Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Guillermo Venega Lloveras, Inc ( 2012 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 10-2170, 10-2171
BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO,
Plaintiff, Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
ASOCIACIÓN DE COMPOSITORES Y EDITORES DE MÚSICA LATINOAMERICANA
(ACEMLA); LATIN AMERICAN MUSIC COMPANY, INC. (LAMCO),
Defendants, Appellees, Cross-Appellants,
GUILLERMO VENEGAS LLOVERAS, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpí, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Edwin J. Prado-Galarza, with whom Prado, Nunez &
Associates, P.S.C. was on brief, for plaintiff Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico.
Mauricio Hernandez-Arroyo for defendant LAMCO/ACEMLA.
José L. Barreto-Rampolla, with whom Rivera, Barreto &
Torres Marcano was on brief, for defendant Guillermo Venegas
Lloveras.
May 11, 2012
LYNCH, Chief Judge. These are cross-appeals in a case
involving copyright infringement. In 2001, appellant and cross-
appellee Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") sought a declaratory
judgment under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., after
several music publishing companies contacted BPPR claiming that
they owned and were owed royalties on various music compositions
that BPPR had produced and distributed in a series of Christmas
concerts. BPPR deposited the royalties due on these compositions
with the district court and asked the district court to declare to
whom the royalties were actually due, and distribute them
accordingly.
Latin American Music Co., Inc. ("LAMCO") and its
affiliate, La Asociación de Compositores y Editores de Música
Latinoamericana ("ACEMLA"), countersued BPPR for copyright
infringement of several of their compositions. An additional music
publishing company, Guillermo Venegas Lloveras, Inc. ("GVLI"),
filed counterclaims against BPPR, LAMCO, and ACEMLA for copyright
infringement of the song "Genesis." The district court
consolidated these cases and denied the parties' respective motions
for summary judgment.
Subsequently, several of the co-defendants settled their
claims for copyright infringement amongst themselves and with BPPR.
The district court then bifurcated the remaining claims into two
-3-
cases, case 01-1461 proceeded as a jury trial, case 01-1142, as a
bench trial.
The jury found BPPR liable for the copyright infringement
of two compositions owned by LAMCO and ACEMLA, and awarded LAMCO
and ACEMLA $42,941.00 in compensatory damages. Meanwhile, after
the bench trial, the district court found ACEMLA liable for
violating the copyright of GVLI's composition and ordered ACEMLA to
pay GVLI $43,405.35, plus interest, in damages. We affirm the
decisions in both cases, in all respects.
I.
Beginning in 1993, BPPR, a financial services
corporation, has produced live Christmas concerts to showcase
Puerto Rican and international singers and songwriters. These
concerts are broadcast over major radio and television stations
throughout Puerto Rico, and then released on CD, DVD, and in other
formats, in part to raise money for BPPR's philanthropic
foundation, Fundación Banco Popular.
BPPR did not initially obtain performance, mechanical, or
synchronization licenses for all of the compositions it utilized in
these concerts. In 1998, BPPR began the complicated task of
obtaining retroactive licenses from various license holders for the
use of their compositions in the 1993-1998 concerts.
LAMCO, a New York-based music publisher, represented to
BPPR through LAMCO's affiliate, ACEMLA, a performance-rights
-4-
company based in Puerto Rico,1 that it held the rights to license
and collect royalties for a number of the compositions utilized by
BPPR before 1999. BPPR negotiated with LAMCO a contract (the
"retroactive licensing agreement") in which BPPR agreed to pay
$91,977.26 to LAMCO for the mechanical and synchronization licenses
for six compositions: "Dame La Mano Paloma," "Genesis," "Madrigal,"
"Mi Jaragual," "Ojos Chinos," and "Un Jibaro Terminado," as well as
$260,432.12 in public performance fees to ACEMLA for the public
performance of its entire catalogue between 1993 and 1998. In
exchange, LAMCO/ACEMLA agreed to indemnify BPPR against any future
claimants asserting interests in the performance of the
compositions set forth in the agreement. At the same time, BPPR
negotiated with LAMCO/ACEMLA the mechanical and synchronization
licenses for seventeen compositions BPPR planned to use in its 1999
Christmas concert, and began negotiations for the performance
rights for these same compositions. The parties never followed
through on this performance license agreement however, partly, BPPR
alleges, because BPPR became aware that LAMCO/ACEMLA did not hold
the rights to some of the compositions it sought to license to
BPPR.
