Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: October 25, 2013
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe company, which is based in the U.S., was producing a Beatles documentary entitled, “The Beatles: The Lost Concert,” using footage from the group’s first concert in the U.S. in 1964. Ace confirmed with Apple Corps that the footage was not under copyright, and later established an agreement with Sony under entertainment law regarding licensing rights. However, Ace is now accusing Sony and Apple Corps of interfering in the filmmaking process, using “spurious copyright infringement threats with respect” to the film.
Ace notes that Sony/ATV – which currently owns rights to a number of Beatles songs – sabotaged a distribution deal that Ace struck with Screenvision before the premiere of the Beatles documentary by making false allegations to Screenvision about Ace’s rights to the material.
“The company that funded, taped, and exhibited the D.C. Concert allowed to film of the concert [the ‘Tape’] to be transferred without copyright protection,” Ace said in court documents. “No copyright was ever filed on the performances recorded on the tape or the tape itself.”
The company alleges that this interference prompted Screenvision to back out of the distribution deal. The company also claimed that Sony/ATV withdrew its license for use of the Beatles songs because it learned that Apple Corps was planning to make and release a similar film featuring the 1964 concert. Apparently, Sony/ATV’s license agreement with Ace Arts was subject to the approval of Apple Corps.
In addition to the $100 million in damages Ace is seeking on the basis of interference with contract and unfair competition, the company also seeks a declaration that neither Sony/ATV nor Apple has any rights that would be infringed by commercial exploitation of the tape, and that Sony misused its copyrights on the songs, according to Court News.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
The company, which is based in the U.S., was producing a Beatles documentary entitled, “The Beatles: The Lost Concert,” using footage from the group’s first concert in the U.S. in 1964. Ace confirmed with Apple Corps that the footage was not under copyright, and later established an agreement with Sony under entertainment law regarding licensing rights. However, Ace is now accusing Sony and Apple Corps of interfering in the filmmaking process, using “spurious copyright infringement threats with respect” to the film.
Ace notes that Sony/ATV – which currently owns rights to a number of Beatles songs – sabotaged a distribution deal that Ace struck with Screenvision before the premiere of the Beatles documentary by making false allegations to Screenvision about Ace’s rights to the material.
“The company that funded, taped, and exhibited the D.C. Concert allowed to film of the concert [the ‘Tape’] to be transferred without copyright protection,” Ace said in court documents. “No copyright was ever filed on the performances recorded on the tape or the tape itself.”
The company alleges that this interference prompted Screenvision to back out of the distribution deal. The company also claimed that Sony/ATV withdrew its license for use of the Beatles songs because it learned that Apple Corps was planning to make and release a similar film featuring the 1964 concert. Apparently, Sony/ATV’s license agreement with Ace Arts was subject to the approval of Apple Corps.
In addition to the $100 million in damages Ace is seeking on the basis of interference with contract and unfair competition, the company also seeks a declaration that neither Sony/ATV nor Apple has any rights that would be infringed by commercial exploitation of the tape, and that Sony misused its copyrights on the songs, according to Court News.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!