Who owns Bob Marley’s music based on renewal term copyrights for his pre-1978 albums was a landmark case that set the precedence for future claims on music rights for reggae musicians. The case which came to a close in 2010 saw Bob Marley’s widow, Rita Marley, along with nine of his children, and their company Fifty-Six Hope Road, against UMG Recordings, Inc. (UMG), the successor-in-interest to the Chris Blackwell founded Island Records. The plaintiffs claim that the renewal term copyrights in the sound recordings reverted to them upon Bob Marley’s death in 1981. This article delves into the background of the case and provides an analysis of the court’s opinion order.
Background
A young Bob Marley, entered into a series of exclusive recording agreements with Island Records Ltd. and Island Records, Inc. (collectively “Island”) from August 25, 1972, until his death in 1981 then Island was sold to Polygram and in May 1998, alcoholic distiller Seagram Co. which owned Universal Studios, bought PolyGram for $10.6 Billion. PolyGram was eventually folded into Universal Music Group the largest record company in the world. UMG produces, distributes, sells, and licenses Bob Marley’s sound recordings, including the disputed recordings.
The recording agreements, including the 1972 Agreement for albums “Catch a Fire” and “Burnin’,” the 1974 Agreement for the album “Natty Dread,” and the 1975 Agreement for albums “Rastaman Vibrations” and “Exodus,” granted Island the exclusive rights to produce, reproduce, sell, and distribute the sound recordings worldwide. These agreements also contained provisions related to who should own Bob Marley’s music royalties, advances, and recording costs.
After Bob Marley’s death, his widow Rita Marley, as one of the administrators of his estate, acted on behalf of Media Aides Limited, a company owned by Bob Marley, until late 1986. Media Aides entered into new agreements with Island in 1983, 1984, and 1986 for the creation of additional albums. In 1992, the estate assets were transferred to Island Logic, Inc., Island Logic Ltd., and finally to the Stitching Bob Marley, a Dutch foundation created for tax purposes.
The Dispute
The plaintiffs Rita Marley et al argued that the renewal term copyrights in the sound recordings reverted to them under the Copyright Act of 1909 upon Bob Marley’s death. They also claim that UMG underpaid them in royalties. The case involved cross-motions for partial summary judgment from both parties.
Court’s Opinion
In documents obtained by WMV (Bob Marley Estate Vs Universal), the opinion order, District Judge Denise Cote granted UMG’s motion in part and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The court analyzed the language of the recording agreements and determined that the rights to the sound recordings were assigned to Island (and subsequently UMG) and were not subject to reversion to the plaintiffs. The court found that the agreements explicitly granted Island the perpetual and exclusive rights to the recordings throughout the world, and there was no provision for reversion upon Bob Marley’s death.
The court also examined the incontestability clauses in the agreements, which stated that royalty statements rendered by Island would be binding unless specific objections were made within a certain time frame. The court held that the plaintiffs’ failure to object to the royalty statements within the specified period further supported the conclusion that the rights to the sound recordings remained with Island (UMG).
Regarding the underpayment of royalties claim, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion, finding that genuine disputes of material facts existed that needed to be resolved at trial. The court determined that there were factual issues related to the calculation and payment of royalties that required a full examination of the evidence.
Both parties have moved for summary judgment around whether the Sound Recordings were considered “works made for hire” under the Copyright Act of 1909.
According to the legal standard, summary judgment can only be granted if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden of proof lies with the moving party to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. In this case, UMG asserts that it is the rightful owner of the renewal term copyrights, claiming that the Sound Recordings were “works made for hire” under the 1909 Act.
UMG argues that, as the statutory “author” of the Sound Recordings, it owns the copyrights in both the initial and renewal terms. They contend that the 1972, 1974, and 1975 Agreements demonstrate that the Sound Recordings were created at the instance and expense of Island, UMG’s predecessor-in-interest. Therefore, UMG asserts its entitlement to the financial rewards traditionally granted under copyright law for works made for hire.
However, the Plaintiffs dispute UMG’s claim and argue that, since Bob Marley died in 1981 before the copyrights entered the renewal terms, ownership of the renewal term copyrights reverted to them. They contend that, as the copyrights were not conveyed to UMG or any other party, they are the rightful owners of the renewal term copyrights.
To analyze the Plaintiffs’ claim, it is necessary to distinguish between the common dictionary sense of “author” and the legal conclusion of “author” in copyright law. While UMG acknowledges that Bob Marley is the creator or source of the Sound Recordings in the common dictionary sense, they argue that he is not the legal author of the Sound Recordings. UMG claims that, due to the contractual arrangements between Island and Bob Marley, Island should be considered the legal author under copyright law.
Under the 1909 Act, the term “author” included “an employer in the case of works made for hire.” Therefore, if a work is determined to be a work for hire under the 1909 Act, the employer is legally regarded as the “author.” The “instance and expense” test is applied to determine work-for-hire status, regardless of whether the work was created by a traditional “employee” or an “independent contractor.” This test establishes that the copyright belongs to the person at whose instance and expense the work was created.
In this case, the Second Circuit has established an almost irrebuttable presumption that any person who paid another to create a copyrightable work was the statutory “author” under the work-for-hire doctrine. Therefore, unless evidence of a contrary agreement is presented, the hiring party is presumed to be the author of the work. The burden of proof falls on the independent contractor to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that such a contrary agreement was reached.
UMG asserts that the Sound Recordings were works made for hire under the 1909 Act based on the 1972, 1974, and 1975 Agreements. These agreements clearly indicate that the Sound Recordings were created at the instance of Island, and Island had the right to direct and supervise the manner in which Bob Marley created the recordings. Furthermore, Island bore the expenses associated with the creation of the Sound Recordings.
(Read More On the making of “Catch A Fire”)
The contractual language, along with the original copyright registrations and renewal registrations, supports the presumption that UMG is the statutory author of the Sound Recordings. The agreements explicitly state that the Sound Recordings were the absolute property of UMG.