1
LAMCO and ACEMLA are closely associated, both being owned
and controlled by the same person, Luis Raul Bernard. They have
litigated this action together, and we will hereafter refer to them
as LAMCO/ACEMLA, except where it is necessary to distinguish
between them.
-5-
While negotiations for the 1999 Christmas concert were
ongoing, BPPR began to receive claims from outside entities
purporting to hold the rights to several of the compositions then
under negotiation for the 1999 Christmas concert as well as
compositions which had been licensed to BPPR by LAMCO/ACEMLA under
the retroactive license agreement. On January 31, 2001, BPPR filed
suit under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and
28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a), 1400(a), and 2201(a), seeking a declaratory
judgment and naming those companies which had come forward: Peer
International Corporation and affiliates ("Peer"), Universal Musica
Inc. ("Universal"), Sonido, Inc., EMI Catalogue Partnership and
affiliates, GVLI, Broadcast Music, Inc., and the American Society
of Composers, Authors and Publishers, as well as LAMCO/ACEMLA, and
any and all other entities purporting to hold rights in the
compositions utilized in the 1993-1999 Christmas concerts.
BPPR deposited the royalties due on these compositions
with the district court and asked the court to disburse the monies
to whichever of the defendants were lawful license holders of the
compositions during the time period in question. BPPR also
requested that the court enjoin the defendants from instituting any
further copyright infringement actions against it over the 1993-
1999 Christmas concerts. BPPR asked for a reimbursement of any
sums of money paid under the retroactive licensing agreement to
LAMCO/ACEMLA for the rights to perform works which were not
-6-
actually under the control of LAMCO/ACEMLA during the term of the
agreement; or, in the alternative, for an offset against any
royalties or fees the court found BPPR owed to LAMCO/ACEMLA.
On March 22, 2001, LAMCO/ACEMLA answered BPPR's
complaint, contesting various facts and alleging that BPPR had not
yet paid the royalties owed LAMCO/ACEMLA for several compositions
performed in BPPR's 1999, 2000, and 2001 Christmas concerts. For
this reason, and under the terms of the retroactive licensing
agreement, including its indemnity provision, LAMCO/ACEMLA argued
that BPPR should not receive any offset or refund of monies paid
for the license to use any of the compositions included under the
agreement. In addition, on April 19, 2001, LAMCO/ACEMLA filed its
own complaint against BPPR under the Copyright Act and 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1337(a), 1338(a), and 2201(a), alleging that BPPR had
willfully infringed LAMCO/ACEMLA's copyrights to multiple
compositions performed in BPPR's 1999, 2000, and 2001 Christmas
concerts, and had committed other violations under the Copyright
Act and Puerto Rico law. LAMCO/ACEMLA sought injunctive relief and
damages under 17 U.S.C. §§ 502-505, and under Puerto Rico law. The
district court consolidated this suit with BPPR's case.
On June 26, 2001, GVLI, which claimed to hold the rights
to the song "Genesis," filed an answer to BPPR's complaint, a
counterclaim against BPPR alleging copyright infringement for the
-7-
unauthorized use of "Genesis,"2 and a cross-claim against
LAMCO/ACEMLA and Peer. In its cross-claim, GVLI alleged that
LAMCO/ACEMLA and Peer knew or had reason to know that they could
not license "Genesis" to BPPR and accordingly had infringed GVLI's
copyright to that song.
After extensive discovery, the parties moved for summary
judgment. On October 9, 2009, the district court denied their
motions for summary judgment in nearly all respects.3 The court
set the date for trial as October 15, 2009 and denied the parties'
motions for reconsideration.
On October 16, 2009, the district court held a bench
trial as to the dispute between defendant LAMCO/ACEMLA and
defendant Universal over the ownership of "Fichas Negras." On
January 19, 2010, the district court held that "[LAMCO/ACEMLA's]
1999 copyright registration is valid" for "Fichas Negras" and that
LAMCO/ACEMLA held a priority registration for that composition.
2
The district court dismissed this claim, finding that the
decision of the court in Venegas-Hernandez v. Peer, No. 01-1215,
2004 WL 3686337 (D.P.R. May 19, 2004), precluded GVLI's
counterclaim against BPPR. See Banco Popular de P.R., Inc. v.
Latin Am. Music Co. ("BPPR"), No. 01-1142 (D.P.R. Apr. 24, 2009).
3
The district court granted BPPR's motion for summary
judgment with respect to its request to exclude GVLI's claims for
copyright infringement falling outside the Copyright Act's
three-year statute of limitations, BPPR, No. 01-1142, 2009 WL
3428039 (D.P.R. Oct. 9, 2009), and BPPR's request to dismiss
certain of LAMCO/ACEMLA's Puerto Rico law claims equivalent in
substance to LAMCO/ACEMLA's claims under the Copyright Act, BPPR,
No. 01-1142, 2009 WL 3294790 (D.P.R. Oct. 9, 2009). The court
additionally granted other motions not at issue here.
-8-
Banco Popular de P.R., Inc. v. Latin Am. Music Co., 685 F. Supp. 2d
259, 263 (D.P.R. 2010).
Importantly, on October 27, 2009, the defendants reached
a settlement agreement, in which they resolved their various claims
as to most of the compositions in dispute and distributed the
royalty funds deposited by BPPR as to these. LAMCO/ACEMLA received
payment for the equivalent of 12.5 songs used in BPPR'S 1999
Christmas program. Payment for the equivalent of 9.5 songs was
divided among the remaining publishers and rights holders, who were
subsequently dismissed from the suit.
The settlement agreement expressly excluded from
settlement the dispute between BPPR and LAMCO/ACEMLA as to BPPR's
alleged copyright infringement of twelve songs (what the agreement
termed the "Undisputed LAMCO songs"), including "Fichas Negras,"
"Madrigal," "Mi Dolor Es Mio," and "Aló Quien Llama."
LAMCO/ACEMLA's claims as to those songs would proceed in a jury
trial. The settlement agreement also excluded the dispute over
GVLI's claims concerning "Genesis." On October 30, 2009, the
district court approved the settlement agreement.
On November 2, 2009, BPPR filed a motion objecting to the
settlement agreement on the basis of an understanding it claimed to
have reached with LAMCO/ACEMLA, in which LAMCO/ACEMLA had promised,
as part of the settlement agreement, to voluntarily dismiss its
infringement claims against BPPR with respect to the 1999 Christmas
-9-
concert. BPPR argued in this motion, and in an additional motion
in limine filed on July 2, 2010, that the district court should
read the settlement agreement to exclude from the twelve
"Undisputed LAMCO songs" four songs performed in the 1999 Christmas
concert: "Fichas Negras," "Madrigal," "Mi Dolor Es Mio," and "Aló
Quien Llama." LAMCO/ACEMLA opposed both BPPR motions.
On July 12, 2010, the district court denied BPPR's
motions as to the settlement agreement, finding that the agreement
specifically permitted further litigation as to the twelve
"Undisputed LAMCO songs."
On July 19, 2010, the district court held a bench trial
in case 01-1142 to determine whether LAMCO/ACEMLA had violated
GVLI's copyright to the song "Genesis" by granting BPPR a
retroactive performance license for that song, and whether BPPR
should be awarded off-setting costs for the monies it paid
LAMCO/ACEMLA under the retroactive licensing contract for "Genesis"
and "Ojos Chinos." Banco Popular de P.R., Inc. v. Latin Am. Music
Co. ("BPPR"), No. 01-1142, 2010 WL 2900366 (D.P.R. July 21, 2010).
On July 21, 2010, the court ruled based on the testimony
at trial and several decisions considering the same topic, see,
e.g., Venegas-Hernández v. Asociación De Compositores y Editores De
Música Latinoamericana (ACEMLA), 424 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005), that
GVLI held the exclusive performance rights to "Genesis" between
1993 and December 31, 1997, and that LAMCO/ACEMLA accordingly had
-10-
infringed those rights by issuing BPPR a retroactive performance
license for "Genesis" during that time period. BPPR, No. 01-1142,
2010 WL 2900366, at *1-2 (D.P.R. July 21, 2010).
The court declined to award statutory damages and instead
ordered ACEMLA4 to pay GVLI damages in the amount of $43,405.35, or
1/6 of the total sum paid by BPPR to ACEMLA under the retroactive
licensing agreement for the retroactive licenses to use the six
compositions, including "Genesis."5 Id. at *2.
