Supreme Records, Inc. v. Decca Records, Inc.

90 F. Supp. 904, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 405, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3897
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California
DecidedMay 5, 1950
Docket8929-Y
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 90 F. Supp. 904 (Supreme Records, Inc. v. Decca Records, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Supreme Records, Inc. v. Decca Records, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 904, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 405, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3897 (S.D. Cal. 1950).

Opinion

YANKWICH, District Judge

(after stating the facts above).

L The Plaintiff Has No Property Rights

As appears from the preceding statement of facts, the complaint was originally filed on behalf of Supreme Records, Incorporated, a corporation, and Black & White Record Distributors, Inc., a corporation, against the defendants Decca Records, Inc., and others.

There was a voluntary dismissal as to the defendant Capitol Records Distributing Corp. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case, on a motion of the defendant Decca Records, Inc., the action was dismissed as to the plaintiff Black & White Record Distributors, Inc., a corporation.

. The complaint, which seeks damages, an accounting and injunctive relief, does not indicate clearly-the theory upon which it was grounded.. But, upon the hearing of the motion to dismiss, and at the commencement of this trial, it was stated that the sole ground on which recovery is sought is unfair competition.

The unfair competition is alleged to consist of appropriating the musical arrangement of the song “A Little Bird Told Me”, as embodied in the recording made by Supreme of that song. Supreme does not own the copyright of that song, and does not claim any common -law rights in it. They are still owned by the composer, who is not a party to this action and has not appeared in it as a witness for either side. In that respect, the case is unique.

Ordinarily, the composer or the owner of a copyrighted song asserts rights to the arrangement, 17 U.S.C.A. § 1. The Copyright Office recognizes this. For in the new Rules and Regulations, adopted November 29, 1949, 17 U.S.C.A. following; section 207, it has provided (Sec. 201.4(b) (5): “Adaptations and arrangements of musical compositions or musical compositions republished with new matter, including; editing, when such new matter is the writing of an author, may be registered as new works under the provisions of section 7 of the Copyright Act.”

The first problem which confronts us is legal: Does the record disclose the existence in the plaintiff of a property interest which it is the duty of a court of equity to protect?

The right to the product of one’s intelligence, imagination or skill, whether in the realm of literature, music or art, was recognized by courts long before recognition was given to these rights by statute. Even today, when the right to full ownership of the product of one’s literary or musical skill is infringed by others, through imitation or unauthorized appropriation, courts of equity will protect the creator, although he may not have secured for himself the added protection of statutes which provide for registration of such works. 18 C.J.S., Copyright and Literary *907 Property, §§ 4-16. Once the creator has availed himself of the right provided by the statute, the common law right ceases to exist. The two cannot co-exist.

In this case, it has been conceded by the plaintiff that the right asserted is not a statutory right to the song, itself, or a common-law right to it. Such right could not very well be asserted, because the composer of the song has not transferred any of his rights to the plaintiff. The plaintiff merely holds a limited right to record, — a right which the composer did not intend to be exclusive, because the record shows that he or his agent approached the defendant, and that the recording by Decca was made in pursuance to an agreement whereby they pay royalties and compensation for the privilege of recording the song. The right which the plaintiff asserts is the right to the particular arrangement of the song,— the special manner in which they recorded it. It is their claim that this is a property right which they may assert against the defendant as their competitor, even though the arrangement itself did not give rise to any rights which they might assert against the public.

The plaintiff seeks to apply to the situation confronting us in this case the principles declared by the Supreme Court in the case of International News Service v. Associated Press, 1918, 248 U.S. 215, 39 S. Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211, 2 A.L.R. 293. In that case, the court states the general principle that the right of property may exist under certain circumstances, despite the non-existence of any common-law or statutory right. They held that the misappropriation of news gathered by another agency was the subject of protection by a court of equity. The gist of the opinion is contained in the following paragraph: “Besides the misappropriation, there are elements of imitation, of false pretense, in defendant’s practices. The device of rewriting complainant’s news articles, frequently resorted to, carries its own comment. The habitual failure to give credit-to complainant for that which is taken is significant. Indeed, the entire system of appropriating complainant’s news and transmitting it as a commercial product to defendant’s clients and patrons amounts to a false representation to them and to their newspaper readers that the news transmitted is the result of defendant’s own investigation in the field. But these elements, although accentuating the wrong, are not the essence of it. It is something more than the advantage of celebrity of which complainant is being deprived.” 248 U.S. at page 242, 39 S.Ct. at page 73. This case must be interpreted in the light of specific facts. The court there held that, because the happening of an event in itself does not constitute news, unless someone deems it of sufficient importance to make a news story out of it, — the gathering of the news, the discovery of the fact and its presentation in a specific form, as a news story, constitutes a quasi property right which the court should recognize against another agency, which, after seeing this story in print, appropriates it and rewrites it in its own way.

Subsequent cases relating to news have emphasized the fact that it is the discovery, and especially the manner of presentation of a news item, which is the essence of the right which the courts will protect.

In Chicago Record-Herald v. Tribune Ass’n, 7 Cir., 1921, 275 F. 797, 798, Judge Alschuler, speaking for the court said:

“It is true that news as such is not the subject of copyright, and so far as concerns the copyright law, whereon alone this action is based, if the Herald publication were only a statement of the news which the copyrighted article disclosed, generally speaking, the action would not lie. But, in so far as the Edwards article involves authorship and literary quality and style, apart from the bare recital of the facts or statement of news, it is protected by the copyright law. * * *
“This is plainly more than a mere chronicle of facts or news. It reveals a peculiar power of portrayal, and a felicity of wording and phrasing, well calculated to seize and hold the interest of the reader, which is quite beyond and apart from the mere setting forth of the facts. But if the whole of it were considered as stating news or *908 facts, yet the arrangement and manner of statement plainly discloses a distinct * * *

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

Related

Canal+ Image UK Ltd. v. Lutvak
773 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Tisi v. Patrick
97 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Woods v. Bourne Co.
841 F. Supp. 118 (S.D. New York, 1994)
Shaw v. Time-Life Records
341 N.E.2d 817 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
Price v. Hal Roach Studios, Inc.
400 F. Supp. 836 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Davis v. Trans World Airlines
297 F. Supp. 1145 (C.D. California, 1969)
Miller v. Universal Pictures Co.
10 N.Y.2d 972 (New York Court of Appeals, 1961)
Glory Records, Inc. v. Radio Corp. of America
30 Misc. 2d 135 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
Miller v. Universal Pictures Co.
11 A.D.2d 47 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1960)
Miller v. Universal Pictures Co.
18 Misc. 2d 626 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
McIntyre v. Double-A Music Corporation
166 F. Supp. 681 (S.D. California, 1958)
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mercury Record Corp.
109 F. Supp. 330 (S.D. New York, 1952)
White v. Kimmell
94 F. Supp. 502 (S.D. California, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 F. Supp. 904, 85 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 405, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/supreme-records-inc-v-decca-records-inc-casd-1950.