Evaluating ownership of a sound recording under both the Indian Copyright Act and U.S. Copyright Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants in a copyright infringement action, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because the underlying agreement granted exclusive rights that were limited in time. Saregama v. Timbaland, et al. Case No. 10-10626 (11th Cir., March 25, 2011) (Marcus, J.)
Saregama asserted that hip hop producer Timbaland and other defendants infringed its sound recording copyright by digitally sampling a portion of the Indian song “Baghor Mein Bahar Hai” in the song “Put You on the Game.” Saregama claimed ownership of the copyright in the sound recording through an agreement between Saregama’s predecessor and another company, which was governed by Indian law. The agreement provided the plaintiff with exclusive rights in certain sound recordings for a two-year period. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Saregama did not possess a valid copyright, as the agreement limited the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to the sound recording to a two-year period. Second, the district court determined that the defendants’ digital sample was not substantially similar to the plaintiff’s asserted work.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendants. The 11th Circuit held that Saregama possessed only a two-year right to the sound recording, which had since lapsed, such that the plaintiff did not own a copyright as to possess the standing required to institute an infringement lawsuit.
Because the underlying work originated in India, the court first looked to the Indian Copyright Act to analyze the ownership issue. Comparing the Indian Copyright Act with the U.S. Copyright Act, the court ultimately concluded that the result would be the same under either law. While the agreement conveyed Saregama an exclusive right to certain sound recordings, that right was limited to two years. After those two years, the other company had the unambiguous right to allow third parties to record the song, although the plaintiff retained non-exclusive rights to the song. Because the exclusive right granted to Saregama in the agreement became non-exclusive, the court explained that the plaintiff, at most, possessed a two-year exclusive license. As such, Saregama did not possess the requisite exclusive rights to confer standing.