Thursday, March 10, 2011

Copyright Lawsuit Alleges Christina Aguilera Song Infringes 60s Moon People Recording

Sony Music Entertainment, Codigo Music and others are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit in connection with Christina Aguilera's 2006 recording of the song "Ain't No Other Man." The suit was filed by TufAmerica, which alleges it acquired rights to the library of Speed Records, a record label that was active in the New York Latin music scene in the 1960s.

The lawsuit, filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan, claims that "Ain't No Other Man" sampled and used portions of "I'll Be a Happy Man," a song that was initially recorded in the mid-1960s by The Latin Blues Band Featuring Luis Aviles. Another version was released later the same year by Dave Cortez and The Moon People.  TufAmerica alleges that the sampling and use of its recordings constitutes copyright infringement under the common law of New York, and several released causes of action.

Interestingly, although the case has been filed in federal court and alleges that the court has jurisdiction "under the Copyright Laws of the United States," the complaint does not actually assert a claim for federal copyright infringement.  Presumably this is apparently because the original recordings were made in the 1960s, and before 1972, sound recordings were not afforded copyright protection.

In 1971, Congress passed Public Law 92-140, which allowed for federal copyright protection of recordings. However, Congress specifically limited such protection to only to sound recordings "fixed, published, and copyrighted" on and after February 15, 1972, and provided that the law was not to be applied retroactively or construed as affecting any rights for sound recordings made before that date.

The case, TufAmerica, Inc. v. Codigo Music LLC, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 11 Civ. 1434 (2011), has been assigned to Judge William H. Pauley, III.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.  It is not presently clear whether they intend to challenge the federal court's jurisdiction.