throbber
Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 1 of 51
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`___________________________________________________________________________
`
`TIMOTHY GRIMES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`SONY ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
`
`JULIE SWIDLER and
`
`
`WADE LEAK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`;
`:
`:
`:
`
`
` Civil Action No.:
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, TIMOTHY GRIMES, by his attorneys, VERNER SIMON, as and for his Complaint
`
`against the Defendants, SONY CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`
`SONY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., JULIE SWINDLER and WADE LEAK, states as follows:
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`This is a case of a major record label’s callous indifference to the rights and interests of a
`
`powerless recording artist that exceeds what is acceptable behavior to such a degree that
`
`the officers of the record label should be held accountable for their deliberate and willful
`
`gross negligence and intentional misconduct.
`
`2.
`
`In 1989, The Poor Righteous Teachers (“PRT”) brought their brand of “Holy Intellect” to
`
`the emerging rap community which was then a budding industry. Profile Records, the
`
`record label that signed PRT, was so profitable that it was sold to Arista Records in 1997
`
`– Arista being the successful creation of fabled music icon, Mr. Clive Davis. Arista Rec-
`
`ords was thereafter quickly absorbed by Sony Entertainment as the major entertainment
`
`companies embraced the profitable rap and hip-hop music markets.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 2 of 51
`
`Despite full knowledge and fiduciary duties to PRT, the large companies, Arista and
`
`Sony simply ignored their duties to account and pay royalties to PRT. Ultimately, based
`
`upon ample and detailed notice to the Sony Defendants and Sony’s officers as set forth
`
`below, the Sony Defendants acquired a fiduciary duty as a matter of common law to protect
`
`the plaintiff’s property and monies.
`
`4.
`
`In 2009, PRT terminated the agreement with Sony, nine (9) months after PRT’s attorney
`
`re-supplied Sony with PRT’S recording agreement and royalty information that Sony
`
`claimed they did not have, and Sony still continued failing to act or intentionally refused
`
`to act.
`
`5.
`
`Instead, Sony continued to exploit PRT’s recordings and continued to make tremendous
`
`amounts of money from PRT’s music as well as hundreds of similarly situated black, poor
`
`and powerless recording artists.
`
`6.
`
`Further, Sony’s officer’s in charge of this aspect of Sony’s billion dollar empire deliber-
`
`ately turned a blind eye to the contractual, common law and equitable obligations of the
`
`giant company, intentionally or with gross negligence, all the while that Sony rakes in
`
`millions of dollars from the fruits of PRT and other artists’ labors. While the artists were
`
`starved of what was legally due to them, Sony and its officers enjoyed high stock prices,
`
`huge corporate coffers, bloated salaries, industry benefits and false accolades.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 3 of 51
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action alleges violations of federal statutes in-
`
`cluding the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§101, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201 and §2202.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b) because all of the
`
`Defendants conduct substantial business within the State of New York and have infringed
`
`Plaintiff’s copyright within the State of New York as described herein, a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the State of New
`
`York, and under 28 U.S.C. §1400(a) since the misconduct by the Defendants occurred
`
`within this district.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff, TIMOTHY GRIMES (“Grimes”), an individual born in 1970, and is a citizen of
`
`the state of Georgia with an address located at 1759 Vertex Drive, Snellville, GA 30078
`
`10.
`
`Defendant SONY CORPORATION (“Sony”) is a Japanese corporation headquartered in
`
`Konan, Minato, Tokyo and doing business in the state of New York.
`
`11.
`
`SONY ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“Sony Ent.”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of SONY
`
`formed under the laws of the state of Delaware and located at 25 Madison Ave., New
`
`York, NY 10010 and is a global entertainment company established in 2012 and focusing
`
`on most of SONY's motion picture, television and music businesses.
`
`12.
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA (“Sony Of America”), is a wholly owned subsid-
`
`iary of SONY formed under the laws of the state of Delaware and located at 25 Madison
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 4 of 51
`
`
`
`Ave., New York, NY 10010 and from where it manages Sony Ent. [ Sony, Sony Ent. and
`
`Sony Of America may also be collectively referred to here as the “Sony Defendants” or
`
`“Sony”].
