United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 94-10129.
Mario A. DABOUB, d/b/a The Nightcaps, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants,
v.
William Frederick GIBBONS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Jan. 12, 1995.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, GOLDBERG and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge:
Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it may
also lead to jealousy when the imitator succeeds where the imitated
does not. In this case, the object of imitation is a rock and roll
song.
I.
The appellants, members of the rock and roll band the
Nightcaps, claim that the appellees, members of the rock and roll
band ZZ Top, are copycats and stole the song Thunderbird from them.
The Nightcaps allege a number of state and federal law violations
based on ZZ Top's version of Thunderbird. Before addressing these
legal theories, we present a brief description of the cast of the
contestants in this battle of the bands.
The members of the Nightcaps formed the band in the 1950's
when they were teenagers. The band recorded and released
Thunderbird as a single and on an LP entitled Wine, Wine, Wine.
1
The Nightcaps performed the song and distributed the album, but
never applied for a copyright. Apparently the song and the album
did not shower the Nightcaps with fame and fortune, and the band
broke up in the 1960's.
ZZ Top, in contrast, is currently a very successful band. The
group, originally formed in 1969, also recorded and released a song
entitled Thunderbird. ZZ Top's version of Thunderbird can be heard
on its 1975 album Fandango!, its compilation set, and in concert.
ZZ Top obtained a copyright on the song in 1975.
ZZ Top concedes, for the purposes of this appeal, that its
version of the song Thunderbird is musically and lyrically
identical to the version originally written and performed by the
Nightcaps.1
II.
After the pleadings had been filed, the district court
referred the case to a magistrate. The magistrate found that the
Nightcaps' state and federal claims were either preempted by the
Federal Copyright Statute, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., (the
"Copyright Act"), or were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations. The magistrate issued a report which recommended that
the Nightcaps' complaint be dismissed, or alternatively, that
summary judgment be granted in ZZ Top's favor. The district court
adopted the magistrate's report and recommendations, and granted
summary judgment to ZZ Top. The Nightcaps appeal to this court.
1
This concession is in tune with our review of the record on
appeal, which includes a tape recording of performances of the
song by both bands.
2
The Nightcaps versify arguments urging us to reverse the
district court's grant of summary judgment. They assert that
summary judgment was improperly granted because they were not
permitted adequate discovery. Second, the Nightcaps insist that
the district court improperly determined that the federal copyright
law preempted their state law causes of action. Finally, the
Nightcaps argue that the relevant statutes of limitations do not
silence the melodies of their claims.
III.
The Nightcaps claim that they were denied sufficient
discovery, and that therefore the district court prematurely
considered ZZ Top's summary judgment motion. However, the
Nightcaps have failed to specifically state what information they
seek to obtain through discovery and how discovery would help their
case. ZZ Top has accepted all of the Nightcaps' factual
allegations for purposes of the motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment. The record does not indicate that the district court was
overly parsimonious in allowing time for discovery, and we cannot
even find any bait for the Nightcaps to conduct a fishing
expedition. The Nightcaps' simple request for additional time to
compose additional discovery is not sufficient to meet the burden
of articulating specific facts establishing a genuine dispute for
trial. See Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986);
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination
Unit, 28 F.3d 1388 (5th Cir.1994); Nowlin v. Resolution Trust Co.,
3
33 F.3d 498 (5th Cir.1994). Therefore, the Nightcaps' silence as
far as naming what they are looking for through discovery is fatal
to their argument, and the district court's decision to rule on the
summary judgment motion was proper.
IV.
The Nightcaps sing a chorus of state and federal law theories
in their attempt to escape the grasp of the Copyright Act's
preemption provision, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). The Copyright Act
expressly preempts all causes of action falling within its scope,
with a few exceptions. The Nightcaps' arguments against preemption
fall into two categories. First, the Nightcaps argue that a
statutory exception to the preemption provision applies to their
claims. Second, the Nightcaps argue that their causes of action
are not "equivalent" to a cause of action under the Copyright Act,
and therefore § 301(a) does not apply.
The Nightcaps argue that the exception found in § 301(c)2
applies to this case, because Thunderbird is a "sound recording"
that was "fixed" prior to 1972. ZZ Top argues, and the lower court
held, that the exception does not apply to the case at bar.
