Lee v. Karaoke City

Background

Beom Su Lee, proceeding without a lawyer, brought one copyright-infringement claim against Karaoke City and other karaoke businesses. He alleged that the defendants used musical works written by his late father, Jae Ho Lee, without a license or permission. Lee alleged that ownership of the works passed through his family to him and that he registered a collection of 125 works with the U.S. Copyright Office. He further alleged that, during visits to the defendants’ establishments in April 2018, he found 42 of the works on TJ Media karaoke machines and observed or recorded performances of some songs.

Certain defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not adequately state a copyright claim. They also sought, alternatively, a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), which allows a court to require clarification when a pleading is too vague or ambiguous to answer. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended denying both requests. The defendants objected, and the district court reviewed the report and recommendation de novo, meaning independently and from the beginning.

Court’s analysis

To state a copyright-infringement claim, Lee had to plausibly allege ownership of a valid copyright and infringement. The court held that the complaint and its attachments sufficiently alleged ownership. The registration certificate was issued within five years of the collection’s first publication and therefore provided initial evidence of copyright validity. Lee also attached documents supporting his alleged chain of ownership. The defendants’ challenges to the assignment, possible co-ownership, and the validity of the collection raised factual issues that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court also held that Lee adequately alleged infringing conduct by each defendant. His allegations that each establishment contained and used a karaoke machine with the works, together with videos, photographs, and allegations of performances at several locations, made infringement by each establishment plausible at the pleading stage. The court did not require Lee to provide media evidence of an infringement at every location.

The court rejected the argument that the works were necessarily in the public domain. The complaint alleged that the collection was first published in 1996, and the court was required at this stage to accept that allegation as true. The defendants could seek discovery concerning any earlier publication, but their assumption that the works must have been published before 1978 did not justify dismissal.

The court also found that Lee plausibly alleged public performances. Although the defendants argued that performances in private karaoke rooms were similar to movie showings in hotel rooms, the court held that whether the establishments and their rooms were public for copyright purposes was a factual issue. The complaint alleged that the establishments were open to the public and that anyone willing to pay could rent the rooms. Lee’s own performances and the presence of the songs in the establishments’ songbooks also supported a plausible inference that customers could perform the songs.

The court declined to dismiss based on fair use. Fair use is a defense that depends on factors including the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the potential market. The complaint did not establish from its face that the karaoke performances were parodies, educational uses, or otherwise protected fair uses. The issue could be developed through discovery.

Finally, the court held that Lee adequately alleged willful infringement for pleading purposes. Although the allegations were sparse, the court found it plausible that defendants acted with reckless disregard for Lee’s alleged rights because the complaint described his father as a widely known artist and alleged that defendants included the works on their machines without obtaining licenses or confirming that the works were unprotected.

Disposition

The court adopted Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report in full and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement. The order terminated the motion at Docket 32. It left the copyright claim pending and did not determine whether the defendants were ultimately liable for infringement.