Shaw v. Time-Life Records, 38 N.Y.2d 201 (1975)
r
r
While one can copy musical arrangements that are in the public domain, one cannot mislead the public into believing that their product is the original performance of another artist.
r
r
Summary
r
Artie Shaw sued Time-Life Records, alleging invasion of privacy, unauthorized use of his name, damage to reputation, and unfair competition related to Time-Life’s “Swing Era” record series, which included recreations of Shaw’s arrangements. The court held that while Time-Life could copy Shaw’s public domain arrangements, they could not mislead consumers into thinking the records were Shaw’s original performances. The court granted summary judgment to Time-Life on the privacy claims but allowed the unfair competition claim to proceed, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether consumers would be misled.
r
r
Facts
r
Artie Shaw, a famous band leader, sued Time, Inc. after Time-Life Records produced a “Swing Era” series of records that included new recordings of 25 of Shaw’s musical arrangements. Shaw did not hold the copyrights to the musical compositions. Time-Life hired a modern orchestra to recreate the arrangements. Time-Life launched a massive advertising campaign promoting the albums. Shaw also had a recording contract with RCA, which was marketing original Shaw recordings. Shaw received royalties from RCA, but not from Time-Life.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Shaw sued Time, Inc. in New York state court. Special Term denied Time’s motion for summary judgment on all causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether Time-Life’s use of Shaw’s name and arrangements violated his rights under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law.
r
2. Whether Time-Life engaged in unfair competition by misleading the public about the source of its records.
r
3. Whether the alleged musical inferiority of Time-Life’s records damaged Shaw’s reputation.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because Shaw placed his arrangements in the public domain without copyright protection, and the Civil Rights Law contains an exception for the use of an artist’s name in connection with artistic productions that have been sold or disposed of with such name used in connection therewith.
r
2. No, there exists a question of fact whether the reasonably discriminating members of the public would be confused or misled by Time-Life’s advertising.
r
3. The Court did not answer the third question, because a claim for damage to one’s reputation can only occur where inferior work has been palmed off as the product of another whose goods are favorably received by the consuming public.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that since Shaw did not copyright his arrangements, they were in the public domain and Time-Life was free to copy them. The court cited Supreme Records v. Decca Records, noting that absent unfair competition, a competitor may appropriate any musical arrangement not distinctive enough to be a separate musical entity. Further, absent palming off or consumer confusion, competitors could meticulously duplicate Shaw’s renditions (citing Miller v. Universal Pictures Co.). Since Shaw