The jury answered three written questions as follows:

1. Have Motown and Jobete proved by a preponderance of the evidence that O’Kelly Isley on behalf of the Isley Brothers agreed on or about November 1, 1968 with Ralph Seltzer of Motown to obtain and furnish him with songwriter agreements on the forthcoming recording session as part of Seltzer’s agreement to advance the money for the session?
“No”
2. Do you find that Motown and Jobete had proved by a preponderance5 of the evidence that “It’s Your Thing” and “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out” were recorded on November 6, 1968 at the A & R Studios in New York?
“No”
3. Do you find that the Isleys have proved by a preponderance6 *of the evidence that “It’s Your Thing” and “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out” were recorded for the first time on January 3, 1969 at the Town Sound Studios in Englewood, New Jersey?
“Yes” 7

The infirmity in the Isleys’ collective testimony, which was the sole support for the jury’s several conclusions, is clearly demonstrated by a comparison of their 1969-70 testimony in depositions or before Judge Lasker8 with their 1975 testimony given on the trial.

The 1969-70 testimony was to the effect that after actually having auditioned another band, they engaged a band called the Midnight Movers as a second choice to do a couple of “ideas” they (the Isleys) had; that they thereafter wrote Motown on November 1 that they were going to do a session with the [15] Midnight Movers and asked for money for the session and agreed to deliver the tape after the session; that they received from Motown songwriters agreements to be executed for original tunes; that in preparation for the recording session they had a 3-4 hour rehearsal on the night of November 5; that Ronald and O’Kelly Isley composed the music the Midnight Movers rehearsed; that O’Kelly Isley arranged for the recording studio for November 6, and told A & R how to set it up;9 that the Midnight Movers were paid $850 for the recording session; that although the Isleys were supposed to send the tape of the session to Motown, they did not, and the tape was still [as of 1969-70] somewhere at O’Kelly’s home.

Thus, in 1969-70, while the Isleys maintained that they had not recorded “It’s Your Thing” at the November 6 session, they clearly acknowledged that on that date they had made the various customary arrangements for a substantial recording session of music of their oum, and absent the production of the tape, a trier of the fact could well conclude, given other evidence, that what they recorded was in fact “It’s Your Thing”.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Isley v. Motown Record Corp., 69 F.R.D. 12, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15238 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

69 F.R.D. 12 (Isley v. Motown Record Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gibson v. Total Car Franchising Corp.
223 F.R.D. 265 (M.D. North Carolina, 2004)
Rivera v. Baccarat, Inc.
10 F. Supp. 2d 318 (S.D. New York, 1998)
In Re Wyatt, Inc.
168 B.R. 520 (D. Connecticut, 1994)
Sorlucco v. New York City Police Department
780 F. Supp. 202 (S.D. New York, 1992)
Ismail v. Cohen
712 F. Supp. 416 (S.D. New York, 1989)
United States v. Ayer
687 F. Supp. 130 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Quintel Corp. v. Citibank, N.A.
606 F. Supp. 898 (S.D. New York, 1985)
Foster v. Continental Can Corp.
101 F.R.D. 710 (N.D. Indiana, 1984)
Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.
545 F. Supp. 1314 (S.D. New York, 1982)