## Facts

- Anthony Lawrence Dash, a music producer, composed an instrumental track titled “Tony Gunz Beat” (TGB) in 2005 and registered a copyright in the work.
- Dash alleged that a variant of TGB was used without a license as Floyd Mayweather, Jr.’s entrance music at two WWE events, including Wrestlemania XXIV.
- Mayweather contracted with WWE to appear at Wrestlemania XXIV; the agreement focused on his appearance and did not address entrance music.
- Wrestlemania XXIV tickets were sold out when Mayweather entered into the WWE contract.
- Dash had not previously received revenue from TGB or from any other musical composition.
- Dash sought monetary relief under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), asserting both (i) actual damages measured by a hypothetical license fee and (ii) disgorgement of defendants’ profits attributable to the infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether Dash produced non-speculative evidence of actual damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including a supportable hypothetical license fee, sufficient to survive summary judgment.
2. Whether Dash identified gross revenues reasonably related to the alleged infringement and provided a reasonable, non-speculative basis to find that the infringement contributed to defendants’ profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).
3. Whether Dash preserved for appeal any challenge to the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on Dash’s § 504(b) claims for actual damages and infringer’s profits.
- The court held Dash’s expert-based license-fee estimate, without independent support such as market data or licensing history, was too speculative for a reasonable jury to award actual damages.
- The court held Dash failed to provide a reasonable evidentiary basis to conclude the alleged entrance-music use contributed to defendants’ profits, particularly given that event tickets were already sold out and revenues depended on many factors unrelated to the music.
- Dash abandoned any appeal of the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion by not briefing or arguing it on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), actual damages may be measured by a hypothetical license fee, but the amount must be supported by non-speculative evidence.
- Expert testimony estimating a license fee may be excluded from creating a triable issue if it is not grounded in concrete market evidence, comparable transactions, or other objective support.
- To recover infringer’s profits under § 504(b), the plaintiff must identify gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement and provide a reasonable basis to attribute some portion of profits to the infringing use rather than to other revenue-generating factors.
- Summary judgment is proper when, viewing the evidence in the nonmovant’s favor, no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff on the damages evidence presented.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for defendants because Dash’s proposed hypothetical license fee and his profits-attribution theory lacked non-speculative evidentiary support, leaving no reasonable basis for a jury to award monetary relief under § 504(b).


Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013)