Plaintiff v Latin American Music Company - Essay Example

Case Brief Briefing Cases Intellectual Property case: Roy Brown – Plaintiff v Latin American Music Company – Defendants Facts Plaintiff Brown filed asuit requesting for a declaration that the poet Corretjor’s work was in the public domain, since it was first published in 1957. Defendant counterclaimed by charging Brown with copyright infringement for his musical rendition of one of the poet’s poems, on the basis that they had registered copyright for the poet’s poems in 2000. Mr. Brown also asked for summary judgment on the basis that the claim of infringement was time barred due to expiry of the three year statute of limitations. Issue Is the claim of copyright by Defendants supported, so as to make Brown guilty of copyright infringement for musicalizing one of the poet’s poems? Ruling The Court affirmed the dismissal by the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, of the declaratory defendants’ counterclaim of copyright infringement. Analysis The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had correctly dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim because the burden of proof of existence of a valid copyright rests with the copyright claimant, however the defendants did not provide any substantive support for their claim of copyright. Mr. Brown was also able to present documentation regarding the poems, their publication and musicalization. However the Court dismissed Brown’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that some material facts remained unresolved Minority Rationale(s) The dismissal of the infringement counterclaim was in this case affirmed unanimously because LAMCO was unable to produce evidence to substantiate its claim of copyright. Comments This case is important in that it has established that valid evidence must be provided to support a claim for copyright infringement before an infringement action can be allowed to proceed to a trial stage. It also raised the issue of expiry of copyright protection after a 50 year period, (currently raised to 70 years) after which period the musical, artistic or dramatic work reverts to the public domain. Copyrights, trademarks and patents differ in the level of protection they provide. For instance, copyright protection for a literary, dramatic or musical work may extend to seventy years while a patent on an industrial or commercial design may offer a short term 20 year period of exclusive monopoly over a product and a trademark will extend that monopoly only to a particular category of goods2. Patents and trademarks must be renewed each year. Title that is provided to the owner of a real property is permanent, however intellectual property protection is limited to a certain duration in the scope of its protection. The reason is that ownership to real property comprises rights on a specific piece of fixed property in a specific location, such as a building or land which is permanent. However, where a dramatic, musical or literary work is concerned, this comprises a work of art which should properly fall into the public domain and be available for humankind to enjoy, benefit from and further create and modify. Yet at the same time, every creator of an original work has a moral right to benefit economically from his work, as also laid out in the treatises of John Locke, because he/she has invested time effort and labor, including conceptual and material inputs which he/she has the right to profit from.1 Therefore copyright protection is provided for a limited duration in order to enable the creator of an original work to economic exploitation of the work before it reverts to the public domain. Briefing Cases Real property case brief: Kelo et al -Plaintiffs v City of New London – Defendants Case No: 04-108, dated June 23, 2005. Facts The city of New London acquired most of the property adjoining plaintiffs’ lands as a part of a comprehensive development plan for general economic upliftment of the area. The Petitioners brought suit against the taking of their properties, claiming that it would violate the public use restriction in the Fifth Amendment’s Takings clause. However the Court upheld the rulings of the lower Courts, holding that the proposed disposition of the property of the petitioners qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Takings clause. Issue Did the defendant city’s proposed disposition of Plaintiff’s property qualify as a “public use”? Ruling The Supreme Court held that the proposed disposition of the plaintiff’s property by the Defendant city did indeed quality as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Analysis The Court upheld the rulings of the lower Courts, holding that the proposed disposition of the property of the petitioners qualified as a public use within the meaning of the Takings clause. It held that the taking did not amount to a taking calculated to benefit any particular class of individuals but was being executed as part of a development plan to benefit a distressed area and was therefore justified. Petitioners’ proposal that economic development does not qualify as public use was rejected by the Court, as also the proposal that such taking must require a reasonable certainty that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Minority Rationale(s) O’Connor J filed a dissenting opinion in this case, in which Rehnquist, C.J. Scalia and Thomas J joined, wherein they have supported Plaintiff’s argument that a determination on such takings cannot fail to take into consideration the requirement for reasonable certainty that expected benefits to the public will actually accrue from the taking of private property. Comments This case is significant because it raises the question of undisputed ownership of property to the title owner. Can economic development of an area be allowed to take precedence over the right of a property owner to his/her land. Property development allows certain classes of individuals such as property developers and real estate brokers to gain substantial monetary benefits from such transactions, while a property owner’s right to his/her property may be compromised. An easement gives the owner of one parcel of land, the right to use part of the land of another for a specific purpose. The dominant land is the one that benefits from the easement while the servient land is the one that benefits from the easement, thereby making it a better property.1 Servitudes are also similar in that there is an obligation due by one estate upon another estate which produces an element of dependency upon the other. For example, one piece of land may be accessible only by traveling over a pathway or lane that belong to another property and therefore rights will be granted to the former property user to make use of that part of another’s property, i.e, the lane, to access his own property. Alternatively, it may arise through the right to use another’s land to access water or other essentials. However, such a right is only the right of passage it does not grant any rights of possession Servitudes may also comprise common areas, for example the rights of condominium areas in common areas such as Laundromats or swimming pools, etc. Easements are important because they enable access to land and other facilities, which would be barred if another land owner refused or restricted access. They may also be required in instances when public lands or roads can only be accessed by the use of the easement or servitude. In urban areas which are characterized by intensive land use for example, it may be necessary to grant rights to the owner of one building to rest joists in the wall of a servient building, or allowing of opening of windows which overlook the serving estate. The right of easements and servitudes is therefore important in order that one property owner does not unilaterally restrict the rights of others or members of the public by virtue of his own interest and rights in his land. Easements and servitudes are protected under the principles of common law, which has allowed four traditional categories under which such easement rights may be established. (a) through easements which allow non possessory rights over another’s land (b) profits – which allow one party to enter into the land of another for the specific purpose of extracting some materials from it, example minerals (c) covenants – which are agreements made between owners of neighboring lands in the form of promises to refrain from certain activities for the benefit of both lands and (d) equitable servitudes which are similar to covenants but require specific actins to be taken by owners2. In general, the courts tend to protect the rights to easements in the interest of protecting public rights. The respect for freedom of choice and the need to promote economic efficiency also drives the decision of the Courts and they can be approached to protect rights in easements and servitudes. References: * “Canadian legislation for conservation covenants, easements and servitudes” [online] Retrieved September 22, 2007 from: http://www.wetlandscanada.org/Can.%20Legis.%20for%20Conservation%201995-1.pdf at pp 13 * Kelo et al v City of New London et al [online] Retrieved September 22, 2007 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108 * Roy Brown v Latin American Music Co. [online] retrieved September 22, 2007 from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=docket&no=062710 * Youngman, Joan, 2001. “Easements, Covenants and Servitudes: Traditional limitations and future trends” [online] Retrieved September 23, 2007 from: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/PubDetail.aspx?pubid=223 Read More