Un autore di remix concorda con l’autore dell’opera base un lavoro appunto di remix (musicale) dela prima.
Si accorge poi di una contraffazione e agisce in giudizio.
Gli viene però eccepita la carenza di legittimazione ad agire, dato che nel contratto stava scritto: <<I acknowledge and agree that the services rendered (or to be rendered) by Remixer hereunder do not entitle Remixer or me to any ownership or financial interest in the underlying musical composition(s) embodied in the Remix Master(s), and I specifically agree that neither Remixer nor I will make any claims to the contrary.>>
Il dubbio interpretaivo naturalmente si appunta soprattutto sull’espressione <<in the underlying musical composition(s)>>: si riferisce all’opera base oppure all’elaborazione? A quest’ultima, dice il giudice, per cui l’elaboratore ha ab initio rinunciato ai diritti di copyright sulla propria creazione, frutto dell’attività elaborativa
Si tratta di UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 08.04.2021, caso CV 19-3934 PSG (JPRx), Artem Stoliarov v. Marshmello Creative, LLC, et al..
sul punto specifico così motoiva: <<Under the Remixer Declaration, the “Remix Master(s)” are recorded performances of theRemix Composition by Plaintiff. See Remixer Declaration (each Remix Master consists of thefeatured performance by Arty of the results and proceeds of his remixing services). Therefore,the Disclaimer Provision’s reference to “the underlying musical composition(s) embodied in theRemix Master(s)” can only refer to the Remix Composition.
Accordingly, even if the phrase“underlying musical composition” is ambiguous as used elsewhere in the contract, the Disclaimer Provision resolves that ambiguity in favor of Defendants’ interpretation—i.e.,“underlying musical composition” as used in the Remixer Declaration means the RemixComposition.Accordingly, from the terms of the contract it is clear that Plaintiff disclaimed “anyownership or financial interest” in the Remix Composition. See Remixer Declaration ¶ C. Thisnecessarily includes his ownership and financial interest in the Arty Elements, which were partof the Remix Composition. See Brem-Air Disposal v. Cohen, 156 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir.1998) (“‘[A]ny’ means ‘any.’”). As such, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment onPlaintiff’s infringement claims because Plaintiff disclaimed his ownership and financial interestsin the Arty Elements>>
Pare strano che professionisti della musica non precisino l’oggetto del contratto. Ma forse l’avevano stipulato senza l’assistenza di un legale.
Avvertimento per gli operatori: precisare bene, oltre che i soggetti, pure l’oggetto degli atti dispositivi.