Ah, too bad. I doesn’t look like this will result in Mariah Carey’s song being banned from the airwaves. Dommage.
3 Likes
Just be grateful that Rob’s not linking to the “Rick Astley Remix”.
4 Likes
“I’m never gonna want you for Christmas” ?
6 Likes
Statute of limitations is 3 years. However, it appears they can still sue for damages from the last three years so they aren’t completely out of the money.
Other than the fact that the suit has absolutely no basis. I guess they found a lawyer who would roll the dice.
A Guide to the Statute of Limitations for Copyright Infringement (2021).
1 Like
Another article I saw said the lawsuit claimed both trademark and copyright infringement, described as “violation of the lanham act”
1 Like
The Lanham Act deals exclusively with Trademark violation rather than copyright so I think the news outlets claiming this is a “copyright” lawsuit are probably just doing bad reporting.
It’s weird that so many professional journalists get copyright and trademark confused considering how intertwined their trade is with intellectual property law.
5 Likes
Kinda…
There is a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the last act of infringement. […] Each copyright infringement starts a new statute of limitations period.
The plaintiff is claiming that as long as the song is being published and played (and thus the defendants are being enriched) that counts as ongoing infringement.
This is also likely one of the reasons the suit is being filed in Louisiana. Some other districts have different (read: stricter) rules around discovery vs injury and when a suit can be filed.
I’m also not sure where that $20 million figure came from and I find it hard to believe that this song enriched anybody for anything near this amount in that time period but I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer.
The lawsuit itself seems to be throwing everything to do with intellectual property against the wall to make something stick.
The complaint is literally titled as:
COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, MISAPPRORIATION AND LANHAM ACT VIOLATION
ETA: I also find it incredibly hard to believe that the plaintiff had no awareness of this song until the filing period as they claimed. I mean, c’mon — this song is basically a modern Christmas standard.
5 Likes
The filing that ficuswhisperer linked above claims both that the Carey work is a derivative work under copyright law and that the use violates the lanham act (claims 1 and 3 respectively)
3 Likes
In that case I’m surprised they didn’t just claim their client had a patent on songs about Christmas presents.
For this claim to make any sense at all they’d have to argue that countless people had been tricked into paying for Mariah Carey tickets and albums under the mistaken belief that they were going to hear the famous Christmas song co-written by Andy Stone.
6 Likes
The suit claims that the defendants “knew or should have known” in 1994 that the song belonged to the plaintiff, yet the plaintiff didn’t find out about one of the most popular christmas songs of all time until 2021. Riiiight.
2 Likes
All I want for Cthulhumas is ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn
6 Likes
The single itself sold over 16 million copies worldwide. I can see that alone getting to $20 million. The album it was on later sold 15 million copies worldwide, and royalties see the song played around 683 million times in streaming and an additional half a billion times in radio play since 2010.
I imagine it’s made people far over $20 million.
It was going to happen, but someone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask blew up the court
7 Likes
The attorneys in this case appear to be legitimate lawyers with private firms. One of them seems to be a small family practice. Neither really specialize specifically in copyright law, so I doubt if this was initiated by the lawyers. I’m a little surprised they took this case. It’s weak. Unless they’re hoping to just get a quick settlement offer. I hope Carey and her record company choose to fight this instead of paying it to go away, because this is pretty frivolous.
2 Likes
The New York Post uploaded it (ty ficuswhisper) and it’s both (and more!). It’s a legal jambalaya of various incantations that have been known to impress Louisiana jurors, I guess.
5 Likes
But in the past three years?
Also songwriter royalties are only a small fraction of the overall revenue. Even if Mariah Carey had recorded a sound alike cover of the exact song there is no way it would get that high. For reference the overturned Katy Perry / dark horse award was 2.8M, the Robin Thicke / blurred lines verdict ended up being about $5M although in both cases I think the plantiffs originally asked for a lot more. It’s normal to ask for an unreasonable dollar values on the theory that juries are unlikely to award money you don’t ask for but this seems incredibly high.
1 Like
That’s good for at least a few k. Royalties these days don’t amount to much. And copyright law can only consider the past 3 years. Seems like a loser to me, and Sony’s deep pockets can afford endless lawyering. I have a feeling the plaintiff doesn’t have the same resources.
1 Like
He’s making a list and checking it twice 
3 Likes
+1 for legal jambalaya and now I’m hungry
5 Likes
Thomas Pynchon wrote about alien lizard invaders?
That is so cool!!!
4 Likes