Section 301(c) was intended to apply to "pirated" recordings
of performances, rather than to the lyrics alone. One commentator
analyzing the exception stated:
2
That provision states, in part:
With respect to sound recordings fixed before February
15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law
or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or
limited by this title until February 15, 2047....
4
The distinction may be summed up as the difference between a
copyright in a Cole Porter song and a copyright in Frank
Sinatra's performance of that song. The former would be a
musical work copyright and the latter would be a sound
recording copyright, although both may be embodied in the same
phonorecord.
1 M. Nimmer, Copyright § 4.06, p. 4-34 n. 1. See also Jarvis v. A
& M Records, 827 F.Supp. 282, 292 (D.N.J.1993). In the case before
us, the Nightcaps do not allege that ZZ Top presented a recorded
version of the Nightcaps' rendition of Thunderbird as if it were
performed by ZZ Top. Instead, the Nightcaps simply claim that ZZ
Top wrongfully took the words of the song and recorded its own
version.3 In Nimmer's analogy, the Nightcaps are like Cole Porter,
not Frank Sinatra. Thus, the § 301(c) exception does not apply to
this case.
The next verse of the Nightcaps' argument is that § 301(a)
does not preempt the Nightcaps' suggested causes of action.
Section 301(a) accomplishes the general federal policy of creating
a uniform method for protecting and enforcing certain rights in
intellectual property by preempting other claims.4 The courts have
3
Even though this court is not comprised of music critics,
we conclude upon a review of the recordings in the record that no
reasonable audience would mistake ZZ Top's performance of
Thunderbird for that of the Nightcaps.
4
That section provides that:
(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal and
equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the
exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright
as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that
are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come
within the subject matter of copyright as specified by
sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after
that date and whether published or unpublished, are
governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no
5
interpreted the provision to contain a two-step test. First, the
cause of action is examined to determine if it falls "within the
subject matter of copyright." Second, the cause of action is
examined to determine if it protects rights that are "equivalent"
to any of the exclusive rights of a federal copyright, as provided
in 17 U.S.C. § 106. Gemcraft Homes, Inc. v. Sumurdy, 688 F.Supp.
289, 294 (E.D.Tex.1988) (citing Crow v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1224,
1226 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 819, 105 S.Ct. 89, 83
L.Ed.2d 35 (1984)). Section 106 grants the holder of a copyright
the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display
the copyrighted work.5
person is entitled to any such right or equivalent
right in any such work under the common law or statutes
of any state.
5
Section 106 provides that:
Subject to sections 107 through 120, the owner of
copyright under this title has the exclusive right to
do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the
copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the
copyrighted work to the public by sale or other
transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or
lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic,
and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion
pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform
the copyrighted work publicly; and
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic,
and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including
6
The Nightcaps' argument focuses on the "equivalency" step.6
The Nightcaps attempt to demonstrate how their state law claims are
not "equivalent" to a cause of action under the Copyright Act by
focussing on the specific elements of the causes of action they
allege. ZZ Top argues, and the district court held, that these
state law causes of action are "equivalent" to the exclusive rights
contained in the Copyright Act, and therefore these causes of
action are preempted.
The Nightcaps primarily rely on G.S. Rasmussen & Assoc., Inc.
v. Kalitta Flying Service, 958 F.2d 896 (9th Cir.1992), cert.
denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2927, 124 L.Ed.2d 678 (1993), to
support their interpretation of the equivalency step and their
contention that their state law claims are not preempted. However,
that case is distinguishable from the case at hand. In G.S.
Rasmussen, the court held that the Copyright Act did not preempt
the plaintiff's claims, because those claims addressed interests
that were not equivalent to interests protected by the Copyright
Act. Id. at 904. The plaintiff in that case complained about the
use of copyrighted material in order to obtain a regulatory permit.
Id. The plaintiff was not simply complaining about the improper
the individual images of a motion picture or other
audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work
publicly.
6
The Nightcaps do not argue with the conclusion that the
first step of the test is satisfied in this case. This
assumption is appropriate. Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes and
Gardner, Ind., 820 F.2d 973, 976 (9th Cir.1987); Gemcraft Homes,
688 F.Supp. at 294; Motown Record Corp. v. George A. Hormel &
Co., 657 F.Supp. 1236, 1239 (C.D.Cal.1987).
