![Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fres.cloudinary.com%2Fscarinci-hollenbeck%2Fimages%2Ff_auto%2Cq_auto%2Fv1676448213%2Fwp.scarincihollenbeck%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1%2Fsh-mini-diamond-500x500-1.png%3F_i%3DAA&w=256&q=75)
Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|October 25, 2013
The company, which is based in the U.S., was producing a Beatles documentary entitled, “The Beatles: The Lost Concert,” using footage from the group’s first concert in the U.S. in 1964. Ace confirmed with Apple Corps that the footage was not under copyright, and later established an agreement with Sony under entertainment law regarding licensing rights. However, Ace is now accusing Sony and Apple Corps of interfering in the filmmaking process, using “spurious copyright infringement threats with respect” to the film.
Ace notes that Sony/ATV – which currently owns rights to a number of Beatles songs – sabotaged a distribution deal that Ace struck with Screenvision before the premiere of the Beatles documentary by making false allegations to Screenvision about Ace’s rights to the material.
“The company that funded, taped, and exhibited the D.C. Concert allowed to film of the concert [the ‘Tape’] to be transferred without copyright protection,” Ace said in court documents. “No copyright was ever filed on the performances recorded on the tape or the tape itself.”
The company alleges that this interference prompted Screenvision to back out of the distribution deal. The company also claimed that Sony/ATV withdrew its license for use of the Beatles songs because it learned that Apple Corps was planning to make and release a similar film featuring the 1964 concert. Apparently, Sony/ATV’s license agreement with Ace Arts was subject to the approval of Apple Corps.
In addition to the $100 million in damages Ace is seeking on the basis of interference with contract and unfair competition, the company also seeks a declaration that neither Sony/ATV nor Apple has any rights that would be infringed by commercial exploitation of the tape, and that Sony misused its copyrights on the songs, according to Court News.
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe company, which is based in the U.S., was producing a Beatles documentary entitled, “The Beatles: The Lost Concert,” using footage from the group’s first concert in the U.S. in 1964. Ace confirmed with Apple Corps that the footage was not under copyright, and later established an agreement with Sony under entertainment law regarding licensing rights. However, Ace is now accusing Sony and Apple Corps of interfering in the filmmaking process, using “spurious copyright infringement threats with respect” to the film.
Ace notes that Sony/ATV – which currently owns rights to a number of Beatles songs – sabotaged a distribution deal that Ace struck with Screenvision before the premiere of the Beatles documentary by making false allegations to Screenvision about Ace’s rights to the material.
“The company that funded, taped, and exhibited the D.C. Concert allowed to film of the concert [the ‘Tape’] to be transferred without copyright protection,” Ace said in court documents. “No copyright was ever filed on the performances recorded on the tape or the tape itself.”
The company alleges that this interference prompted Screenvision to back out of the distribution deal. The company also claimed that Sony/ATV withdrew its license for use of the Beatles songs because it learned that Apple Corps was planning to make and release a similar film featuring the 1964 concert. Apparently, Sony/ATV’s license agreement with Ace Arts was subject to the approval of Apple Corps.
In addition to the $100 million in damages Ace is seeking on the basis of interference with contract and unfair competition, the company also seeks a declaration that neither Sony/ATV nor Apple has any rights that would be infringed by commercial exploitation of the tape, and that Sony misused its copyrights on the songs, according to Court News.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.