## Facts

- EMI Latin entered a 1998 exclusive recording agreement with the band Kumbia Kings requiring the band’s exclusive recording services and imposing a five-year re-recording restriction tied to delivery or termination.
- Francisco “Frankie J” Bautista joined the band after its first EMI album and signed a bandmember contract incorporating the 1998 agreement and requiring exclusive performance with the band until completion of three new albums or termination.
- In January 2002, after release of the band’s second EMI album, Bautista was fired; he then composed and recorded two original songs, “Don’t Want to Try” and “Count on Me.”
- In April 2002, EMI and the band terminated the 1998 agreement and simultaneously entered a 2002 agreement extending the re-recording prohibition period for songs recorded and delivered before termination.
- In January 2003, Bautista agreed to record the two songs for inclusion on the band’s third album for EMI; after recording, he sought return of the masters and began negotiations with another label.
- EMI moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Bautista from re-recording the songs for others and from signing a conflicting exclusive recording deal; Bautista cross-moved to stop EMI from manufacturing and distributing the recordings.

## Issues

1. Whether EMI showed entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief enforcing contractual exclusivity and re-recording restrictions against Bautista.
2. Whether Bautista was entitled to a preliminary injunction barring EMI from manufacturing and distributing the recordings of his songs.
3. Whether each movant demonstrated irreparable harm and the required merits showing under the preliminary injunction standard.

## Decision

- The court granted EMI’s motion in substantial part and preliminarily enjoined Bautista from re-recording (or authorizing re-recordings of) the two songs for any label other than EMI during the applicable restriction period.
- The court also enjoined Bautista from entering an exclusive recording agreement with another label that would conflict with EMI’s contractual rights.
- The court denied Bautista’s cross-motion to enjoin EMI from manufacturing and distributing the recordings.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires irreparable harm plus either (a) likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly toward the movant.
- Exclusive-services and re-recording provisions in recording agreements may be enforceable by injunction where breach would cause non-monetary injury, including harm to goodwill, business relationships, and planned marketing.
- An artist’s authorship of musical compositions does not, by itself, defeat a label’s contractual right to exploit particular masters where the artist agreed—directly or through incorporated agreements—to provide exclusive recording services and deliver recordings for the label’s release.
- Where an injunction is limited in scope (specific songs and a defined contractual period) and the enjoined party remains free to record other material, the balance of hardships may favor enforcing the contractual status quo.

## Conclusion

The court preserved the label’s contractual exclusivity and re-recording protections through a preliminary injunction and allowed the label to manufacture and distribute the disputed masters, concluding the label showed likely success and irreparable harm while the artist did not justify blocking distribution pending trial.


EMI Latin v. Bautista, No. 03 Civ. 947 (WHP), 2003 WL 470333 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2003)