The Rolling Stones. Photo Credit: Raph_PH
Universal Music Group (UMG) and ABKCO have scored a summary judgment win in a copyright battle centering on “purported documentaries” about the Rolling Stones, ABBA, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, U2, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Elton John, and Nirvana.
With the sixth anniversary of the marathon case’s filing now in the books, the presiding judge just recently granted the corresponding motion. It probably doesn’t need saying given that the litigation has been unfolding across the better part of a decade, but the multiyear process has delivered more than a few twists.
This includes but isn’t limited to plenty of testimony disagreements, discovery disputes (complete with sanctions against the plaintiffs’ counsel), and most recently another representation shakeup for the defendants.
All that said, the core case is straightforward enough: The rightsholder plaintiffs claim that the UK-based defendants (including Coda Publishing, film director and Coda stakeholder Robert Kirk Carruthers, and others) exploited the relevant IP without authorization in their “purported documentaries.”
On the other side of the showdown, the defendants have advanced a fair use counterargument (“the documentaries…are educational films about famous bands and musicians to which fair use protections apply”) and indicated that the rights at hand were previously licensed (“the allegedly infringing material was licensed from the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society…prior to the creation of the documentaries now at issue”).
Returning to the court’s latest order, Judge Katherine Failla signed off on the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion “as to all proffered works” save the Red Hot Chili Peppers’ “Higher Ground.” Said judgment applies to each defendant except Clare Gambold, per Judge Failla, who also approved the plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions and permanent injunctive relief.
Keeping the focus on brass tacks here, the judge further found that the alleged infringement was willful – a decidedly important point from the damages perspective – and granted a withdrawal request from the defendants’ counsel.
In the court’s words, Carruthers had fired off “inappropriately filed letters” pertaining to the representation split. Meant to remain “under seal, viewable to the Court and the parties only,” these letters were live in the docket at the time of writing and, in brief, described evidently insurmountable differences of strategy-related opinion.
As for what comes next, Carruthers has until March 6th to enlist new counsel or confirm plans to represent himself. According to its Companies House page, Coda Publishing was the subject of a court-ordered wind-up back in November 2022.