The court then held that BPPR's offset claim with respect
to "Genesis" was moot, since the court had awarded to GVLI all the
royalties originally paid by BPPR to ACEMLA under the retroactive
licensing agreement. Id. at *3.
Relying on this court's opinion in Latin American Music
Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of the Roman Catholic & Apostolic
Church, 499 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2007), BPPR presented evidence that
LAMCO/ACEMLA was not the exclusive owner of "Ojos Chinos" during
the time period covered under the retroactive licensing agreement,
and argued that the court should reassign or refund the monies BPPR
4
ACEMLA had licensed the performance rights to "Genesis"
to BPPR; therefore, correcting an earlier order, the district court
ordered ACEMLA, and not LAMCO, to pay the damages award to GVLI.
5
LAMCO/ACEMLA argues that the retroactive licensing
agreement gave BPPR the rights to its entire catalog; however, the
district court reasoned that because the agreement conferred the
licenses retroactively, it should be construed to cover only "those
songs which were actually performed" by BPPR during the period
between 1993 and 1998: the six compositions, including "Genesis."
BPPR, No. 01-1142, 2010 WL 2900366, at *2 (D.P.R. July 21, 2010).
-11-
had paid to LAMCO/ACEMLA for "Ojos Chinos" under the agreement.
The district court rejected BPPR's argument, noting that this
court's opinion in Archdiocese of San Juan had not held that
LAMCO/ACEMLA had no ownership interest in the composition, but
merely that LAMCO/ACEMLA held a non-exclusive license. BPPR, 2010
WL 2900366, at *3. Finding that BPPR had failed to meet its burden
to show that LAMCO/ACEMLA had misrepresented its ownership rights
in the song under the retroactive licensing agreement, the court
rejected BPPR's request.
On July 21, 2010, the jury trial commenced in the other
case, case 01-1461, on the remaining questions of whether BPPR
infringed LAMCO/ACEMLA's copyrights to "Fichas Negras," "Madrigal,"
"Mi Dolor Es Mio," and "Aló Quien Llama" in its 1999 Christmas
concert, and if so, whether and what damages were due.
On the seventh day of the twelve-day jury trial, BPPR
moved to introduce a new issue and what it said was newly
discovered evidence. The evidence consisted of documents and
testimony, which BPPR contends reveal that the composer of "Fichas
Negras," Johnny Rodriguez, conferred all rights and royalties in
his collected works to the University of Puerto Rico upon his
death. BPPR also argued that it could prove that LAMCO/ACEMLA knew
about this evidence but failed to disclose it during the course of
discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The district court denied
BPPR's motion, finding that the evidence would require additional
-12-
hearings, authentication, and potential discovery, and would unduly
delay a jury trial already well underway. The court noted that
BPPR had had several years in which to locate this new evidence
during the course of the parties' extensive discovery.
On August 6, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor
of LAMCO, finding BPPR liable for copyright infringement of two
songs: "Fichas Negras" and "Madrigal." The jury found that BPPR
was an innocent infringer with respect to these songs and awarded
LAMCO $42,941.00 in compensatory damages. On the same day, the
district court ordered BPPR to pay LAMCO $42,941.00 in compensatory
damages, permanently enjoined BPPR from performing, producing,
selling and/or distributing the 1999 Christmas concert, and
required BPPR to retain the master copy and full inventory of that
concert, until final judgment in the case.
II.
On appeal from the jury's verdict against it, BPPR argues
that it was not a party to the October 27, 2009 settlement
agreement, did not consent to that agreement's terms, and that, in
any event, "Aló Quien Llama," "Fichas Negras," "Madrigal," and "Mi
Dolor Es Mio" were included in the agreement and should not have
been subjected to a jury trial. BPPR also argues that it had an
implied license from LAMCO/ACEMLA to use these songs in the 1999
Christmas concert, and/or that LAMCO/ACEMLA was precluded from
litigating its claims over the songs. Regardless, BPPR argues,
-13-
LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to establish that it owned "Fichas Negras" or
"Madrigal" in 1999, failed to establish that BPPR had infringed its
ownership of these works in the 1999 Christmas concert, and,
regardless, was barred from litigating the copyright infringement
claims based on LAMCO/ACEMLA's own misuse of copyright.
BPPR also argues that the district court committed
reversible error at trial by limiting BPPR's ability to use the
affirmative defense of copyright misuse and by refusing to admit
into evidence the documents concerning Johnny Rodriguez's will.
