Johansen v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc.

Background

David Johansen, John Lyon, and Paul Collins filed a proposed class action against Sony Music Entertainment Inc. seeking declaratory relief and damages for alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiffs alleged that, after the effective dates stated in their notices of termination, they regained ownership of specified sound recordings and the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute them, but that Sony continued exploiting those recordings.

The plaintiffs sent Sony notices under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. Johansen’s notice was recorded by the Copyright Office on July 28, 2015. Sony sent Johansen and Lyon letters refusing to recognize their terminations in June 2017. Collins also sent a termination notice in July 2015. The action was filed on February 5, 2019.

Sony’s Motion to Dismiss

Sony moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Sony argued that all three notices were invalid. It contended that Johansen’s and Lyon’s notices were untimely because they referred to grants allegedly made in 1984, that Collins’s notice for The Beat was one month late, and that the notices did not adequately identify the grants or their execution dates. Sony also argued that Lyon’s recordings might be “gap works,” meaning works created after a pre-1978 agreement, and that the notices did not meet the requirements for such works.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Section 203 governs termination of grants executed in or after 1978. The governing Copyright Office regulation requires a termination notice to identify, among other things, the grant’s execution date, the publication date when applicable, the grant being terminated, and the effective termination date. The regulation also provides a general harmless-error rule for mistakes that do not materially affect the notice’s adequacy.

The court concluded that dismissal was not appropriate based on the alleged timing problems. Johansen’s and Lyon’s notices referred broadly to all grants concerning the listed recordings, including—but not limited to—grants dated in or about 1984. Their complaint also alleged recording agreements with Sony in or about 1978. Because the recordings had publication dates spanning 1978 through 1982, it was plausible that the relevant grants were executed in 1978, which could make the 2017 termination notices timely. The court stated that more information was needed to resolve that issue.

As to Collins’s notice for The Beat, the court found it plausible that the one-month timing discrepancy was a clerical error. The other dates in the notices were generally separated by two years, and Collins’s other recording under the same agreement had a two-year interval. The court therefore found that the harmless-error rule might apply.

The court also rejected Sony’s argument that the notices did not reasonably identify the grants. The notices identified the sound recordings, their authors, publication dates, copyright registration numbers, and termination dates. In the court’s view, that information gave Sony a reasonable opportunity to identify the grants affected, even though the notices did not state the specific execution dates of those grants.

Finally, the court rejected dismissal based on the alleged gap-work problem because the complaint alleged that Lyon’s two albums were released under a 1978 recording agreement. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court accepted that allegation as true.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Sony’s motion to dismiss all claims. The court did not finally decide whether the notices were valid, whether the plaintiffs owned the sound recordings, or whether Sony infringed copyrights. The parties were directed to appear for a telephonic conference on April 22, 2020, and the clerk was directed to terminate Sony’s motion.