Supreme Court sides with music producer in copyright case over Flo Rida hit ‘In the Ayer’

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with a music producer in a copyright case Thursday, permitting him to hunt greater than a decade’s price of damages over a pattern used in a hit Flo Rida tune.

The 6-3 choice got here in a case filed by Sherman Nealy, who was suing over music used in the 2008 tune “In the Ayer,” by the rapper Flo Rida.

It additionally was featured on TV reveals like “So You Think You Can Dance.”

Flo Rida singing into a microphone on a stage during the iHeartRadio Jingle Ball in Inglewood, California
The query of how far again damages can go has cut up appeals courts. REUTERS

Nealy’s swimsuit says he didn’t know his former collaborator had inked a deal with a file firm whereas he was in jail that allowed the sampling of the tune “Jam the Box.”

He sued in 2018 for damages going again to the tune’s launch.

Copyright regulation says fits should be filed inside three years of the violation, or the level when it’s found.

The file firm, Warner Chappell, argued meaning Nealy would solely be entitled to a few years’ price of royalties at most.

The query of how far again damages can go has cut up appeals courts, and it’s one which trade teams like the Recording Industry Association of America referred to as on the Supreme Court to determine.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. with people walking in front, during a day of bipartisan oral arguments in 2024.
The majority opinion was bi-partisan, bringing collectively each liberal and conservative leaning justices. Getty Images

“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.

An lawyer for Nealy, Wes Earnhardt, stated the opinion offers readability on an vital concern.

Three conservative justices dissented.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the majority sidestepped the vital query: Whether Nealy’s declare was legitimate to start with, or whether or not copyright holders ought to have to indicate some sort of fraud in order to sue over older violations.

The dissenters stated the swimsuit ought to have been dismissed.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button