With respect to the bench trial, BPPR argues that because
LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to establish exclusive ownership of "Genesis"
and "Ojos Chinos," it was error not to refund the monies it paid to
LAMCO/ACEMLA for the right to use those songs.
LAMCO/ACEMLA defends the jury's verdict on appeal as well
as the district court's decisions to deny BPPR's motions as to the
settlement agreement and the evidence of Johnny Rodriguez's will.
LAMCO/ACEMLA appeals the district court's decisions in
the bench trial that GVLI exclusively owned the performance rights
to "Genesis" between 1993 and December 31, 1997, and that
LAMCO/ACEMLA accordingly infringed these rights by licensing
"Genesis" to BPPR during that time frame. LAMCO/ACEMLA also
appeals the district court's award of damages to GVLI.
GVLI defends the district court's decision in its favor
in the bench trial.
-14-
We affirm the district court's decisions and rulings in
all respects. We first address BPPR's claims as to the settlement
agreement and the jury trial in case 01-1461. We then take up
BPPR, LAMCO/ACEMLA, and GVLI's claims as to the district court's
opinion and order from the bench trial in case 01-1142.6
A. BPPR's Claims as to the Scope of the Settlement Agreement
We reject BPPR's claim that the district court abused its
discretion by allowing LAMCO/ACEMLA to litigate the copyright
infringement claims as to "Aló Quien Llama," "Fichas Negras,"
"Madrigal," and "Mi Dolor Es Mio," which, BPPR argues, were
included under the settlement agreement and therefore should not
have been the subject of further litigation.
The district court rejected BPPR's reading of the
settlement agreement, finding that the agreement, by its terms, did
"not preclude the future litigation of the twelve undisputed LAMCO
songs as the same is included in the agreement."
In reviewing the district court's conclusions concerning
the settlement agreement, "we apply a sliding scale standard of
review under the label of clear error review." Quint v. A.E.
Staley Mfg. Co., 246 F.3d 11, 14 (1st Cir. 2001). "The more the
district court's conclusions are characterized as factual
conclusions, the more our review of those facts is for clear error;
6
Appeal No. 10-2170 is BPPR's appeal from both the jury
trial and the judgment in the bench trial. Appeal No. 10-2171 is
LAMCO/ACEMLA's appeal from the judgment in the bench trial.
-15-
the more the district court's conclusions are conclusions of law,
the more independent review we give." Id.
Paragraph six of the settlement agreement states, "[t]he
remaining Undisputed LAMCO Songs shall be the further subject of
the Litigation in the copyright 01-1461 consolidated case." The
settlement agreement defines "Undisputed LAMCO Songs" as the
following twelve songs: "Felices Dias," "Aló Quien Nama," "Cortijo
Bailable," "Tiempo Perdido," "En la Vida Todo Es Vivir," "Fichas
Negras," "Oubau Moin," "Madrigal," "Mi Jaragual," "Mi Dolor es
Mio," "Genesis," and "Un Jibaro Terminado."
The district court's interpretation thus plainly accords
with the text of the settlement agreement and we reject BPPR's
argument.
B. BPPR's Sufficiency of the Evidence Arguments
BPPR next attacks the jury's verdict on the ground that,
as a matter of law, LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to establish that it held
the copyright to either "Fichas Negras" or "Madrigal" when BPPR
utilized those songs in its 1999 Christmas concert, and so
LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to make out a viable claim of infringement.
BPPR also argues that it had an implied license to use the songs,
and that the evidence demonstrates that LAMCO/ACEMLA in fact
misused its copyrights and so should be barred from asserting any
claim of copyright infringement against BPPR.
-16-
We review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
jury's verdict by asking "whether, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have
found in favor of the party that prevailed." Galarneau v. Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 504 F.3d 189, 200 (1st Cir.
2007). We must affirm the jury's verdict "unless the evidence was
so strongly and overwhelmingly inconsistent with the verdicts that
no reasonable jury could have returned them." Kenda Corp. v. Pot
O'Gold Money Leagues, Inc., 329 F.3d 216, 226 (1st Cir. 2003)
(quoting Negron v. Caleb Brett U.S.A., Inc., 212 F.3d 666, 668 (1st
Cir. 2000)) (internal quotation marks omitted). BPPR has failed to
meet this exacting standard with respect to its sufficiency of the
evidence arguments.
