Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Don't Pull A TufAmerica & Sue When You Don't Have The Right To
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: March 30, 2015
Key Contacts
Back
How about making a song that samples Mike D and Ad-Rock’s probably exuberant reactions after the judge threw out TufAmerica’s lawsuit against them?
The Beastie Boys’ landmark 1989 album Paul’s Boutique made pretty heavy use of samples, and did so without permission. While the music from the album is considered revolutionary, the methods used to create it are fairly illegal. These days even the smallest samples need permission before they enter the public sphere, and the New York rappers’ classic Paul’s Boutique was constructed primarily by sampling. It’s fair to say someone was bound to get upset over it.
TufAmerica’s reasons for filing a lawsuit
TufAmerica is fairly aggressive when it comes to legal action over sampling, and so its no surprise that the label eventually decided to take on the Beastie Boy’s album – the company filed a lawsuit in 2012, one day before the death of Adam Yauch, one of the group’s three members. Last Tuesday U.S. district judge Alison Nathan granted the musicians’ summary judgment, and not because of the importance of Paul’s Boutique or how much each sample was used, but rather because of a mistake on TufAmerica’s part.
The sample in question was of a song by Trouble Funk, composed of group members Robert Reed, Tony Fisher and James Avery. The 1980s R&B and funk group had a deal with Island records that eventually terminated, after which TufAmerica struck a deal with Reed and Fisher and bought up the rights to administer the groups copyrights. Avery was not included in the agreement. Because he wasn’t part of the deal, the license provided to TufAmerica was non-exclusive. This means that the label could only sue on the artists’ behalf, and not on its own terms.
The word exclusive won’t give you exclusive rights
TufAmerica even anticipated that this may happen in the future, and included a clause pertaining to Avery’s absence from the deal within it’s pages, “[t]o the extent that exclusive licenses of any of Avery’s copyrights in the Trouble Funk Copyrights… are necessary for ‘standing’ or similar reasons in connection with filing and maintaining a Trouble Funk Infringement Action, Avery hereby exclusively licenses such copyrights to Tuff City Records for the purpose of filing and maintaining Trouble Funk Infringement Actions.”
However, Nathan noted that just because TufAmerica included the word exclusive in it’s deal with Trouble Funk, does not mean that the company has exclusive rights to sue over use of the group’s music. She noted that TufAmerica’s 2012 filing did not, in fact, have any legal standing, since the label could only sue on the artists’ behalf. Contracts between labels and artists should include clear distinctions between the right to sue on a musician’s behalf, and the exclusive right to sue, to prevent cases like this in the future.
- Industries: Entertainment & Media
- Practices: Copyright
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Don't Pull A TufAmerica & Sue When You Don't Have The Right To
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
How about making a song that samples Mike D and Ad-Rock’s probably exuberant reactions after the judge threw out TufAmerica’s lawsuit against them?
The Beastie Boys’ landmark 1989 album Paul’s Boutique made pretty heavy use of samples, and did so without permission. While the music from the album is considered revolutionary, the methods used to create it are fairly illegal. These days even the smallest samples need permission before they enter the public sphere, and the New York rappers’ classic Paul’s Boutique was constructed primarily by sampling. It’s fair to say someone was bound to get upset over it.
TufAmerica’s reasons for filing a lawsuit
TufAmerica is fairly aggressive when it comes to legal action over sampling, and so its no surprise that the label eventually decided to take on the Beastie Boy’s album – the company filed a lawsuit in 2012, one day before the death of Adam Yauch, one of the group’s three members. Last Tuesday U.S. district judge Alison Nathan granted the musicians’ summary judgment, and not because of the importance of Paul’s Boutique or how much each sample was used, but rather because of a mistake on TufAmerica’s part.
The sample in question was of a song by Trouble Funk, composed of group members Robert Reed, Tony Fisher and James Avery. The 1980s R&B and funk group had a deal with Island records that eventually terminated, after which TufAmerica struck a deal with Reed and Fisher and bought up the rights to administer the groups copyrights. Avery was not included in the agreement. Because he wasn’t part of the deal, the license provided to TufAmerica was non-exclusive. This means that the label could only sue on the artists’ behalf, and not on its own terms.
The word exclusive won’t give you exclusive rights
TufAmerica even anticipated that this may happen in the future, and included a clause pertaining to Avery’s absence from the deal within it’s pages, “[t]o the extent that exclusive licenses of any of Avery’s copyrights in the Trouble Funk Copyrights… are necessary for ‘standing’ or similar reasons in connection with filing and maintaining a Trouble Funk Infringement Action, Avery hereby exclusively licenses such copyrights to Tuff City Records for the purpose of filing and maintaining Trouble Funk Infringement Actions.”
However, Nathan noted that just because TufAmerica included the word exclusive in it’s deal with Trouble Funk, does not mean that the company has exclusive rights to sue over use of the group’s music. She noted that TufAmerica’s 2012 filing did not, in fact, have any legal standing, since the label could only sue on the artists’ behalf. Contracts between labels and artists should include clear distinctions between the right to sue on a musician’s behalf, and the exclusive right to sue, to prevent cases like this in the future.