Roberts v. BroadwayHD LLC

Background

Chapman Roberts alleged that he created and owns the copyright in vocal arrangements for the musical Smokey Joe’s Café. He claimed that defendants distributed a filmed version of the musical, called the Recording, without his permission, attribution, or compensation. His First Amended Complaint asserted direct and contributory copyright infringement, dissemination of false copyright-management information under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(a), and unjust enrichment under common law.

Roberts sued Bruce Brandwen; several Brandwen-related companies; Leiber Stoller Productions, Inc., Michael Stoller, and the Estate of Jerome Leiber (the L&S Defendants); Sony/ATV Music Publishing, LLC (SATV); Amazon Digital Services LLC; and BroadwayHD LLC. The opinion states that Brandwen-related entities distributed the Recording from 2000 through 2013, and that Broadway Worldwide later obtained distribution rights from SATV and purported to grant digital-streaming rights to BroadwayHD. BroadwayHD allegedly streamed the Recording beginning in September 2019.

Bruce Brandwen’s Motion

Brandwen argued that Roberts had not pleaded a basis to hold him personally liable for conduct by the Brandwen corporate defendants. The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It explained that a corporate officer may be personally liable for copyright infringement when he personally participates in the infringement, profits from it while failing to stop or limit it, or is the active force behind the corporation’s infringement. The court found that Roberts adequately alleged Brandwen’s control of the companies, knowledge of Roberts’s copyright, personal participation in copying and distributing the Vocal Arrangements, licensing conduct, and financial benefit.

The court therefore denied Bruce Brandwen’s motion to dismiss the claims against him for copyright infringement. The opinion’s conclusion states that the motion was denied; it does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.

L&S Defendants’ Motion

Roberts asserted contributory copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, and false-copyright-management-information claims against the L&S Defendants.

The court held that the contributory copyright-infringement claim was an ownership claim. In the court’s analysis, the claim accrued in 1999, when the L&S Defendants allegedly granted BTN an extensive license to record and distribute the musical without Roberts’s permission. Because the Copyright Act has a three-year limitations period and Roberts did not sue at that time, the court held that the claim was untimely. The court also stated that later infringement allegations could not revive the time-barred ownership claim.

The court held that the unjust-enrichment claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. Roberts sought to protect the same rights to copy, distribute, and publicly perform the Vocal Arrangements that copyright law protects, and the alleged enrichment consisted of royalties or other amounts received from exploiting the Recording. The court concluded that the alleged misrepresentation did not make the unjust-enrichment claim qualitatively different from copyright infringement.

The court also held that Roberts had not adequately pleaded a false-copyright-management-information claim against the L&S Defendants. The complaint did not identify what information they provided or distributed, when they provided it, to whom, or how it was false. The court further stated that any claim based on information disseminated with the original Recording would have been known to Roberts by 2000 and would therefore be untimely.

The court granted the L&S Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full. It stated that the copyright claim was untimely, the unjust-enrichment claim was preempted, and the false-copyright-management-information claim was inadequately pleaded.

SATV’s Motion

Roberts asserted the same three types of claims against SATV. The court treated SATV as a successor-in-interest to the L&S Defendants for purposes of the ownership theory. It held that the contributory copyright-infringement claims against SATV derived from the same time-barred ownership claim and therefore were also time-barred.

The court held that Roberts’s unjust-enrichment claim against SATV was substantively identical to the claim against the L&S Defendants and was likewise preempted by the Copyright Act. It also held that Roberts had not alleged facts identifying any false copyright-management information SATV provided or distributed, including in connection with the 2018 license. The court therefore granted SATV’s motion to dismiss.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Roberts asked for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. The court reserved decision because Roberts had not proposed specific amendments, and the court was concerned that some amendments might be futile—that is, unable to state a viable claim. The court ordered the parties to appear for a video conference to discuss the anticipated amendments.

The final order denied Bruce Brandwen’s motion to dismiss, granted the L&S Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and granted SATV’s motion to dismiss. It reserved decision on Roberts’s request for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. The opinion does not state a disposition of that request.