First, with respect to BPPR's claim that LAMCO/ACEMLA
failed to establish that it held the rights to either "Fichas
Negras" or "Madrigal," BPPR argues that LAMCO/ACEMLA never placed
into evidence certified or deposit copies of, or valid copyright
registration forms for, the compositions, or testimony comparing
the versions registered by LAMCO/ACEMLA with the versions actually
utilized by BPPR in its 1999 Christmas concert. As a result of
this failure to demonstrate either that it held valid copyrights in
the two compositions or that the versions registered were the
versions utilized in the 1999 Christmas concert, BPPR argues,
LAMCO/ACEMLA failed to demonstrate that BPPR infringed the
-17-
copyrights to the two songs. Second, BPPR argues that the evidence
showed that LAMCO was barred from claiming copyright infringement
due to its own misuse of copyrights. BPPR alleges that LAMCO and
affiliate ACEMLA's regular practice of simultaneously assigning the
publishing rights of a work to LAMCO, and the public performance
rights of the same work to ACEMLA, violates antitrust laws and
constitutes copyright misuse.
We reject these claims. As we noted earlier, on October
16, 2009, the district court conducted a bench trial on the issue
of the ownership of "Fichas Negras" as between LAMCO/ACEMLA and
Universal, after which the court ruled that LAMCO held a priority
assignment in the song, and that "LAMCO's 1999 copyright
registration is valid" for "Fichas Negras." BPPR, 685 F. Supp. 2d
at 263. In addition, at trial, the President of LAMCO/ACEMLA
testified as to, and presented the registrations of, the two
compositions, and BPPR has failed to establish that these
registrations were invalid or insufficient to support
LAMCO/ACEMLA's claims of copyright infringement.
The jury heard the evidence and received instructions as
to the copyright registrations and its verdict was not unreasonable
in light of the evidence presented. BPPR bore the burden of
proving its affirmative defense of copyright misuse, and the jury
was not unreasonable in rejecting this defense with respect to
"Fichas Negras" and "Madrigal."
-18-
BPPR also argues that it had an implied license from
LAMCO/ACEMLA to perform "Aló Quien Llama," "Fichas Negras,"
"Madrigal," and "Mi Dolor Es Mio" in the 1999 Christmas concert
because it had signed license agreements with LAMCO/ACEMLA for the
mechanical and synchronization licenses for these songs, and
LAMCO/ACEMLA had prepared the performance licenses for the songs'
use in the 1999 Christmas concert. BPPR argues that even though
the parties never signed these licenses, "it is clear from LAMCO's
actions that it had authorized BPPR to use the songs in the [1999
Christmas concert]." BPPR points to the fact that LAMCO/ACEMLA
brought a breach of contract claim in its countersuit for failure
by BPPR to pay LAMCO/ACEMLA for the songs used in the 1999 concert.
The jury considered BPPR's argument, and we find its
conclusion that BPPR's actions constituted copyright infringement
of "Fichas Negras" and "Madrigal" to be reasonable, regardless of
whether it found that BPPR did not have licenses to perform the
songs either because the licenses had not been conferred or because
BPPR had not made the proper payments pursuant to conferred
licenses.
C. BPPR's Challenges to the District Court's Evidentiary Rulings
BPPR argues that the district court erred by twice
denying it the opportunity to introduce certain evidence. Our
review is for abuse of discretion. See Palmer v. Champion Mortg.,
465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). In conducting that review, this
-19-
court "defer[s] to the district court's hands-on judgment so long
as the record evinces an adequate reason for the denial." Id.
(quoting Aponte-Torres v. Univ. of P.R., 445 F.3d 50, 58 (1st Cir.
2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
First, BPPR argues that the district court committed
reversible error by refusing to admit into evidence a series of
judgments entered against LAMCO/ACEMLA, in which various courts had
held that LAMCO/ACEMLA did not have the rights or exclusive rights
to various compositions within certain time frames. See, e.g.,
Archdiocese of San Juan, 499 F.3d 32; Brown v. Latin Am. Music Co.,
498 F.3d 18 (1st. Cir. 2007); Venegas-Hernández, 424 F.3d 50; Peer
Int'l Corp. v. Latin Am. Music Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.P.R.
2001). However, none of the judgments cited by BPPR concerns any
of the four songs at issue in the jury trial. The district court
found that mentioning these rulings by name and in detail could
give the jury a misimpression of the evidence before it. There was
no abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Second, BPPR argues that the district court erred in
excluding newly discovered evidence consisting of documents and
testimony BPPR alleges reveal that Johnny Rodriguez, composer of
"Fichas Negras," conferred all rights and royalties in that
composition to the University of Puerto Rico upon his death.7
7
LAMCO/ACEMLA asserts that Johnny Rodriguez transferred,
sold, and conferred all copyrights and royalties in his works to
LAMCO/ACEMLA on March 31, 1995; however, BPPR alleges that
-20-
BPPR argued that LAMCO/ACEMLA knew about this evidence
all along and failed to disclose it during the course of discovery
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. On appeal, BPPR points to the fact that
LAMCO/ACEMLA has conceded in its brief before this court that it
had evidence of Rodriguez's will which it did not disclose in
discovery. In its brief at page 48, LAMCO/ACEMLA states of the
will and testament: "Such evidence had been previously provided to
ACEMLA/LAMCO, thus available."
However, there was no error. BPPR asked to introduce the
evidence on July 30, 2010, seven days into the jury trial and nine
years into the litigation. Among the district court's concerns
with admitting the evidence so late in the litigation were that
LAMCO/ACEMLA would then have "every right to seek additional
discovery into [the will]," and the court would have to examine
"Puerto Rico probate law or testament law" in depth, and "there is
no telling how long that should take." The court also noted there
might be a need "to hear [from] other witnesses," including from
the University of Puerto Rico. After reviewing BPPR's documents
concerning the will, the district court ruled against BPPR, finding
that the evidence would unduly delay the trial.
The fact that BPPR had nine years to find the evidence of
Johnny Rodriguez's will, the fact that it came from a witness,
Richard Viera Cintron, who testified at trial, but who could have
Rodriguez's will was executed on February 22, 1991.
-21-
been questioned on the matter well before that point, and the fact
that the district court was concerned that the new evidence would
result in the need for significant new discovery when the parties
were already halfway through the jury trial, all more than justify
the court's decision to disallow the new evidence.
D. LAMCO/ACEMLA and GVLI's Dispute Over "Genesis"
LAMCO/ACEMLA appeals the district court's July 21, 2010
decisions from the bench trial that GVLI owned "Genesis" between
1993 and December 31, 1997, and that LAMCO/ACEMLA accordingly
infringed GVLI's rights by retroactively licensing the performance
rights to that song between 1993 and 1998. LAMCO/ACEMLA also
appeals the court's award of damages. GVLI defends both rulings.
We review the district court's legal conclusions de novo,
Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F.3d 204, 214 (1st Cir. 2000), its factual
conclusions for clear error, id., and its damages award for abuse
of discretion, Lawton v. Nyman, 327 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 2003).
First, LAMCO argues that GVLI's claim was precluded based
on the district court's ruling in Venegas-Hernandez v. Peer, No.
01-1215, 2004 WL 3686337, at *33-34 (D.P.R. May 19, 2004), aff'd in
part, rev'd in part, Venegas-Hernández, 424 F.3d 50, that there was
no evidence that BPPR actually performed "Genesis" before 1998. In
that case, the district court held that by granting BPPR
retroactive mechanical and synchronization licenses for the work
"Genesis," LAMCO/ACEMLA had infringed GVLI's copyrights in that
-22-
song, but that because there was no evidence in the record that
BPPR had actually performed "Genesis" before 1998, LAMCO's mere
authorization of the performance rights of that song did not result
in liability for infringement. Id. at *34.
In this case, the parties stipulated to the fact that the
work "Genesis had in fact been performed by BPPR" in the 1993
Christmas concert. BPPR, 2010 WL 2900366, at *2. As a result,
LAMCO/ACEMLA's authorization of the performance of that song under
the retroactive license agreement, under these new facts, supports
the district court's finding of liability for copyright
infringement.8
LAMCO/ACEMLA next argues that GVLI failed to produce any
evidence of damages at the bench trial, and thus the district
court's award of $43,405.35, plus interest, to GVLI was improper.
Once the district court found that LAMCO/ACEMLA had infringed
GVLI's rights to "Genesis," it did not abuse its discretion in
awarding GVLI damages.
8
LAMCO/ACEMLA also argues that the issue of ownership of
"Genesis" had already been decided in Venegas-Hernández v.
