Reynolds v. Apple Inc.

Background

Larry Reynolds alleged that Apple Inc. unlawfully streamed and downloaded approximately 70 of his songs without authorization. He identified seven albums containing copyrights he owned. Reynolds claimed that Apple failed to file or serve a Notice of Intent with him or the Copyright Office and that Apple had not paid, or had underpaid, royalties.

Apple moved for summary judgment, which is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact important to the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Apple argued that it had properly licensed each relevant song and paid the royalties due under those licenses.

Copyright-infringement claim

A copyright-infringement plaintiff must show ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original parts of the work. A license is an affirmative defense to infringement. The court explained that distributing a song involves separate copyrights in the musical composition and the sound recording, and that lawful distribution requires licenses for both.

Apple submitted evidence that it obtained sound-recording licenses from CD Baby and mechanical licenses from the Harry Fox Agency. From February 28, 2011, through November 14, 2017, Reynolds submitted the asserted works to CD Baby and repeatedly signed CD Baby’s standard artist agreement electronically. That agreement authorized CD Baby and its licensees, including Apple, to reproduce, make available, and otherwise distribute the content. On August 16, 2016, Reynolds also agreed through the Harry Fox Agency’s electronic system to Apple’s Subscription, Cloud and Lyrics Agreement, granting Apple the necessary rights to distribute the asserted works.

The court found that Apple presented competent evidence authenticating the licenses. Reynolds denied at a hearing that he had electronically signed the agreements, but offered no supporting evidence beyond that denial. The court also noted that he acknowledged receiving royalty checks from the Harry Fox Agency and cashing some checks from CD Baby. Reynolds offered no other evidence challenging the licenses or showing that Apple exceeded their scope.

The court concluded that Reynolds had authorized CD Baby and the Harry Fox Agency, and through them Apple, to distribute his music. Because Apple properly licensed the asserted works, it was not required to file or serve Notices of Intent, which are required when an entity seeks a compulsory license under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The court therefore granted Apple summary judgment on the copyright-infringement claim. The court also noted that only 17 of the asserted works had been streamed through the third quarter of 2019, and that a downloaded song was not among the asserted works; works that were not copied could not support an infringement claim.

Royalty claim

Apple stated that it paid royalties to CD Baby, which distributed Reynolds’s share, and paid mechanical royalties to the Harry Fox Agency for streams matched to Reynolds’s publisher, after which the agency passed his share to him. Apple stated that it reprocessed payments for works not matched to a publisher. Reynolds submitted no evidence showing that royalties were incorrectly calculated or unlawfully withheld. The court therefore granted Apple summary judgment on the royalty claim as well.

Other motions and disposition

The court granted Apple’s motion to seal certain royalty-payment exhibits, an exhibit containing its licensing agreement with the Harry Fox Agency, and portions of a motion referring to those exhibits. The court denied all other motions as moot, including requests concerning a protective order, a status conference about discovery, an extension to file a motion to compel discovery, Reynolds’s motion for ruling, Reynolds’s motion to amend, and Apple’s requested extension to respond to Reynolds’s motions. The court’s final order granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment.