Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-02431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Elohim EPF USA v. 162 D & Y: Judge Castel invited briefing on copyright-registration issues without deciding them.
Elohim EPF USA, Inc. and the defendants in the case; Elohim was invited to submit a letter-brief responding to the defendants’ challenges to the copyright-registration certificates.
What happened
In Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp., defendants argued after trial that certificates covering five songs might be invalid under rules for registering groups of works. The certificates listed “Bae A Pa (Jealousy)” with nine other songs and listed four other songs together.
The court explained that a valid copyright registration is required to bring a copyright-infringement lawsuit. It described the 2013 rules, which did not specifically allow group registration of musical works, and noted defendants’ arguments that the songs were not properly registered as a single work or compilation.
Judge P. Kevin Castel did not decide whether the certificates were valid. Instead, he invited Elohim to file a letter-brief by November 22, 2023 responding to defendants’ arguments.
The detailed version
- Elohim EPF USA, Inc. v. 162 D & Y Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-02431
- P. Castel
- Nov. 15, 2023
Background
This order concerns arguments raised in defendants’ post-trial memorandum in Elohim’s copyright case. Defendants challenged the validity of certain copyright-registration certificates filed by Elohim.
One certificate, filed on December 19, 2013, listed “Bae A Pa (Jealousy)” and nine other songs. A separate certificate, filed on December 29, 2013, listed “So Cool,” “Push Push,” “Ni Kka Jit Ge (How Dare You),” and “Ga Sik Geol (Shady Girl).”
Legal framework and issue
The court stated that a copyright-registration certificate is generally a prerequisite to bringing a civil copyright-infringement claim. It explained that the Copyright Office may allow one registration for a group of related works and that compliance with the applicable regulations is strictly enforced.
When Elohim filed the certificates in 2013, the governing regulation listed categories eligible for group registration but did not provide for group registration of musical works. The court also discussed a rule allowing multiple published works to be registered as one work if they were included in one unit of publication and had the same copyright claimant. Separately, copyright law protects compilations—collections of preexisting materials arranged into an original work.
Defendants argued that the record did not support treating the identified songs as eligible for registration as a single work or compilation. The court noted that a later, 2021 amendment allowed group registration of musical works on an album, but the certificates at issue were filed in 2013.
Court’s action
Judge P. Kevin Castel invited Elohim to submit a letter-brief by November 22, 2023 responding to defendants’ arguments about the validity of the certificates covering the five identified songs. The order does not decide whether any certificate is valid, whether the songs were properly registered, or whether any copyright-infringement claim succeeds. The opinion is therefore an invitation for further briefing rather than a merits ruling.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.