7
copying of the copyrighted material. G.S. Rasmussen is
distinguishable from the case before us, because the Nightcaps'
state claims center on the improper copying of the song, an
interest clearly protected by the Copyright Act. The Nightcaps'
state law claims include conversion, misappropriation, plagiarism,
a violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983,
disparagement, and defamation. The core of each of these state law
theories of recovery in this case, without detailing the specific
elements comprising each claim, is the same: the wrongful copying,
distribution, and performance of the lyrics of Thunderbird. The
similitude of tunes with respect to the state and copyright causes
of action is a most harmonious one. The Nightcaps have failed to
allege or produce evidence of "any element, such as an invasion of
personal rights or a breach of fiduciary duty, which render [their
claims] different in kind from copyright infringement." P.I.T.S.
Films v. Laconis, 588 F.Supp. 1383 (E.D.Mich.1984). As another
court stated:
"The elements in plaintiff's [state law action] involve
elements that would not establish qualitatively different
conduct by the defendants than the elements for an action
under the Copyright Act. Thus, there is equivalence between
the state and federal rights."
Quincy Cablesystems Inc. v. Sully's Bar, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 838, 850
(D.Mass.1986). Finding no disharmony between the elements of the
state law claims and the federal law in this case, we have no
hesitancy in pronouncing enough equivalency to satisfy § 301(a).7
7
See also Jarvis v. A & M Records, 827 F.Supp. 282, 297-99
(D.N.J.1993) (holding that state law claims were preempted by §
301)
8
In effect, the Nightcaps have attempted to avoid the Copyright Act
by presenting as many state law causes of action to the court as
possible. The Nightcaps' argument is like a ventriloquist's
attempt to present a copyright action in the voice of state law
claims. However, if the language of the act could be so easily
circumvented, the preemption provision would be useless, and the
policies behind a uniform Copyright statute would be silenced.8
V.
All of the Nightcaps' arguments confront a formidable hurdle
in the form of statutes of limitations. ZZ Top obtained a
copyright for Thunderbird in 1975, when the band released
Fandango!, and the band has publicly performed the song ever since.
The Nightcaps filed their complaint against ZZ Top in December,
1992. The state law limitations period for some of the alleged
causes of action, such as misappropriation, unfair competition, and
conversion, is two years. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.003; see
e.g., In re Placid Oil Co., 932 F.2d 394, 398 (5th Cir.1991);
Coastal Distributing Co. v. NGK Spark Plug Co., 779 F.2d 1033 (5th
Cir.1986). The limitations period for fraud is four years.
8
See Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, House Report No.
94-1476, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1976, 5659, 5746.
"Preemption of State Law. The intention of section 301 is to
preempt and abolish any rights under the common law or statutes
of a State that are equivalent to copyright and that extend to
works coming within the scope of the Federal copyright law. The
declaration of this principle in section 301 is intended to be
stated in the clearest and most unequivocal language possible, so
as to foreclose any conceivable misinterpretation of its
unqualified intention that Congress shall act preemptively, and
to avoid the development of any vague borderline areas between
State and Federal protection." (emphasis supplied).
9
Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 16.004; Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d
651 (Tex.1990). Under either limitations period, the claims are
time barred, as the underlying alleged wrongful act took place in
1975, when ZZ Top acquired a copyright and property interest in the
song. See Mention v. Gessell, 714 F.2d 87 (9th Cir.1983) (holding
that statute of limitations barred common law causes of action for
copying).
The Nightcaps present two arguments to overcome this
conclusion. First, the Nightcaps argue that ZZ Top's actions
amount to a continuing tort, and therefore "the statute of
limitations has not even begun to run." Second, the Nightcaps
argue that the discovery rule should toll the statute of
limitations until each member of the band "discovers, or in the
exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the facts
establishing the cause of action and the nature of the injury." ZZ
Top argues that neither the doctrine of continuing tort nor the
discovery rule applies in this case.
