This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Labels & Publishers Legal
Universal secures summary judgement for in-flight listening case
By Chris Cooke | Published on Monday 25 April 2016
Universal Music secured a summary judgement in its favour last week in a dispute with a company that provides in-flight entertainment for American Airlines and US Airways.
It’s not the first dispute over the licensing of music made available to customers on planes. These disputes often have a jurisdiction element, as to whether licences from an airline or in-flight entertainment provider’s home country – possibly from a collecting society rather than a label direct – can apply when the music is then consumed in the air all over the world.
Sony Music went legal against United Airlines and its entertainment provider InFlight Productions in 2014, but then did a deal with another in-flight content distributor called Global Eagle Entertainment. In Universal’s case, it’s Global Eagle and its IFP subsidiary that is being sued.
IFP has seemingly been talking to the majors about licensing deals since about 2008, from which the Sony agreement presumably stemmed. No such deal has been struck with Universal, yet IFP has been making music controlled by the mega-major available via its in-flight entertainment platform. After legal action began, IFP cited the “we do the copying in another jurisdiction” line before claiming that, via its past negotiations with Universal, the major had provided an implied temporary licence.
However, according to The Hollywood Reporter, the judge hearing the case rejected both the jurisdiction and the implied licence arguments in summary judgement last week. The judge said: “There is ample evidence that IFP knew it had no licences from plaintiffs and that it could be sued for copyright infringement, and no evidence that plaintiffs ever indicated to IFP that any such licenses were forthcoming or misrepresented any existing fact”.
A hearing before a jury to decide damages has now been set for next month. A crucial factor of last week’s ruling with regards damages is that the judge concurred with Universal that IFP was liable for ‘wilful’ infringement, something that can greatly increase the damages awarded. “As plaintiffs aptly state, if IFP’s infringements were not wilful, no infringements could ever be”, said the judge.
