Contact Us Today! (877) 276-5084

Attorney Steve® Blog

All that glitters is not GOLD in Led Zeppelin copyright infringement case?

Posted by Steve Vondran | Feb 27, 2018 | 0 Comments

Copyright Case Briefs [Music Law]:  Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, 106 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. Pa. 2015) – 2018 update, case is sent back to trial court by the 9th circuit court.  Reversible error was committed at trial in the jury instructions.

Personal jurisdiction in copyright cases 1024x688

2018 Update – The Ninth Circuit court has ruled that a new trial is in order and has sent the case back to the trial court following an appeal.  In the original case, it was found that there was NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT but the jury was not allowed to hear the song Taurus performed by Spirit.

The Court determined that it was an error of law NOT to instruct jury that the “selection and arrangement” of otherwise un-protectable musical elements COULD be protectable and the trial court jury should have been able to hear a recording of the song “Taurus” by the band Spirit (which song was released two years PRIOR to the release of “Stairway to Heaven” performed by Led Zeppelin) on  the grounds that it was relevant to issue of “access” (part of the copyright infringement test).  The song Taurus was written by Randy Wolfe.   We will keep an eye on this case as it progresses and as the focus on the “extrinsic” test of music infringement is applied.

Summary

Plaintiff Michael Skidmore brought action against the famous band Led Zeppelin, and its corporate affiliates, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Collectively, the Defendant's moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, transfer the case to the Central District of California. The Court found that the individual band members did not have either general or specific jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. Because severance between the individual and corporate defendants would impose a significant burden on the judicial process, the Court ordered the case to be transferred to the Central District of California for further proceedings.

Facts

Plaintiff Michael Skidmore, as trustee for the Randy Craig Wolfe Trust, brought claims for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement against the living members of the band Led Zepplin, namely Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones, and corporate defendants Super Hype Publishing, Inc; Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.; Atlantic Recording Corporation; Warner Music Group Corp; and Rhino Entertainment in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Specifically, Skidmore alleges that these individual and corporate defendants infringed Randy Craig Wolfe's copyrighted guitar composition “Taurus” in the iconic 1971 song “Stairway to Heaven.” Defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, transfer the case to the Central District of California. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants have sufficient minimum contacts for there to be personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Issue

Whether the individual band members of Led Zeppelin have personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania?

Rule of Law

Venue in a copyright action is governed by 28 USC 1400(a), which provides that an action under the federal copyright laws “may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.” A defendant in a copyright action “may be found” wherever the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. There are two categories for personal jurisdiction:

(1) general jurisdiction, which a court may exercise to hear “any and all claims” against a defendant when the defendant's affiliations with the forum state are “so continuous and systematic” as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum state;

and

(2) specific jurisdiction, which depends on an affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy. Notably, for general jurisdiction, the contacts between the defendant and the forum need not be specifically related to the underlying cause of action, and the rules are different for individual and corporate defendants. As explained by the Supreme Court, only in an “exceptional case” would an individual be “essentially at home” in a forum other than its domicile.

Analysis

First, the Court analyzed whether there is personal jurisdiction for the individual defendants. Plaintiff Skidmore argues that the E.D. Pennsylvania has general personal jurisdiction because “they make millions of dollars on sales of their music and related goods in the District” and Led Zeppelin has performed several times in the District, making their contacts systematic and continuous. Alternatively, Plaintiff Skidmore alleges that there is specific jurisdiction because the band members “deliberately target Pennsylvania… for marketing and sales of the infringing song Stairway to Heaven.” As evidence, Plaintiff Skidmore cites Jimmy Page's interview on October 28, 2014 with a Pennsylvania radio station to promote the re-release of Led Zeppelin IV; Page's marketing and sale of his autobiography; and that Page has performed several shows in Pennsylvania, the last one occurring in July 1998. In Opposition, the individual defendants argue lack of personal jurisdiction, among several other reasons, because they are UK citizens who reside in London, none of them have ever resided or owned property in Pennsylvania, have not been in Pennsylvania since at least 1980 and have not performed in the forum state since 1985.

The Court agreed with the individual defendants. First citing that none of the individual defendants are domiciled in Pennsylvania, this would have to be an “exceptional case” for the Court to exercise general personal jurisdiction. However, for general jurisdiction, “only contacts occurring within a reasonable period of time to the filing of this action” are relevant to the inquiry. Noting copyright infringement actions are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, and the Plaintiff filed the case on May 31, 2014, the Plaintiff's reliance on contacts that are 17+ years old is misguided. Further, the sale of music and Page's book were not regular or systematic in the forum state. Thus, the Court does not have general jurisdiction. Similarly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's arguments that the forum had specific jurisdiction because the individuals had not performed in Pennsylvania in 17 years and Plaintiff failed to plead facts establishing that the sales are acts by the individual defendants themselves purposefully directed at the forum.

Because the Court found that the individual defendants did not have either general or specific personal jurisdiction, the case could not proceed in the forum against the corporate defendants either. Moreover, the Court found that severance of the claims would impose unnecessary costs on the parties and the judicial system, as well as waste judicial resources and inconvenience witnesses.

Finally, both the individual and the corporate defendants consented to suit in the Central District of California, and the trust at issue is a creature of California law. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case to the Central District of California for further proceedings.

Conclusion

The Court granted Defendant's motion in part to transfer the case to the Central District of California.  Eventually, Led Zeppelin was found NOT to be an infringer.

Contact a California music lawyer

Our IP law firm is a proven leader in federal copyright infringement law.  We have extensive federal court experience and have handled a wide variety of copyright infringement matters from photo and font infringement to jewelry and video infringement to DMCA subpoena response and more.  Call us to discuss your case at (877) 276-5084.  In many cases we are able to structure a low flat rate fee (usually in non-litigation cases). 

About the Author

Steve Vondran

Welcome to the SHORT BIO page for Attorney Steve®  (Yes, I was able to get a trademark for Attorney Steve®) Click here to go to a more COMPLETE BIO. AZ Bar Lic. #025911 CA. Bar Lic. #232337 Introduction I have done a lot of things in my 15 years of law practice and in my life in general.  ...

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact us for an initial consultation!

For more information, or to discuss your case or our experience and qualifications please contact us at (877) 276-5084. Please note that our firm does not represent you unless and until a written retainer agreement is signed, and any applicable legal fees are paid. All initial conversations are general in nature. Free consultations are limited to time and availability of counsel and will depend on the type of case you are calling about (no free consultations for other lawyers). All users and potential clients are bound by our Terms of Use Policies. We look forward to working with you!

Menu