The Nightcaps' continuing tort argument is based on an
expansive reading of the alleged tortious activity. The Nightcaps
claim that each time ZZ Top sold an album containing Thunderbird,
or performed the song, and every time the song was broadcast, ZZ
Top took another step in its tortious behavior. The Nightcaps
claim that music, unlike tangible property, can be converted over
and over again. The case the Nightcaps primarily rely upon for
applying the continuing tort theory is distinguishable on both its
factual and legal basis. Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619
10
(Tex.1993) (action for negligent infliction of emotional distress
based on husband's attempts to have wife engage in bondage did not
accrue until husband's attempts ceased). The continuing tort
theory has been rejected or not even mentioned in cases involving
similar situations to the case at hand. See e.g., Sporn v. MCA
Records, Inc., 58 N.Y.2d 482, 462 N.Y.S.2d 413, 448 N.E.2d 1324
(1983) (rejecting the notion of a "continuing trespass"); Gee v.
CBS, Inc., 471 F.Supp. 600 (E.D.Pa.1979), aff'd, 612 F.2d 572 (3d
Cir.1971). The Gee case concerned recordings of Bessie Smith, the
"Empress of the Blues." In Gee, the defendant released copies of
Smith's recordings at several intervals, including in 1951 and
1970-72. The district court issued a thorough, intensive opinion
which examined statute of limitations defenses, copyright, and
state claims. The court held that all of the plaintiffs claims
were either barred by the applicable statute of limitations or
otherwise fatally flawed. The Gee court did not mention a
continuing tort theory in its expansive opinion.
The Nightcaps' observations and argument appropriately
elucidates a concept of continuing damages, rather than a
continuing tort.9 Each time ZZ Top sells a single of Thunderbird,
the Nightcaps damages may increase, but the tort was committed when
ZZ Top copyrighted the song. Application of a continuing tort
9
Cf. Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772
F.2d 505, 512-15 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer, Inc. v. Frank Music Corp., 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S.Ct. 1321,
108 L.Ed.2d 496 (1990); Gaste v. Kaiserman, 863 F.2d 1061, 1069
(2d Cir.1988); Jarvis v. A & M Records, 827 F.Supp. 282, 293-94
(D.N.J.1993).
11
theory would go so far as to frustrate the policy behind the
copyright statute. If the continuing tort theory were applied to
cases involving musical recordings, then the statute of limitations
would never apply to these cases. If the song were played once on
the radio, or someone bought a copy of a recording at a store the
day before trial, the case would be brought within the statute of
limitations and the tort resurrected. But in this case, the waltz
was over by the time the Nightcaps filed suit.
Finally, the Nightcaps argue that the discovery rule should
be applied in this case and that the statutes of limitations should
be tolled until each of the individual members of the Nightcaps
obtained actual knowledge, or through reasonable diligence could
have obtained actual knowledge, of ZZ Top's conduct. We note that
the discovery rule is not applied in several of the causes of
action presented by the Nightcaps.10 With regard to the remaining
causes of action, including the RICO claim, even if the discovery
rule did apply, we agree with the district court that those causes
of action are barred by the limitations. First, the Copyright Act
expressly provides that "[r]ecordation of a document in the
Copyright Office gives all persons constructive notice of the facts
stated" in a properly registered document. 17 U.S.C. § 205(c).
10
The discovery rule is not applied in the contexts of
conversion (Pierson v. GFH Financial Services Corp., 829 S.W.2d
311, 314 (Tex.Ct.App.—Austin 1992, no writ )); misappropriation
(Coastal Distributing Co. v. NGK Spark Plug Co., 779 F.2d 1033
(5th Cir.1986)); or unfair competition (Coastal, 779 F.2d at
1035-36). It seems to apply in RICO actions. La Porte Constr.
Co., Inc. v. Bayshore Nat. Bank, 805 F.2d 1254, 1256 (5th
Cir.1986).
12
Second, several members of the Nightcaps admitted that they knew
about ZZ Top's version of Thunderbird in 1981. ZZ Top's actions
were not covert or concealed. Indeed, many copies of Fandango!
were released and ZZ Top performed the song publicly. The
Nightcaps either knew, or through reasonable diligence should have
known, about ZZ Top's actions more than four years before they
brought this suit in 1992. Therefore, even if the Nightcaps causes
of action survived the preemption provision of the Copyright Act,
they were extinguished by the limitations period.
VI.
For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
13