## Facts

- Dream Street was a music-industry “concept group,” meaning the group was created and directed by a manager/producer rather than organically formed by its members.
- The group consisted of five teenage performers, all minors, including Jesse McCartney.
- Dream Street Entertainment, Inc. created the group, selected the performers, managed the act, and controlled its style and identity.
- Atlantic Recording Corporation and related entities were involved through recording and related agreements connected to the group.
- The parties sought and obtained court approval of agreements under New York’s child-performer contract statute (N.Y. Arts & Cultural Affairs Law § 35.03).
- A court-approved Exclusive Services Agreement stated that Dream Street Entertainment, Inc. would “continue to own all right, title and interest in the name Dream Street, at all times, solely and exclusively,” including associated trade name and trademark rights, even if one or more performers left the group.
- After the group achieved commercial success, a serious dispute developed between the parents of three of the five performers and Dream Street Entertainment.
- The parents of those three minors sought to withdraw their children from the existing arrangement but also wanted the children (who wished to continue performing together) to keep using the name “Dream Street” in future musical activities.
- The parents did not present a specific alternative name for the new project and asked the court, within the existing § 35.03 proceeding, to determine what rights the children would have to the “Dream Street” name going forward.

## Issues

1. Whether the departing minors and their parents, after ending their relationship with the group’s producer/manager, could continue to perform under the name “Dream Street.”
2. Whether the court should issue guidance about future use of unspecified names (including names similar to “Dream Street”) in the absence of a concrete proposal and dispute.

## Decision

- The court enforced the previously approved Exclusive Services Agreement allocating ownership of the “Dream Street” name to Dream Street Entertainment, Inc.
- The court determined that the departing performers and their parents could not take or continue to use the name “Dream Street” after leaving the producer-managed group.
- The court recognized there was no dispute the minors were free to leave the group and perform together, but they had to do so under a different name.
- To the extent the parents sought broader guidance about hypothetical future branding choices not specifically presented, the court declined to rule on abstract questions.

## Legal Principles

- Courts do not issue rulings on abstract or hypothetical future conduct; judicial relief requires a concrete dispute rather than a request for general guidance.
- Where a contract (especially one previously reviewed and approved in a child-performer contract proceeding) clearly assigns ownership of a group name and related trademark/trade name interests, the court will enforce that allocation as written.
- In a producer-created “concept group,” the group name and related goodwill may be treated as belonging to the creator/manager entity, particularly where the agreements expressly provide for continued ownership even if performers depart.
- A performer’s right to leave an entertainment arrangement does not include a right to appropriate the group’s name when the agreements assign the name to another party.

## Conclusion

In this § 35.03 child-performer contract matter involving the teen concept group Dream Street, the court held that although the three departing minors could leave and continue performing together, they could not continue using the “Dream Street” name because the court-approved agreements granted Dream Street Entertainment, Inc. exclusive, continuing ownership of the name and related trademark and trade name rights, and the court would not provide broader guidance about unspecified future names.


In re Applications of Atlantic Recording Corp., 747 N.Y.S.2d 889 (2002)