Asociación De Compositores y Editores De Música Latinoamericana
("ACEMLA"), 424 F.3d 50, 60 (1st Cir. 2005), in which this court
held that Guillermo Venegas-Lloveras's widow, Lucy Chávez-Butler,
owned a 50% copyright renewal interest in Venegas-Lloveras's works,
and Venegas-Lloveras's four surviving children owned the remaining
50% interest, divided evenly among them. Chávez-Butler assigned
all of her interests in these works to LAMCO in 1996, but this
court held that this assignment did not take effect until January
1, 1998; therefore, the district court was not wrong to conclude
that GVLI held exclusive rights to "Genesis" before January 1,
1998. See id.
-23-
In its July 21, 2010 opinion and order, the district
court used the amount paid under the retroactive licensing contract
to calculate the damages owed to GVLI. Id. The court reasoned
that because LAMCO/ACEMLA had received $260,432.10 under the
contract for the retroactive performances of six works, 1/6 of this
amount constituted a fair award for actual damages suffered by GVLI
as a result of the copyright infringement of "Genesis." Id. The
court ordered LAMCO to pay GVLI a total of $43,405.35, plus
interest. Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
calculating this award. GVLI owned the performance rights to
"Genesis" in full between 1993 and 1998, and thus was entitled to
damages equal to the full amount realized by LAMCO/ACEMLA through
its improper licensing of GVLI's rights to BPPR.9
E. BPPR's Offset Claims
BPPR argues that it was error not to award it an offset
or return of the monies it paid to LAMCO/ACEMLA in performance fees
for "Genesis" and "Ojos Chinos." The district court rejected
BPPR's claim as to "Ojos Chinos" and found its claim as to
"Genesis" moot. Id. at *3. We agree with the district court.
9
LAMCO also argues that it was error for the court to
grant GVLI's motion to amend or correct the judgment to reflect
that the damages awarded to GVLI will be paid by defendant ACEMLA,
and not LAMCO. This decision was not error.
-24-
Under the retroactive licensing agreement, LAMCO/ACEMLA
licensed six compositions: "Un Jibaro Terminado," "Madrigal," "Mi
Jaragual," "Ojos Chinos," "Genesis," and "Dame La Mano Paloma," and
agreed to indemnify BPPR "against any and all claims, demands or
suits that may be made or brought against [BPPR]" with respect to
these six compositions.
Based on the retroactive licensing agreement, and having
found GVLI the rightful owner of "Genesis" during the period in
question, the district court properly required LAMCO/ACEMLA to
transfer to GVLI the monies paid to it by BPPR for performance
rights to "Genesis." BPPR is not owed a return of the funds it
paid LAMCO/ACEMLA for "Genesis" because those funds, in effect,
have been transferred to their rightful owner.
The district court also properly declined to return the
money BPPR had paid for the retroactive performance rights to "Ojos
Chinos." Although BPPR presented evidence, based on this court's
decision in Archdiocese of San Juan, that LAMCO/ACEMLA was not the
exclusive owner of "Ojos Chinos" during the time period covered
under the retroactive licensing agreement, BPPR did not prove that
LAMCO/ACEMLA had no ownership interest in "Ojos Chinos" or that
LAMCO/ACEMLA had misrepresented its rights with respect to the
composition when it entered into the retroactive licensing
agreement. This court held in Archdiocese of San Juan that
LAMCO/ACEMLA held a non-exclusive license in the work. 499 F.3d at
-25-
41. Since BPPR did not prove that any third party holds a priority
interest in "Ojos Chinos" over and above LAMCO/ACEMLA's interest,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting BPPR's
request.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion in
permanently enjoining BPPR from performing, producing, selling,
and/or distributing the 1999 Christmas concert. BPPR confusingly
argues that as a matter of law, LAMCO/ACEMLA was not entitled to an
injunction. That is not the proper standard and we are not
prepared to say that the district court, after years of complex and
tedious litigation, abused its discretion in ending the matter so
as to avoid endless future litigation over republication. To the
extent BPPR advances a public interest in future access to the 1999
Christmas concert, nothing forecloses BPPR from reaching a private
arrangement providing for such access and seeking relief from the
injunction.
III.
For the reasons stated, the decisions of the district
court are affirmed.
As between BPPR and LAMCO/ACEMLA, no costs of appeal are
awarded. GVLI is awarded its costs of appeal.
-26-