12/3/2023 0 Comments Search bmi repertoire![]() ![]() Rather, Beckwith was served with the instant complaint.Ī motion for summary judgment may be granted only when there is no genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. According to Beckwith, he never received a contract back from BMI nor was there any further negotiation between the parties. Beckwith claims that BMI sent him a licensing agreement and that he returned it with a handwritten notation indicating the fee that he was willing to pay. It was *805 during these karaoke nights that the BMI investigator was present and heard the BMI-licensed songs being played.ĭefendants claim that they did not believe that a second license, other than the license held by the juke box owner, was necessary for karaoke night because it involved the playing of recorded music through the same "sound system" as that utilized by the juke box.įurthermore, according to defendants, Beckwith did negotiate with BMI for a licensing agreement, although at a rate lower than that originally requested by BMI. The karaoke nights occurred once a month for approximately four hours per night. During these events, recorded music was played through the same sound system utilized by the juke box. Defendants contend, however, that there is a juke box on the premises and that the juke box owner had a license with BMI which authorized BMI-licensed songs to be played publicly via the juke box.Īpparently, during late 1993 and early 1994, the Fairport Village Inn offered "karaoke" nights. (See Declaration, Robert Avino).ĭefendants do not dispute that BMI-licensed songs were played at the Fairport Village Inn on the days in question. In total, the investigator claimed that twenty-five songs from the BMI repertoire were performed during the days in question. Plaintiffs maintain that on December 18-19, 1993 and again on March 26-27, 1994, a BMI investigator visited the Fairport Village Inn and concluded that BMI-licensed songs were being played at the establishment. ![]() BMI also contends that it offered to enter into a license agreement with defendants but that defendants neglected or refused to do so. BMI contends that between November 1989 and April 1994, it informed defendants of the need to obtain permission for public performances of copyrighted music. BMI executes blanket license agreements allowing public use and performance of the body of copyrighted works that BMI has permission to license (BMI's "repertoire").īMI claims that defendants publicly performed songs from BMI's repertoire without a license agreement. ![]() The copyright owners of the musical compositions involved in the present case permit BMI to license their copyrighted works for public performance. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that Beckwith is individually liable because (1) he had the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and (2) he had a direct financial interest in such activities.įor the reasons discussed, infra, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted in part, and denied in part. Plaintiffs contend that the corporate defendant is vicariously liable for the acts of infringement committed at its business establishment. The case is currently before this court on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. ("BMI") and the copyright owners of the musical compositions involved in this case brought this action for copyright infringement against WPBK, Inc., doing business as Fairport Village Inn, and Wayne A. Williams, Scolaro, Shulman, Cohen, Lawler & Burstein, Syracuse, NY, for plaintiffs.ĭavid Van Varick, Van Varick and Wood, Pittsford, NY, for defendants.īroadcast Music, Inc. WPBK, INC., d/b/a Fairport Village Inn and Wayne A. BROADCAST MUSIC, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |