Dr. Dre or Andre Young
Last month, Dr. Dre (a/k/a Andre Young) sued WIDEawake Death Row Records for unpaid royalties and copyright infringement. Dr. Dre claims that WIDEawake is a holding company for Death Row Records, after Death Row Records filed bankruptcy. Dre also claims that WIDEawake began re-producing and releasing copies of his album, Chronic. According to the complaint, Dre and Death Row had an agreement where he sold his copyright to Death Row, but Death Row agreed to pay Dre if it ever transferred the copyright to someone else. Thus, Death Row’s transfer to WIDEawake Records violates this agreement and infringes his copyright. Here is the complaint.
Interestingly, Dre is also suing WIDEawake for missing royalty payments since 1992. This lawsuit was filed in California, so California law will decide this dispute. But let us imagine if the lawsuit were filed in Pennsylvania Is Dr. Dre’s claim barred by statutes of limitation?
Generally, the law only allows 4 years to sue for breach of contract. And on the surface, it looks like Dr. Dre would be out of luck here. On the other hand, Pennsylvania does have a 15-year statute of limitation for initiating an action for escheat. Escheat refers to any abandoned unclaimed property that should be turned over to the State Treasury. If Dre argues that his royalty payments should have escheated to the State, then he can survive the Statute of Limitation issue. When Death Row filed bankruptcy, conceivably, his unclaimed royalties could have been sent to the State Treasury.
In addition, Pennsylvania also extends statute of limitations for action based on a contract written under a seal. This section specifically ignores the general 4 year statute of limitations for initiating a breach of contract action.
Also, if Death Row Records concealed their breach from Dre, then the law excludes this time frame from the computation of the statute of limitations.
And finally, Dre can always argue that the contract was continuing, so the statute of limitations did not start. The Pennsylvania Superior Court states that when a contract does not fix a certain time for payment or the termination of the contract, then the contract will be treated as continuous. Thus, the statute of limitations does not start until the termination of the contractual relationship between the parties. (For those who are interested, the case is Crouse v. Cyclops Industries, 704 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Super., 1997)
However, I believe Dre’s best claim is the conversion of his copyright. He could enforce his rights under Section 203 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which returns his copyright to his ownership. This is what Jack Kirby’s family has done with Marvel Comics. This would certainly create some negotiating leverage enabling Dre to collect a settlement from WIDEawake.
UPDATE: (June 11, 2010) – The court dismissed Dr. Dre’s copyright infringement claim. The court reasoned that WIDEawake’s alteration of Dre’s album was cosmetic and did not violate his copyright, trademark, or right to publicity. The court also noted that WIDEawake used an old photo of Dre, instead of a current photo. A current photo would have implied that Dre endorsed this re-released album. The court allowed his remaining breach of contract claim for unpaid royalties to continue.
Sharmil McKee | Business Attorney | blog@mckeeoffice.com
What happens if you demand that a website take down some copyright material, but it turns out that you don’t actually own the material? Well, Summit Entertainment may soon find out. Summit distributes the Twilight series. They successful got songwriter Matt Heart’s song “Eternal Knight” kicked off YouTube, iTunes, and Amazon, claiming the song improperly copied the Twilight intellectual property. This story is interesting because Heart produced the song before the Twilight movie came out. The story is also interesting because Summit is only claiming that Heart violated Twilight’s trademark; however, You Tube, Amazon, and iTunes’ ‘take down’ procedure only refers to copyright infringement. In this case, Heart’s CD cover states “inspired by Twilight”. This only appears to violate Summit’s trademark, not their copyright. (What is the difference between trademarks and copyrights)
Teresa Chen