Johnson v. UMG Recording, Inc.

Background

Todd Lorenzo Johnson Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued under the Copyright Act over the alleged use and distribution of song recordings associated with his artistic name, “Lyfelin.” He alleged that he authored and copyrighted the recordings and that Defendants distributed them without his permission. He sought statutory damages and injunctive relief.

The remaining defendants relevant to the motion were UnitedMasters, LLC and Spotify USA, Inc. They moved for dismissal and/or summary judgment. The report also recommended dismissal against Amazon Music Group LLC, which had been served but had not appeared, because the same alleged defect applied to that defendant. UMG Recordings, Inc. had previously been dismissed by stipulation, and Believe Digital Media LLC had been excused from responding after representing that it had been served in error.

Motion and Evidence

The court treated the motion as one for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 because Defendants relied on declarations and other evidence outside the complaint. The court noted that Defendants had previously filed a motion that Judge Cronan denied without prejudice because they had not provided the notice required when a represented party seeks summary judgment against someone proceeding without a lawyer. Defendants later provided the required notice, and Johnson submitted an opposition.

Defendants’ evidence described searches of the U.S. Copyright Office’s public catalog using Johnson’s name, “Lyfelin,” song titles and phrases from the complaint, and the registration numbers appearing in Johnson’s exhibits. The searches did not identify relevant registrations. Defendants also presented evidence that the numbers in Johnson’s exhibits corresponded to records from the “Works Copyright” website, not registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Johnson responded that he had agreements with three producers allowing him to use beats in his songs. Those agreements described the producers as owners of the beats and granted Johnson nonexclusive licenses; they also stated that Johnson could not register the new songs or beats with the U.S. Copyright Office. Johnson also relied on performing-rights organizations and Sound Exchange records. The court concluded that these materials did not establish registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright Infringement Claim

The court concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact about the registration issue. Under Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act, registration or preregistration with the U.S. Copyright Office is required before bringing a civil infringement action involving a United States work. The court found that Defendants had shown that Johnson lacked the required registrations and that Johnson had not submitted admissible evidence from which a jury could find otherwise.

The court also explained that Johnson’s nonexclusive licenses to use the producers’ beats did not give him an ownership interest that would allow him to sue for infringement of those copyrights. Records from performing-rights organizations, Sound Exchange, and other third-party services likewise did not satisfy the Copyright Act’s registration requirement.

The report therefore recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted and that Johnson’s copyright infringement claims be dismissed.

Declaratory Judgment Claim

Although the complaint did not clearly state a separate declaratory-judgment claim, the court liberally construed it as seeking a declaration that Johnson owned the recordings. The court recommended dismissal of that claim because the Declaratory Judgment Act supplies a procedure for obtaining relief but does not create an independent cause of action. The court also concluded that the Copyright Act did not provide the requested standalone claim for a declaration of ownership, and Johnson had not satisfied the copyright-registration requirement.

Recommendation and Procedure

The report recommended that the motion for summary judgment be granted and that the action be dismissed in its entirety. It also concluded that amendment would be futile because Johnson could not cure the failure to register the copyrights before filing suit. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein issued the report and recommendation for review by Judge John Cronan. The parties were given fourteen days to file objections, and the report stated that failing to object timely would preclude appellate review.