Broadcast Music, Inc. v. My Image Studios LLC

Background

Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) licenses public-performance rights in musical works on behalf of copyright owners. The plaintiffs sued My Image Studios LLC, doing business as Mist Harlem, and Carlton Brown, Walter Edwards, and Amilcar Priestley, alleging unauthorized public performances of six copyrighted songs at Mist Harlem’s Sunday brunches on December 10, 2017, and April 15, 2018.

The court had already entered a judgment as to liability against Brown and Priestley after they failed to appear. The plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment on liability against My Image Studios and Edwards and sought final judgment against all defendants. Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Copyright infringement

The court stated that the plaintiffs had to establish: (1) originality and authorship of the works; (2) compliance with Copyright Act formalities; (3) ownership of the copyrights; (4) public performance of the compositions for profit; and (5) lack of authorization.

The plaintiffs established the first three elements, and the defendants did not dispute them. The evidence also established that the six songs were played for profit because Mist Harlem charged for food and drinks while a disc jockey or video disc jockey provided entertainment that helped attract customers.

The defendants conceded that BMI had not authorized the performances but argued that two music services provided authorization. First, they relied on a manager’s declaration stating that a third-party service used to provide disc jockeys had a license with Xtendamix. The court disregarded that evidence because the manager did not claim personal knowledge of the license, making the statement inadmissible or, at most, speculation about a possible agreement. The court also noted that, even if such a license existed, the record did not show that it authorized the public-performance rights at issue. The court distinguished synchronization rights for combining music with video from public-performance rights in the musical compositions.

Second, the defendants relied on a subscription to Soundtrack Your Brand. The court found that the subscription did not cover disc jockey performances and that the two songs potentially covered by the subscription were played by the disc jockey rather than the computer source. The defendants therefore did not establish a genuine factual dispute about authorization.

Liability and remedy

The court held that My Image Studios and Edwards were jointly and severally liable. Joint and several liability means each liable defendant can be responsible for the full amount owed, subject to the rules governing collection and contribution. The court found that both had the right and ability to supervise the people working at Mist Harlem and had a direct financial interest in the establishment. They shared liability with Brown and Priestley, against whom liability had previously been established.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. It found that the requirements for a permanent injunction were met because the infringement caused irreparable harm, money alone was inadequate, the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and the public interest favored protecting copyright owners. The defendants, their agents, employees, and persons acting with their permission or authority were permanently enjoined from infringing BMI-licensed musical compositions.

The court awarded statutory damages of $20,000 for each of the six infringed copyrights, totaling $120,000, against My Image Studios, Brown, Edwards, and Priestley jointly and severally. It also awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, with the parties required to try to agree on the amount and the plaintiffs required to submit supporting documentation if they could not agree. The court awarded interest on the full judgment amount from the date of entry of final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1961. Because the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs had not yet been determined, the court deferred entering final judgment.