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, as of 2019 Sony is currently the world's 6th largest entertain-
`
`ment company at $14.1B, alongside The Walt Disney Company ($55.13B), Com-
`
`cast (inc. NBCUniversal $33B), AT&T (inc. WarnerMedia $31.27B), Bertels-
`
`mann (€17.96b/$20.30b), Vivendi (€13b/$14.70b), CBSCorporation ($13.69B), and Via-
`
`com ($13.26B).
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Sony Defendants are all registered to and transact busi-
`
`ness in the State of New York and have entered into contracts in the State of New York to
`
`supply services in the State of New York, and committed tortious acts complained of herein
`
`in the State of New York, causing injury to Plaintiff within New York State.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant JULIE SWIDLER, ESQ. (“Swindler”) joined Sony Ent. in 1988 and in 2008
`
`was appointed Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel of Sony Ent. Prior
`
`to joining Sony, Swidler worked for Arista Records.
`
`16.
`
`Swidler is also a board member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA),
`
`a board member of the UJA Federation of NY’s Music for Youth Initiative, and in 2017
`
`was honored with a lifetime achievement award by the T.J. Martel Foundation, the music
`
`industry’s leading foundation that funds medical research. Upon information and belief,
`
`these public overtures and corresponding accolades received by Swidler are intentionally
`
`sought to cover the actual business conduct of Swidler and the nefarious, low-brow, mis-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 5 of 51
`
`
`
`sion of the Sony Defendants and Swidler to squeeze and extract, through outrageously cal-
`
`lous misconduct, every penny possible from poor artists of color who do not control the
`
`licensing rights on the intellectual property.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant WADE LEAK, ESQ. (“Leak”) is Senior Vice President, Deputy General Coun-
`
`sel, Chief Compliance, Ethics and Privacy Officer of Sony Entertainment.
`
`18.
`
` Leak, who has worked for Sony Ent. since 1999, manages all Sony U.S. litigation and
`
`provides Sony subsidiary music label companies with day to day advice on copyright and
`
`on-line marketing issues. Leak also head up Sony Music “Out Loud”, an employee affinity
`
`group which encourages LGBT equality. Upon information and belief, these public over-
`
`tures and corresponding accolades received by Leak are intentionally sought to cover the
`
`actual business conduct of Leak and the nefarious, low-brow, mission of the Sony Defend-
`
`ants and Leak to squeeze and extract, through outrageously callous misconduct, every
`
`penny possible from poor artists of color who do not control the licensing rights on the
`
`intellectual property.
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`RAP IS BIG BUSINESS.
`
`19. While today, rap or hip-hop music (as it is also referred to), is as common as rock music,
`
`country, classical or any other music genre, in the late 1980’s rap was still in its nascent
`
`stages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 6 of 51
`
`PROFILE RECORDS NYC
`
` An early proponent of rap music was a successful independent record label in New York
`
`City called Profile Records (“Profile”). Profile was founded and owned by Cory Robbins
`
`(“Robbins”) and Steven Plotnicki (“Plotnicki”) in 1981.
`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`PRT
`
`21.
`
`In 1989, Profile signed a young rap group from Trenton New Jersey called the Poor Right-
`
`eous Teachers (“PRT”) to an exclusive recording agreement and co-publishing agreement
`
`with Profile’s publishing designee, Pro-toons. (the “Profile Agreement”). The signatories
`
`of the Profile Agreement, on behalf of PRT consisted of Plaintiff Timothy Grimes p/k/a
`
`Wise Intelligent, Kerry Williams p/k/a Culture Freedom, Scott Phillips p/k/a DJ Father
`
`Shaheed (deceased in 2014), and producer Anthony Depula p/k/a Tony D (deceased in
`
`2009).1
`
`
`
`THE PROFILE AGREEMENT
`
`22.
`
`The Profile Agreement with PRT was a long-term, one-sided adhesion agreement in which
`
`no negotiation of any type took place.
`
`23.
`
`Although the Profile Agreement was reviewed and marked-up with requested changes by
`
`a “rookie" music attorney named Kevon Glickman, Esq. (“Glickman”), who also served as
`
`PRT’s executive producer, the Profile Agreement drafted by Profile’s veteran entertain-
`
`ment attorney Mark Levinsohn, Esq. was presented to PRT on a “take it or leave it” basis.
`
`
`
`
`1 Plaintiff Grimes has taken assignment all PRT’s ownership rights.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 7 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`“HOLY INTELLECT”
`
`24.
`
`PRT took the Profile deal. For the first Album “Holy Intellect” released in 1990, PRT
`
`received a meager total advance of $15,000 which they used to pay for all recording costs,
`
`living expenses, and producer and other professional fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`“ROCK DIS FUNKY JOINT” IS A HIT
`
`25.
`
` “Holy Intellect”, driven by the strength of the single “Rock Dis Funky Joint”, at NYC
`
`influential radio station ‘Hot 97’, and video which was a staple on popular cable TV show
`
`“Yo MTV Raps”, sold over 400,000 albums in vinyl, cassette, and CD formats in the first
`
`couple weeks of its sale generating a tremendous windfall profit for Robbins and Plotnicki,
`
`whose Profile Records owned the master recordings and the publishing through their Pro-
`
`Toons, as well as being partner’s in Profile’s distributor, Landmark Distribution, adding
`
`another level of profit to Robbins and Plotniki’s bottom line.
`
`
`
`
`
`PROFILE IS SOLD TO ARISTA
`
`26.
`
` Plotnicki and Robbins relationship ended in an acrimonious lawsuit against each other
`
`after which Arista Records bought what was left of Profile some time in 1997 or 1998.
`
`27.
`
` Prior to Profile’s sale to Arista, when Defendant Swidler was a high-ranking officer at
`
`Arista, PRT, released numerous singles, as well as four (4) profitable and critically ac-
`
`claimed consciousness-raising Albums:
`
`(i) “Holy Intellect”, 1990
`(ii) “Pure Poverty”, 1991
`(iii) “Black Business”, 1993
`(iv) “New World Order”, 1996
`
`
`
`
`
`
` These four (4) Albums were part of the sale of Profile to Arista.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 8 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROFILE SELLS OR ASSIGNS PLAINTIFF’S PUBLISHING TO UNIVERSAL
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, at some point in time, Profile also sold or assigned Pro-
`
`Toons’ publishing rights and interests in and to the PRT publishing to Universal Music
`
`Publishing (“Universal”).
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff has never received any notice of such assignment or sale and has no actual
`
`knowledge of such a transaction.
`
`30.
`
`If Pro-toons did assign its publishing interests to Universal, then Sony would have an ob-
`
`ligation as the record company to pay publishing royalties to Universal and then Universal would
`
`in turn have the obligating to account and pay publishing royalties to Plaintiff pursuant to the
`
`Profile Agreement.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff has never received any royalty information or other information related to its pub-
`
`lishing from Sony Ent. nor Universal and Grimes is the valid copyright owner of all of PRT’s
`
`lyrics. (See Exhibit A, copyright registration).
`
`32.
`
` These PRT recordings and the publishing related thereto are the subject of this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`ARISTA IS SOLD TO BMG/ BMG IS SOLD TO SONY
`
`Upon information and belief, BMG acquired the assets and liabilities of Arista Records’
`
`founded by Clive Davis in 1974, on a date unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`34.
`
` Upon information and belief, Sony formed a joint venture with BMG in 2004 and Sony
`
`thereafter acquired all of BMG’s assets and liabilities as part of Sony’s joint venture buy-
`
`out of BMG’s share some time in 2008.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 9 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`PRT NOTIFIES SONY THEY ARE IN BREACH
`
`35.
`
` On or around July 22, 2008, Glickman contacted Sony on behalf of PRT, placing Sony on
`
`notice that Sony was exploiting PRT’s recordings and publishing and not accounting to
`
`them.
`
`36.
`
`At the time, Glickman was not unknown to and had previous contact with certain high-
`
`level Sony executives/officers for the following reasons.
`
`37.
`
`Between 1993 and 1999 Glickman was General Counsel and Head of Business Affairs for
`
`Ruffhouse Records (“Ruffhouse”), a successful joint venture with SONY which generated
`
`sales of over 100 Million Albums by Grammy award winning artists, including Ms. Lauryn
`
`Hill, The Fugees, Wyclef Jean, Nas, Cypress Hill, Kris Kross, amongst others. In 1999,
`
`Ruffhouse was purchased by Sony Of America.
`
`38.
`
` In addition, Glickman was also litigation counsel to the classic R&B group, The Delfonics,
`
`in a 25-year-old royalty dispute with Clive Davis and Sony which settled some time in
`
`2006 or 2007.
`
`39.
`
` Swidler and Leak oversaw Sony’s interest in this particularly bitter dispute that caused the
`
`split up of the Delfonics and the estrangement of brothers Wilbert and William Hart, 2/3rds
`
`of the Delfonics group. The third Delfonic, Randy Cain, died a short time after the con-
`
`clusion of the Sony litigation. Upon information and belief, the business model of the Sony
`
`Defendants, and Swidler’s and Leak’s implementation of the Sony mission as set forth in
`
`paragraphs 16 and 18 above, includes intentionally delaying the resolution of disputes over
`
`intellectual property rights with artists of color who lack financial resources to create lev-
`
`eraged advantages, such as the ultimate death of such artists by attrition over time.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 10 of 51
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY’S BAD ACTORS
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, during the Delfonics’ lawsuit Glickman had many commu-
`
`nications with Swidler and Leak, so when it came time to protect the interests of PRT,
`
`Glickman contacted Swidler, (amongst appropriate employees in the royalty department),
`
`only to be repeatedly stonewalled for a period to last much longer than the breach and cure
`
`provisions contained in the Profile Agreement.
`
`41. More specifically, Glickman was first told that Sony did not have the Profile Agreement
`
`nor any of the royalty provisions or songwriting/publishing splits (the “splits”).
`
`42.
`
`Glickman thereafter supplied to Sony the “missing” Profile Agreement and reconstructed
`
`for Sony’s royalty department, the “unknown” splits.
`
`43.
`
` Nevertheless, nine (9) months later, Sony still claimed they did not have the necessary
`
`information and/or still had not entered any information supplied by Glickman into their
`
`royalty systems and refused to take any responsibility toward their obligations to PRT, as
`
`successor in interest to the assets and liabilities acquired through Sony’s acquisition of
`
`Arista/BMG.
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY FAILS TO CURE AND PRT TERMINATES
`
`44.
`
`Around April 16, 2009, nine (9) months after: (i) Sony’s receipt of PRT’s notice of its
`
`breach; (ii) Sony’s receipt from PRT, a second time, of what Sony claimed were “un-
`
`known” royalty and publishing splits [that Sony should have already had]; (iii) Sony’s fail-
`
`ure to make any attempt to cure their breach after being supplied with the “missing” Profile
`
`Agreement and “unknown” splits; and, (iv) Sony’s misrepresentation that they sent infor-
`
`mation to PRT [when they really did not], PRT terminated the Profile Agreement. (See
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 11 of 51
`
`
`
`Exhibit B, attached email communications between Glickman and Sony executives be-
`
`tween July 22, 2008 and April 16, 2009).
`
`45.
`
`Shortly after April 16, 2009, Glickman received a phone call from Leak, inquiring as to the
`
`status of the PRT claims.
`
`46.
`
`After Glickman explained the events involving Sony’s breach and failure to cure, Leak
`
`stated that he agreed with Glickman and led Glickman to believe that he had acquiesced
`
`that Sony indeed failed to cure its breaches.
`
`47.
`
`Glickman has never heard again from Leak, Swidler nor any other representative from
`
`Sony thereafter in relation to PRT, despite Sony having Glickman’s contact information
`
`and Glickman supplying to Sony all the PRT agreements and splits that Sony claimed was
`
`missing.
`
`48.
`
`Thus it appears that the Defendants intentionally implemented the Sony Defendant’s busi-
`
`ness model of and Swidler’s and Leak’s implementation of the Sony mission as set forth
`
`in paragraphs 16 and 18 above, to intentionally delay the resolution of the PRT claims
`
`about the PRT intellectual property rights to create a leveraged advantage by attrition over
`
`time.
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY CONTINUES TO EXPLOIT PRT
`
`49.
`
`Despite explicit and detailed notice of the PRT claims concerning the subject intellectual
`
`property rights, as of the filing of this lawsuit, Sony is still exploiting the PRT recordings
`
`and compositions on a daily and continuing basis despite having no legal rights to do so.
`
`It is inconceivable that Sony is not aware that it has no legal rights to the PRT properties.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 12 of 51
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Sony is blatantly, willfully, in conscious disregard of the rights of the Plain-
`
`tiff, converting the PRT property and gross receipts from all sources related thereto.
`
`50.
`
` The Sony officers and the Sony Defendants were entirely certain of the terms of the PRT
`
`deal since Defendant Swidler was the attorney on point at Arista when Arista acquired
`
`Profile, Defendant Swidler was also Arista’s attorney on point when Arista was acquired
`
`by BMG, Defendant Swidler was also the attorney on point when BMG was absorbed by
`
`Sony and has been the attorney on point, upon information and belief, with Sony since PRT
`
`and plaintiff have been making their claims regarding their property rights.
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY OFFICER “PARTICIPATION” IN SONY’S BAD ACTS
`
`51.
`
` Sony’s officers, the Defendants Swidler and Leak, actively, willfully and intentionally
`
`participated in depriving plaintiff of his property. Swidler and Leak intentionally and
`
`knowingly contributed to the Sony Defendants’ mission and business plan to wrongfully
`
`extract monies from non-resourced and powerless artists of color by intentionally ignoring
`
`the artists’ legal rights to their intellectual property. The Defendants Swidler and Leak,
`
`however, had no personal economic motive and acted with disinterested malevolence
`
`against plaintiff and his interests solely because of their desire please their employer in
`
`another contract dispute with attorney Glickman. In fact, Swidler and Leak earned and do
`
`earn fat salaries, bonuses, and other forms of remuneration whether they swindle artists or
`
`not.
`
`52.
`
`The following links represent a partial list of leading retailers and streaming sites where
`
`Sony is selling and otherwise exploiting PRT’s music without authority as evidenced by
`
`the URLs set forth below:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 13 of 51
`
`
`
`ꞏ https://open.spotify.com/album/79kOIV8l2lC7oZtRrvjNPm
`ꞏ https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Intellect-Expanded-Righteous-Teach-
`ers/dp/B01946BURW/ref=tmm_msc_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
`ꞏ https://www.amazon.com/Pure-Poverty-Poor-Righteous-Teach-
`ers/dp/B000000CGA/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_2
`ꞏ https://www.amazon.com/Black-Business-Poor-Righteous-Teach-
`ers/dp/B000000CHQ/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_3
`ꞏ https://www.amazon.com/World-Order-Poor-Righteous-Teach-
`ers/dp/B000000CJL/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_4
`ꞏ https://open.spotify.com/album/0wUWUwLx6JNdhJi9EKPlhP
`ꞏ https://music.apple.com/us/album/black-business/1065978427
`ꞏ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMURCgM3GY
`ꞏ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfMUR-
`CgM3GY&list=PLkeDHqZ2DvxwRBf0nH36VfsRdLQ1MyCv_&index=1
`ꞏ https://www.discogs.com/Poor-Righteous-Teachers-Holy-Intellect/master/124672
`ꞏ https://open.spotify.com/album/4tw8kzSXjdtfORVLu6nzqv
`ꞏ https://www.discogs.com/artist/45047-Poor-Righteous-Teachers
`ꞏ https://www.deezer.com/en/artist/490813
`ꞏ https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/poor-righteous-teachers/holy-intellect/buy/
`ꞏ https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Poor-Righteous-Teachers-Explicit/dp/B011AXU6OU
`ꞏ https://store.tidal.com/us/album/55017656
`
`
`
`
`PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUESTED BY VERDICT
`
`
`
`
`
`53.
`
`As set forth herein, as will be evidenced by the facts adduced in discovery, the Defendants’
`
`conduct in depriving plaintiff of money he was contractually owed was deliberate and in-
`
`tentional misconduct, whether by breach of common or statutory law, or caused by inten-
`
`tional torts, and is/was so egregious, willful and wanton as to shock the conscious of a
`
`reasonable trier of fact.
`
`54.
`
` Defendants Swidler’s and Leak’s deceit and evasion of the customary and decent inter-
`
`course regarding plaintiff’s presentation of his claims, is also intentional, willful and wan-
`
`ton and is/was so egregious, willful and wanton as to shock the conscious of a reasonable
`
`trier of fact.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 14 of 51
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Defendants, all of them, have been recklessly indifferent to plaintiff, and their conduct has
`
`been unjustified, continuing to cause plaintiff financial hardship, extreme anxiety and dis-
`
`comfort.
`
`56.
