`Andrew H. “Drew” Davis (TN Bar # 34203)
`KING & BALLOW
`315 Union Street, Suite 1100
`Nashville, TN 37201
`Telephone:
`(615) 259-3456
`Facsimile:
`(615) 726-5417
`
`Attorneys For Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`ALEXANDER CARDINALE; MORGAN
`TAYLOR REID,
` Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`JOSHUA RYAN OWEN p/k/a JAKE OWEN;
`BIG LOUD RECORDS, LLC; BENJY LASHAR
`DAVIS; MCCARTY & BLAKE, LLC d/b/a
`PLAID FLAG MUSIC; JOE DAVID
`HOOGERHYDE p/k/a JOEY HYDE; SONY
`MUSIC PUBLISHING (US) LLC d/b/a SONY
`ATV TREE PUBLISHING; NEIL ALLEN
`MEDLEY; HORIPRO ENTERTAINMENT
`GROUP, INC. d/b/a DIXIE STARS MUSIC and
`d/b/a SON OF A CARL MUSIC,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`NASHVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
` COMPLAINT
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for willful copyright infringement brought by Plaintiffs, Alexander
`
`Cardinale (“Cardinale”) and Morgan Taylor Reid (“Reid”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), who are the
`
`writers and copyright owners of the musical composition entitled “Made for You” (hereinafter
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
`
`1
`
`
`
`“Made for You (1)” or the “Original Work”), bearing U.S. Copyright Registration No.
`
`PA0002233661.
`
`2.
`
`The Defendants in this Action are the credited writers, copyright claimants,
`
`performers, publishers, and owners of the musical composition and sound recordings also entitled
`
`“Made for You” (hereinafter, “Made for You (2)” or the “Infringing Works”), which, as set forth
`
`more fully herein, deliberately copied and infringed original elements from the Original Work –
`
`including, brazenly, the very title of the Original Work. Defendants copied the Original Work
`
`without license or consent and have exploited the subsequent Infringing Works to their collective
`
`benefit without regard to Plaintiffs’ rights and to Plaintiffs’ detriment. The Infringing Works
`
`directly misappropriate quantitatively and qualitatively important portions of Plaintiffs’ Original
`
`Work in a manner that is easily and instantly recognizable to the ordinary observer. The Infringing
`
`Works are substantially and strikingly similar to the Original Work as discussed fully below, and
`
`this obvious similarity satisfies both the extrinsic and intrinsic test for copyright infringement. All
`
`Defendants herein are practical partners of each other with regard to the infringement described
`
`herein. All Defendants herein are jointly and severally liable for willful copyright infringement, as
`
`all have benefitted from the copying of the Original Work as described herein, and all have violated
`
`one or more of Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under Section 106 of the United States Copyright Act.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Cardinale, an individual, is a singer/songwriter based in California.
`
`Cardinale is the co-author and co-claimant to the copyright of the Original Work bearing U.S.
`
`Copyright Registration No. PA0002233661. Cardinale is also the featured performer on the sound
`
`recording embodying the Original Work.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
`
`2
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Reid, an individual, is a songwriter also based in California. Reid is the co-
`
`author and co-claimant to the copyright of the Original Work bearing U.S. Copyright Registration
`
`No. PA0002233661.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action for copyright infringement because they
`
`co-own the copyright to the Original Work involved in this action and have the exclusive rights
`
`under Section 106 of the United States Copyright Act.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Joshua Ryan Owen p/k/a Jake Owen
`
`(“Owen”), an individual, is a country music artist, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, was a
`
`resident of Nashville, TN. Owen is the credited performer of the sound recording of the Infringing
`
`Works which appears on his album Greetings from… Jake. Also, upon information and belief, Owen
`
`has generated substantial revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct
`
`exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Big Loud Records, LLC f/k/a Big Loud
`
`Mountain Records, Nashville, LLC (“Big Loud”), is a Tennessee limited liability company with
`
`principal place of business at 111 16th Avenue S., Suite 201, Nashville, TN 37212-2336. Also, upon
`
`further information and belief, Big Loud is Owen’s record label and copyright claimant to the sound
`
`recording of the Infringing Work. Upon information and belief, Big Loud has generated substantial
`
`revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Benjy Lashar Davis (“Davis”), an
`
`individual, is one of the credited songwriters of the Infringing Work and co-claimant of the
`
`compositional copyright of the Infringing work. Upon further information and belief, Davis was a
`
`resident of Nashville, TN at all times relevant to this Complaint. Also, upon information and belief,
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Davis has generated substantial revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct
`
`exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Joe David Hoogerhyde p/k/a Joey Hyde
`
`(“Hyde”), an individual, is one of the credited songwriters of the Infringing Work and co-claimant
`
`of the compositional copyright of the Infringing Works. Upon further information and belief, Hyde
`
`was a resident of Nashville, TN at all times relevant to this Complaint. Also, upon information and
`
`belief, Hyde has generated substantial revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and
`
`direct exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`10.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Neil Allen Medley (“Medley”), an
`
`individual, is one of the credited songwriters of the Infringing Work and co-claimant of the
`
`compositional copyright of the Infringing Works. Upon further information and belief, Medley
`
`was a resident of Nashville, TN at all times relevant to this Complaint. Also, upon information and
`
`belief, Medley has generated substantial revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and
`
`direct exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`11.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant McCarty & Blake, LLC d/b/a Plaid Flag
`
`Music (“Plaid Flag”) is a Tennessee limited liability company with principal place of business at
`
`2405B Elliot Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204-2701. Upon information and belief, Plaid Flag is one
`
`of the credited publishers of the Infringing Works and co-claimant of the compositional copyright
`
`of the Infringing Work. Also, upon information and belief, Plaid Flag has generated substantial
`
`revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct exploitation of, the Infringing
`
`Work.
`
`12.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Music Publishing (US) LLC f/k/a
`
`Sony/ATV Music Publishing and d/b/a Sony ATV Tree Publishing (“Sony/ATV”) is a Delaware
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
`
`4
`
`
`
`limited liability company with principal place of business at 25 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
`
`10010-3685. Upon further information and belief, Sony/ATV maintains an office at 8 Music
`
`Square W., Nashville, TN 37203. Upon information and belief, Sony/ATV is one of the credited
`
`publishers of the Infringing Works and co-claimant of the compositional copyright of the
`
`Infringing Work. Also, upon information and belief, Sony/ATV has generated substantial revenue
`
`from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Horipro Entertainment Group, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Dixie Stars Music and d/b/a Son Of A Carl Music (collectively, “Horipro”) is a California
`
`corporation with principal place of business at 437 E Iris Drive, Nashville, TN 37204-3132. Upon
`
`information and belief, Horipro is one of the credited publishers of the Infringing Works and co-
`
`claimant of the compositional copyright of the Infringing Work. Also, upon information and belief,
`
`Horipro has generated substantial revenue from his authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct
`
`exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`14.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs’ copyright
`
`infringement claim based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that the controversy arises under
`
`the Copyright Act and Copyright Revision Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.), which is within
`
`the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`15.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant
`
`has continuous and systematic contacts within the Middle District of Tennessee such that they can
`
`be found to be essentially “at home” within this Judicial District. Specifically:
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`5
`
`
`
`a. Upon information and belief, Defendant Owen is presently, and at all times relevant
`
`to the Complaint was, a resident of Nashville, TN or otherwise within the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee.
`
`b. Upon information and belief, Defendant Davis is presently, and at all times relevant
`
`to the Complaint was, a resident of Nashville, TN or otherwise within the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee.
`
`c. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hyde is presently, and at all times relevant
`
`to the Complaint was, a resident of Nashville, TN or otherwise within the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee.
`
`d. Upon information and belief, Defendant Medley is presently, and at all times relevant
`
`to the Complaint was, a resident of Nashville, TN or otherwise within the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee.
`
`e. Upon information and belief, Defendant Big Loud, is a Tennessee limited liability
`
`company with principal place of business located within the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee at 111 16th Avenue S., Suite 201, Nashville, TN 37212-2336.
`
`f. Upon information and belief, Defendant Plaid Flag, is a Tennessee limited liability
`
`company with principal place of business located within the Middle District of
`
`Tennessee at 2405B Elliot Avenue, Nashville, TN 37204-2701.
`
`g. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony/ATV is a Delaware limited liability,
`
`and through its offices at 8 Music Square W., Nashville, TN 37203 maintains
`
`continuous and systematic contacts with the Middle District of Tennessee such that
`
`it is essentially “at home” here.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`6
`
`
`
`h. Upon information and belief, Defendant Horipro is a California Corporation with
`
`principal place of business located within the Middle District of Tennessee at 437
`
`E Iris Drive, Nashville, TN 37204-3132.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendants for numerous
`
`reasons, namely because, on information and belief, the acts constituting the infringement of the
`
`Original Work all occurred within the Middle District of Tennessee, including but not limited to:
`
`a. Defendants Hyde, Davis, and Medley purportedly wrote the Infringing Work in
`
`Nashville, TN;
`
`b. Defendant Owen, at the bequest and benefit of Defendant Big Loud, recorded the
`
`sound recording of the Infringing Work at Ocean Way Studios located in Nashville,
`
`TN;
`
`c. Defendant Owen has publicly performed the Infringing Work within the Middle
`
`District of Tennessee in violation of the Plaintiffs’ exclusive copyrights; and
`
`d. The Defendants, who all reside or operate out of Nashville, TN, or otherwise within
`
`the Middle District of Tennesse have all generated substantial revenue from their
`
`authorization to unlawfully exploit, and direct exploitation of, the Infringing Work.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(a) because Defendants are
`
`all subject to personal jurisdiction in the Middle District of Tennessee and have committed unlawful
`
`acts of infringement in this Judicial District by creating the Infringing Works within this Judicial
`
`District and by directing their unlawful activities against Tennessee citizens and others with a
`
`presence in Tennessee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`7
`
`
`
`FACTS
`
`The Original Work
`
`Plaintiffs Cardinale and Reid wrote the Original Work in 2014 and first released on
`
`A.
`
`18.
`
`Mr. Cardinale’s album “Digital Youth” released by Hashtag Records.
`
`19.
`
`The Original Work enjoyed a heavy rotation on SiriusXM Radio The Pulse between
`
`February and July 2015.
`
`20.
`
`In December 2015, the Original Work was chosen to be the anthem for Coca-Cola’s
`
`multi-national “Share a Coke and a Song” ad campaign.
`
`21.
`
`In January 2016, the Original Work was re-released as a single on Atlantic
`
`Records/WEA to coincide with the debut of the Coke ad campaign, which aired worldwide in over
`
`100 countries from January 2016 through June 2018 creating hundreds of millions of impressions
`
`worldwide.
`
`22.
`
`In addition to being the overall-anthem and backdrop of the entire “Share a Coke
`
`and a Song” campaign, the Original Work was featured specifically in a Coca-Cola ad entitled
`
`“Break Up”. In addition to also creating millions of impressions as an advertisement, the video of
`
`“Break Up” (available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejkaBA_CVec) has been viewed on
`
`YouTube over 1.3 million times.
`
`23.
`
`During this time, the hook and title of the Original Work appeared on over two
`
`hundred fifty million bottles of Coca-Cola like those pictured below, which also provided a QR-
`
`code which was linked to the Original Work on streaming platforms.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`To date, the Original Work has been streamed over 10 million times and has several
`
`million views on various YouTube videos, including the aforementioned Coca-Cola ads, as well
`
`as the music video and lyrics video for the Original Work.
`
`B.
`
`25.
`
`Infringement by Defendants
`
`As discussed above, this action for willful copyright infringement arises from
`
`Defendants’ infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyright in the musical composition “Made for You (1)”.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants are the performer, writers, producers, record labels, manufacturers,
`
`distributors, and publishers of the infringing “Made for You (2)” musical compositions, sound
`
`recordings, music videos, and other products embodying the Infringing Works.
`
`27.
`
`The infringing “Made for You (2)” has reached Number 1 on the Billboard Country
`
`Charts and is currently in its eleventh week on the Billboard Hot 100 songs peaking at Number 32.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, “Made for You (2)” is the first Number 1 song for
`
`Defendants Davis, Hyde, and Medley.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`9
`
`
`
`29. While Defendants have reaped the successes of “Made for You (2)”, which as
`
`discussed below lifts directly from Plaintiffs’ song, Plaintiffs have not been so fortunate and have
`
`not been afforded the opportunity to enjoy the success of their composition.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants named herein are the writers, performers, producers, record label,
`
`distributors, publishers, and others, who were involved with the creation, release, reproduction,
`
`distribution, exploitation, licensing, and public performance of the Infringing Works, embodied in
`
`all forms of media, including videos, digital downloads, records, motion pictures and
`
`advertisements, all of which constitute, among other things, the improper preparation of a
`
`derivative work and direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement. As co-infringers, Defendants
`
`are jointly and severally liable for all amounts owed.
`
`31.
`
`Each Defendant is a “practical partner,” as that term is defined and interpreted by
`
`courts in this Circuit, in the infringing acts with all other Defendants, and are thus jointly and
`
`severally liable for each other’s profits. As described throughout this Complaint, each of the
`
`Defendants had an important role in the infringing activity, and worked together to accomplish it,
`
`were involved in directing various aspects of many of the coordinated infringing activities, and all
`
`had a significant financial interest in the infringing activity.
`
`32.
`
`These acts were willful, knowing, and malicious and perpetrated without regard to
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights.
`
`(1) Unauthorized Release and Exploitation of “Made for You (2)”
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Davis, Hyde, and Medley allegedly began
`
`writing the song in late May 2017 in Nashville, Tennessee.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Davis, Hyde, and Medley created a demo
`
`recording of the Infringing Work which was presented to Defendant Owen.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`10
`
`
`
`35.
`
`The Infringing Work appears on Defendant Owen’s album Greetings From . . .
`
`Jake, which was released by Defendant Big Loud on March 29, 2019.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Greetings From . . . Jake debuted at Number 8 on
`
`Billboard’s Top Country Albums chart.
`
`37.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Owen recorded the sound recording for
`
`the Infringing Work in Nashville, Tennessee at Ocean Way Studios.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Owen performed the Infringing Work on
`
`an episode of ABC’s The Bachelorette in June 2019, and at the wedding of Michael Ray and Carly
`
`Pearce in October of 2019.
`
`(2) Striking Similarity Between “Made for You (1)” and “Made for You (2)”
`
`39.
`
`Upon hearing “Made for You (2)”, Plaintiffs instantly recognized the similarity
`
`with their song, “Made for You (1)”.
`
`40.
`
`The Infringing Work makes use of nearly all of the Original Work, including, but
`
`not limited to, melodies from the verse and chorus, the “hook” of the Original Work, the lyrics,
`
`the theme, the harmony, and the arrangement.
`
`41.
`
`To write and record the Infringing Work, Defendants intentionally and unlawfully
`
`copied the unique and original elements found in Plaintiffs’ “Made for You (1)”. The
`
`misappropriated portions of the Original Work run throughout the Infringing Work and make up
`
`over half of the Infringing Work. “Made for You (1)” and “Made for You (2)” are both extrinsically
`
`and intrinsically strikingly similar.
`
`42. Most striking to any observer would be the “hook” of the Infringing Work, which
`
`as detailed in the transcriptions below directly lifts the lyrics and melody from the hook of the
`
`Original Work.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`43.
`
`The striking similarity of the notes, structure, harmony, vocal style, and rhythm are
`
`clear indicators that “Made for You (2)” copies “Made for You (1)”.
`
`44.
`
`The songs’ similarities are found throughout, but most notably, as shown in the
`
`transcriptions above, the Infringing Works directly lifts the lyrics and melody from the hook of the
`
`Original Work. The stolen hook appears prominently within the chorus of the Infringing Works
`
`and appears numerous times throughout. The similarities go beyond substantial, which is itself
`
`sufficient to establish copyright infringement, and said similarities are in fact striking indicators
`
`that “Made for You (2)” copies the original copyrighted elements of “Made for You (1).
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`12
`
`
`
`(3)
`
`Defendants’ Access to Plaintiffs’ Original Work
`
`45.
`
` As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ Original Work enjoyed significant rotation on
`
`Sirius XM Radio, was the anthem for a multi-national Coca-Cola ad campaign creating millions
`
`of impressions worldwide, and released as a single on Atlantic Records/WEA to coincide with the
`
`debut of the Coke ad campaign.
`
`46.
`
`It can be no coincidence that the Defendants purportedly wrote the Infringing Work
`
`in May of 2017, during the time when the Original Work was the anthem of the multi-national
`
`“Share a Coke and a Song” ad campaign, and when the lyrics from the Original Work (which were
`
`also used in the Infringing Work) were prominently featured on Coca-Cola bottles and cans.
`
`47.
`
`As discussed above, the Original work has enjoyed tens of millions of impressions
`
`worldwide, thus Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ “Made for You (1)”.
`
`48.
`
`Furthermore, “Made for You (1)” and “Made for You (2)” are strikingly similar,
`
`meaning that access is presumed.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`
`Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs, as though fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owners of the United States copyright in all rights, titles, and
`
`interests in the musical composition “Made for You” bearing U.S. Copyright Registration Number
`
`PA0002233661.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants had access to “Made for You (1)” (as discussed above). Furthermore,
`
`“Made for You (2)” is strikingly similar to “Made for You (1)”, meaning that access is presumed.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`13
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Defendants’ unauthorized reproduction, distribution, public performance, display,
`
`and creation of a derivative work, “Made for You (2),” infringes Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights in
`
`violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants did not seek or receive permission to copy or interpolate any portion of
`
`“Made for You (1)” into “Made for You (2).” All of the elements of “Made for You (1)” copied
`
`by “Made for You (2)” are original to “Made for You (1).”
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ conduct has at all times been knowing, willful, and with complete
`
`disregard to Plaintiffs’ rights and objections.
`
`55.
`
`As a proximate cause of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have been
`
`irreparably harmed.
`
`56.
`
`“Made for You (2)” copies quantitatively and qualitatively distinct, important, and
`
`recognizable portions of “Made for You (1).” This copying satisfies both the intrinsic and extrinsic
`
`tests to establish copyright infringement.
`
`57.
`
`From the date of the creation of the infringing composition and sound recording
`
`“Made for You (2),” all Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright interest in “Made for You
`
`(1)” including: (a) by substantially copying and publicly performing, or authorizing the copying
`
`and public performances, including publicly performing “Made for You (2)” on the radio, live
`
`concerts, personal appearances, and on video, television, and otherwise; (b) by authorizing the
`
`reproduction, distribution, and sale of the records and digital downloads through the execution of
`
`licenses, and/or actually selling, manufacturing, and/or distributing “Made for You (2)” through
`
`various sources; (c) by substantially copying and the related marketing and promotion of the sale
`
`of the records, videos, tickets to concerts and other performances, and other merchandise; and (d)
`
`by participating in and furthering the aforementioned infringing acts, and/or sharing in the
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`14
`
`
`
`proceeds therefrom, all through substantial use of “Made for You (1)” in and as part of “Made for
`
`You (2),” packaged in a variety of configurations and digital downloads, mixes, and versions, and
`
`performed in a variety of ways including radio, concerts, personal appearances, video, television,
`
`and/or otherwise.
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiffs have received no copyright ownership interests in, and for any of the
`
`exploitations of, “Made for You (2)” or any of the works associated with “Made for You (2).”
`
`59.
`
`Defendants have reproduced and/or distributed and continue to manufacture,
`
`reproduce, and distribute large numbers of copies of “Made for You (2),” which violate Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights and are at issue in this lawsuit. Defendants have not only marketed and exploited the
`
`songs that are at issue in this lawsuit, but have granted or caused to be granted to various parties
`
`licenses to reproduce, sample, and/or distribute the songs that are in violation of Plaintiffs’
`
`copyrights.
`
`60. With knowledge of the infringement, Defendants have induced, caused, or
`
`materially contributed to the infringing conduct of others, such that they should be found to be
`
`contributorily liable.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants had the right and ability to control other infringers and have derived a
`
`direct financial benefit from that infringement such that Defendants should be found to be
`
`vicariously liable.
`
`62.
`
`The infringement is continuing as the album Greetings From…Jake, on which
`
`“Made for You (2)” appears, continues to be sold and both the album and single “Made for You
`
`(2)” continues to be licensed for sale, downloads, ringtones, mastertones, and other exploitations
`
`by Defendants, or their agents.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`63.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs have
`
`suffered actual damages including lost profits, lost opportunities, loss of goodwill, and lost
`
`publicity.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to Defendants’ profits relating to foreign sales of copies of
`
`the Infringing Works that were manufactured, distributed, or otherwise infringed domestically.
`
`65.
`
`Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, including
`
`the substantial profits of Defendants, as will be proven at trial. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request
`
`the maximum amount for willful statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs are further entitled to a running royalty on all future exploitations of the
`
`Infringing Works.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants’ conduct is causing and, unless enjoined by this Court, will continue to
`
`cause Plaintiffs irreparable injury that cannot be fully compensated or measured in monetary terms.
`
`Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, Plaintiffs are entitled to a
`
`permanent injunction prohibiting the reproduction, distribution, sale, public performance, or other
`
`use or exploitation of “Made for You (2),” including all Infringing Works, or, in the alternative, a
`
`continuing royalty following judgment in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiffs also ask to be awarded their costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
`
`pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and for the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`A declaration that Defendants have willfully infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted work
`
`in violation of the Copyright Act;
`
`B.
`
`A declaration that Defendants are directly, vicariously and/or contributorily liable for
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`16
`
`
`
`copyright infringement, as applicable;
`
`C.
`
`A permanent injunction requiring Defendants and their agents, servants, employees,
`
`officers, attorneys, successors, licensees, partners, and assigns, and all persons acting in concert or
`
`participation with each or any one of them, to cease directly and indirectly infringing, and causing,
`
`enabling, facilitating, encouraging, promoting, inducing, and/or participating in the infringement of
`
`any of Plaintiffs’ rights protected by the Copyright Act;
`
`D.
`
`If the Court determines a permanent injunction is not the appropriate remedy for the
`
`continued infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Copyright Act, then pursuant to precedent, be
`
`compensated by a running royalty paid on all exploitations of “Made for You (2)” commencing from
`
`the date of judgment and for all amounts not taken into consideration in the judgment;
`
`E.
`
`An award of damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including actual damages,
`
`inclusive of the injury to the market value of their copyright in the Original Work, and the profits of
`Defendants as will be proven at trial, including a finding that Defendants are “practical partners” of
`
`each other and jointly and severally liable for the profits of each other; or, in the alternative, the
`
`maximum amount of statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c);
`
`F.
`
`An award of attorneys’ fees and full costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505 and under
`
`other applicable law;
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest according to law, as applicable; and
`
`For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 38(b), and otherwise, Plaintiffs
`
`respectfully demand a trial by jury.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Dated: July 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Richard S. Busch
`Richard S. Busch (TN Bar # 14594)
`Andrew H. “Drew” Davis (TN Bar # 34203)
`KING & BALLOW
`315 Union Street, Suite 1100
`Nashville, TN 37201
`Telephone:
`(615) 726-5422
`Facsimile:
`(615) 726-5417
`rbusch@kingballow.com
`ddavis@kingballow.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00577 Document 1 Filed 07/27/21 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`18
`
`