Remove Due Diligence Remove Licensing Remove Music
article thumbnail

Beyond the Limit: The Battle Over Copyright Back-Damages in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy

Patently-O

By Dennis Crouch and Timothy Knight* The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on February 21 in an important copyright case – Warner Chappell Music v. The case now before the Supreme Court arose when Sherman Nealy’s collaborator licensed their co-created songs without Nealy’s permission (while Nealy was incarcerated).

Music 105
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Fixes One Problem with the Copyright Statute of Limitations, But Punts Another — Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Under the “discovery rule,” the limitations period begins to run when “the plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the injury that forms the basis for the claim.” Warner Chappell Music, Inc. , to license works from the Music Specialist catalog.

Music 105
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Giving off Bad Energy: “Milkshake” Sample Removed from Beyoncé’s Album “Renaissance”

IPilogue

Kelis has no legal ground to stand on but her quarrel with Beyoncé illuminates a prominent and recurring issue in the music industry. And when that man says, ‘Music has value,’ he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it.”

Music 100
article thumbnail

Time's Up! Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy and the Discovery Rule Saga

The IPKat

During this period, Mr. Nealy was not involved in the music industry as he was serving a prison sentence. Meanwhile, Flo Rida’s song already gained significant popularity and was licensed for use in several popular television programs, including "So You Think You Can Dance.”

Music 62
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Affirms Availability of Back-Damages Under Copyright Discovery Rule

Patently-O

By Dennis Crouch and Timothy Knight On May 9, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Warner Chappell Music v. ” For those of you who have not been following the case, the Plaintiff Sherman Nealy, a music producer, helped create musical works in the 1980s with his collaborator, Tony Butler. .” Nealy , No.

article thumbnail

Part 2: Workflow of the Future: Copyright & Standards

Velocity of Content

A global audience of Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) explored how collective licensing can support SDOs as they meet customer needs today and into the future. In addition, for several decades and in many parts of the world, there has been a vibrant collective licensing model in operation for secondary rights.

article thumbnail

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy: Supreme Court Allows Retrospective Copyright Damages Beyond 3 Years Based on Discovery Rule

IP Intelligence

In 1983, Sherman Nealy and Tony Butler formed a music label, Music Specialist Inc. Music Specialist), that recorded and released several singles, but their collaboration dissolved in 1986. In 2008, unbeknownst to Nealy, Butler entered into an agreement with Warner Chappell Music Inc. 1] The U.S.

Music 52