`
`Believing that they will not be held personally culpable for their misconduct in furtherance
`
`of their employer’s mission and business model, Defendants Swidler and Leak act in their
`
`dealings with artists, which Sony and the individual Defendants deem have less than
`
`marque value, in a manner employing tactics of inaccessibility; inattentiveness; ostracism;
`
`commercial bullying; deceit, antipathy and, false modesty.
`
`57.
`
`Particularly shocking is the Sony and individual Defendants’ noxious and deleterious “be-
`
`hind closed doors” business model, mission and policy of using defensive strategies of
`
`partition and attrition, with the intent of ultimately outlasting or diluting both the artists’
`
`claims, and, at times, careers and lives, and tragically, far too often the lifespan of the
`
`artists themselves, all the while these Defendants are lauded for their supposed compas-
`
`sionate treatment of the creative community.
`
`58.
`
`The Defendants’ misconduct as pled herein, warrants the imposition of punitive damages
`
`and sanctions in an amount that will punish and deter Defendants and other commercial
`
`actors like them in the entertainment industry.
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`CONVERSION/THEFT
`(Against All Defendants)
`
` Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding para-
`
`graphs of the Complaint above as if fully set forth here at length.
`
`
`59.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 15 of 51
`
`
`
`60.
`
` Plaintiff has been assigned all property interests in the PRT recordings and publishing
`
`which has been and is continuing to be converted to Sony on a daily basis.
`
`61.
`
`Once Sony received PRT’s termination notice and Defendant Leak spoke to Glickman ac-
`
`knowledging Sony’s failure to cure its breaches, any further exploitation of PRT’s music
`
`was done knowingly and with knowledge that Sony no longer had any legal right to do so.
`
`62.
`
`Under the Profile Agreement, PRT was entitled to receive record and publishing royalties
`
`which were not ever received.
`
`
`
`63.
`
`Defendants control the collection and distribution of all gross royalties and fees from all
`
`sources from exploitation of PRT’s recordings and publishing and have to date failed to
`
`deliver to Plaintiff any information or royalties and/or other fees earned.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants have without license, right or authorization, exercised dominion and/or control
`
`over Plaintiff’s property and have interfered, and continue to interfere, with and are in de-
`
`fiance of Plaintiff’s superior legal rights in the intellectual property and creative works.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants’ have also fail and/or refused to deliver to Plaintiff his share of the royalties
`
`and/or other fees which Defendants have derived from exploitation of Plaintiff’s property
`
`and works and such taking of Plaintiff’s rightful share of royalties and/or other fees also
`
`constitutes conversion.
`
`66.
`
`Since the Profile Agreement was properly terminated, Defendants have no legal license,
`
`justification or privilege whatsoever to exploit the PRT recordings and published works in
`
`any manner without Plaintiff’s permission.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants’ misappropriation of Plaintiff’s property interests is not legally justifiable or
`
`legally privileged.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 16 of 51
`
`
`
`68.
`
`Ultimately, based upon ample and detailed notice to the Sony Defendants and Sony’s of-
`
`ficers as set forth herein, the Sony Defendants acquired a fiduciary duty as a matter of
`
`common law to protect the plaintiff’s property ad monies.
`
`69.
`
`Defendants’ failure to segregate the royalties and/or other fees from Sony’s other income
`
`constitutes co-mingling by the fiduciary Sony (see below).
`
`70.
`
`Defendants have converted both the legal title to Plaintiff’s intellectual property as well as
`
`all income derived from that property without license, justification and/or privilege.
`
`71.
`
`The acts of conversion of Plaintiff’s property and monies are so willful, wanton and egre-
`
`gious that they shock the conscious of a reasonable juror and punitive damages are war-
`
`ranted.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as result of Defendants’ tortious misconduct.
`
`
`
`73.
`
`COUNT II
`
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(Against all Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding para-
`
`graphs of the Complaint above as if fully set forth here at length.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff is and at all material times hereto has been, the registered owner of the copyrights
`
`in and to the lyrics of all PRT’s songs.
`
`75.
`
`As set forth above, Defendants have made, copied, reproduced, displayed, licensed, ex-
`
`ploited, remixed, sampled and otherwise distributed or exploited Plaintiff’s copyrights (as
`
`herein defined), without limitation since Sony acquired Arista Records.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 17 of 51
`
`
`
`76.
