Sony Is the New “King of the Road”
Thursday, April 26, 2012

Considering whether musician Roger Miller’s widow or a music publishing company owned his music catalog, including the hit song “King of the Road,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court’s decision that found the publishing company liable for copyright infringement thereby vacating an award of almost $1 million in damages. Roger Miller v. Sony, Case No. 10-5363 (6th Cir., Feb 22, 2012) (Moore, J.).

In 1964, musician Roger Miller assigned the copyrights in his song catalog to a predecessor of Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC in exchange for royalty payments. The works at issue fell under the 1909 Copyright Act, giving them an initial 28-year copyright term followed by a renewal term. Sony had applied to renew the copyrights in January and April 1992, for which the renewal term began January 1, 1993. Miller died in October 1992. In his will, he granted all interests in his intellectual property to his wife, who assigned those interests to Roger Miller Music, Inc. Sony continued to exploit the song catalog and pay royalties to Roger Miller Music for the next 12 years.

In 2004, Roger Miller Music brought suit against Sony for copyright infringement, seeking damages and a declaration that Roger Miller Music was the owner of the renewal copyrights, based on the Copyright Act’s hierarchy of who is entitled to renewal copyrights. Original and renewal copyrights (applying to works originally copyrighted between January 1, 1964 and December 31, 1977) are separate and distinct legal interests, allowing an author who sells the original copyright, or his heirs, a second chance to claim ownership at the end of the original term. The district court found that Sony did not own the renewal copyrights because Miller had died prior to the vesting of the renewal term and assignees, such as Sony, were not included in the applicable statutory hierarchy.

Sony appealed, arguing that Miller’s assignment of the renewal copyrights to Sony was effective because Sony filed the renewal applications prior to Miller’s death. Roger Miller Music argued that the assignment could only have been effective if Miller had been living as of January 1, 1993, the start of the renewal term and the date on which ownership would have vested in Miller. The 6th Circuit agreed with Sony.

The Copyright Act’s applicable renewal provision specifies that if an application to register the renewal copyright is filed within the renewal year, the renewal copyright vests first in the author if still living, then the surviving spouse or children if the author was not, then to the author’s executors, and last, to the author’s next of kin in the absence of a will. If no renewal application is filed, the renewal copyright vests in the same persons under that same hierarchy. The difference is that under the statute, if the renewal application was made within the renewal year, the renewal copyright vests in the appropriate person pursuant to the hierarchy “at the time the application [was] made.” If no application is filed, the renewal copyright vests in the appropriate person pursuant to the hierarchy as of the beginning date of the renewal term. Because the renewal applications for Miller’s songs were filed in the renewal year, the statutory hierarchy vested Miller, as the living author, with the renewal copyrights as of the dates of the applications. Thus, the 6th Circuit explained, Miller’s assignment to Sony of the renewal copyrights was valid despite the fact that Miller died before the renewal term began.

 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins