The able USDC Judge Koeltl, in Manhattan asked for this memo of law, last week — now he has it. Tangerine’s camp has until late next week to reply.

But this looks like a statutory knock out punch. [Recent backgrounder, on this aspect, here — from me.] Trump is liable for willful infringement of a copyright, and false light publicity, at common law. Here’s the meat of it — but do go read all 13 pages, if the rights of artists matter to you. This is an excellent primer:

…This copyright infringement action relates to Defendants’ Donald J. Trump (“Trump”) and Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (the “Campaign,” and together with Trump, “Defendants”) willful and unauthorized taking of the musical composition (the “Composition”) and sound recording (the “Sound Recording”) of Plaintiffs’ works entitled “Electric Avenue.” The Court’s Order requested that Plaintiffs advise the Court as to “(a) whether, by the terms of the May 3, 2001 Agreement (the “Agreement”) or otherwise, London Records owned all of the rights in the sound recording of “Electric Avenue” such that London Records could have registered the copyright for the sound recording “Electric Avenue,” and (b) whether the subsequent copyright registration of the collective work also included the copyright registration for the sound recording of “Electric Avenue.”

Plaintiff answers both questions in the affirmative. As discussed herein, the Agreement granted London Records the exclusive license to “exploit” Electric Avenue in the World (excluding only the United Kingdom and Ireland, Africa and the Caribbean) and thus register the Sound Recording in the United States. Furthermore, based on well settled Second Circuit precedent, the SR Registration dated March 22, 2002, of the album “Eddy Grant: the greatest hits” (the “Album”), as a collective work, included the registration for the Sound Recording as a constituent part of the Album because London Records had the exclusive rights to all constituent parts of the Album. Morris v. Business Concepts, Inc., 283 F.3d 502, 505 (2d Cir. 2002)….

[Tangerine’s / Defendants’] reply in support of their motion for summary judgment attempts to distinguish Morris, Streetwise, and Woods by drawing an artificial distinction between a collective work and a derivative work. However, the court in Morris made no such distinction; the court simply held that “unless the copyright owner of a collective work also owns all the rights in a constituent part, a collective work registration will not extend to a constituent part.” 283 F.3d at 506. However, Plaintiffs have demonstrated unequivocally that they are the copyright owner of the Album, a collective work, and the Sound Recording, a constituent part of the Album. Based on the plain language in Morris, the registration of the Album included the Sound Recording.

Moreover, Woods completely defeats Defendants’ argument because the court in Woods dealt specifically with a collective work. 920 F. Supp. at 64 (“the color version of “(Upper) Chamber” appeared in The New City, a collection of illustrations by Woods.”). Defendants also misstate that the court in Woods did not address the issue of publication, which is belied by the very same language in the opinion that Defendants quote: “Wood’s submissions show that he owns the copyright in the earlier published ‘(Upper) Chamber….’”

Now you know — and, onward to Mahler’s 8^th, under the stars — by the lake, so long as the rains hold off — until 7:15 pm tonight… grin.

नमस्ते