`
`Since the Profile Agreement was properly terminated, Defendants have no authority to and
`
`Plaintiff did not authorize Defendants to copy, reproduce, distribute, perform, license, sam-
`
`ple, use or otherwise exploit Plaintiff’s copyrights.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants do not have any permission, consent or license from Plaintiff for the use, dis-
`
`tribution, copying, sampling, reproduction, performance, and exploitation of Plaintiff’s
`
`copyrights.
`
`78.
`
` Defendants’ infringing acts alleged herein were willful, deliberate, and committed with
`
`prior notice and knowledge of Plaintiff’s copyright interest in the PRT recordings and pub-
`
`lishing.
`
`79.
`
` Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has been harmed by the continued infringement by
`
`Defendants of Plaintiff’s copyrights in recordings and publishing.
`
`80.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed upon Plaintiff’s copyright beyond
`
`the mere unauthorized sale of its recordings, in the form of granting “remixes” and posting
`
`“remix videos”, as well either granting synchronization licenses or otherwise allowing
`
`“Rock Dis Funky Joint” to be incorporated into the popular documentary, "Wu Tang Clan:
`
`An American Saga”, in the beginning of episode 6.
`
`81. Wu Tang Clan: An American Saga is presently airing on Hulu.
`
`82.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants are likely to continue infringing Plaintiff’s cop-
`
`yrights in and to the PRT recordings and publishing unless they are enjoined from further
`
`infringement.
`
`83.
`
`Upon information and belief, the infringing acts of Defendants have been, are and if con-
`
`tinued hereafter will continue to be, committed willfully.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 18 of 51
`
`
`
`84.
`
`As a result of their actions, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for willful copyright in-
`
`fringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501.
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff suffered, and will continue to suffer, losses in an amount not yet ascertained but
`
`to be determined at trial.
`
`86.
`
`In addition to Plaintiff’s actual damages, Plaintiff is entitled to receive the profits made by
`
`Defendants from their wrongful acts, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504.
`
`87.
`
`In the alternative, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c),
`
`which should be enhanced by 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) because of Defendants’ willful
`
`copyright infringement.
`
`88.
`
` Plaintiff is also entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and litigation costs pursuant to 17
`
`U.S.C. § 505.
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`
`CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`(Against All Defendants)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding
`
`89.
`
`paragraphs of the Complaint above as if fully set forth here at length.
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff is, and at all material times hereto has been, the registered owner of the copyright
`
`in and to “Rock Dis Funky Joint” as well as all of the PRT lyrics.
`
`91.
`
`As set forth above, Defendants reproduced, distributed, licensed and otherwise illegally
`
`exploited the PRT recordings and compositions in various configurations and in
`
`commercial partnership with and through third parties, including but not limited to iTunes,
`
`YouTube, Apple, Amazon, Hulu, Universal, Spotify and many other sources and outlets
`
`including but not limited to leading music retailers and content streaming sites.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-10644 Document 1 Filed 11/16/19 Page 19 of 51
`
`
`
`92.
`
`As set forth above, users of third-party websites, including YouTube and Spotify, have
`
`engaged in the reproduction and distribution of the infringing PRT recordings and
`
`compositions as well as engaged in the creation of derivative works. Additionally, licensees
`
`of Defendants have reproduced and distributed the infringing songs.
`
`93.
`
`As a result, such users and licensees are liable for direct copyright infringement of
`
`Plaintiff’s exclusive right of reproduction and distribution under 17 U.S.C. §106.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of the infringing activity of third-party
`
`website users and unauthorized licensees and directly and materially contributed to that
`
`activity by directly participating in the licensing and distributing of the infringing material
`
`to those parties.
`
`95.
`
` Defendants provided access to the infringing material to third party websites and
`
`licensees, thus encouraging its use and contributing to infringing conduct for their own
`
`gain and should therefore be personally liable for damages awarded hereunder.
`
`96.
`
`As a result of the foregoing all Defendants shall be held liable under the Copyright Act for
`
`contributorily infringing Plaintiff’s copyrights, in violation of Sections 106 and 501 of the
`
`Copyright Act.
`
`97.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights,
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to maximum statutory damages, in the amount of $150,000 per work
`
`infringed, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c), or for such other amount as may be proper
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c).
`
`98.
`
`Unless and until Defendant’s conduct is enjoined by this Court, Defendant’s will continue
`
`to cau

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket