Supreme Court sides with music producer in copyright case over sample in Flo Rida hit

1 week ago 7

Author of the article:

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

Lindsay Whitehurst

Published May 09, 2024  •  1 minute read

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with a music producer in a copyright case Thursday, allowing him to seek more than a decade’s worth of damages over a sample used in a hit Flo Rida song.

The 6-3 decision came in a case filed by Sherman Nealy, who was suing over music used in the 2008 song “In the Ayer,” by the rapper Flo Rida. It also was featured on TV shows like “So You Think You Can Dance.”

Article content

Nealy says he didn’t find out his former collaborator had inked a deal with a record company that allowed the sampling until 2016. He sued two years later for damages going back to the song’s release.

Advertisement 2

National Post

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

  • Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
  • Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
  • Support local journalism.

SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

  • Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
  • Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.
  • National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
  • Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
  • Support local journalism.

REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

  • Access articles from across Canada with one account.
  • Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
  • Enjoy additional articles per month.
  • Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Article content

Copyright law says suits must be filed within three years of the violation, or the point when it’s discovered. The record company, Warner Chappell, argued that means Nealy would only be entitled to three years’ worth of royalties at most.

The question of how far back damages can go has split appeals courts, and it’s one that industry groups like the Recording Industry Association of America called on the Supreme Court to decide.

The opinion handed down Thursday was written by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by her liberal colleagues Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson as well as conservative justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“There is no time limit on monetary recovery. So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim is entitled to damages for infringement, no matter when the infringement occurred,” Kagan wrote.

Three conservative justices dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the majority sidestepped the important question: Whether Nealy’s claim was valid to begin with, or whether copyright holders should have to show some kind of fraud in order to sue over older violations. The dissenters said the suit should have been dismissed.

Article content

*** Disclaimer: This Article is auto-aggregated by a Rss Api Program and has not been created or edited by Bdtype.

(Note: This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News Rss Api. News.bdtype.com Staff may not have modified or edited the content body.

Please visit the Source Website that deserves the credit and responsibility for creating this content.)

Watch Live | Source Article