## Facts

- Curtis James Jackson III is a hip-hop recording artist known as “50 Cent.”
- Jackson recorded the hit song “In Da Club” for his debut album under a recording agreement with Shady Records/Aftermath Records, through which Jackson transferred his copyright interest in the “In Da Club” sound recording to the label.
- William Leonard Roberts II is a hip-hop recording artist known as “Rick Ross.”
- In 2015, Roberts released a free mixtape titled *Renzel Remixes* in connection with the release of his upcoming commercial album.
- The mixtape included a track that sampled “In Da Club,” using portions of the sound recording that included the instrumentals and Jackson’s recorded vocals.
- *Renzel Remixes* also sampled works from many other artists; sampling without permission while giving credit was described as a common practice in the hip-hop community.
- The mixtape credited Jackson by using his stage name, “50 Cent,” in connection with the track that contained the sample.
- Jackson’s photograph did not appear on the mixtape packaging.
- Jackson sued Roberts in federal court, asserting a Connecticut common-law right-of-publicity claim based on Roberts’s use of Jackson’s voice from “In Da Club” and use of the “50 Cent” name on the mixtape.
- Roberts moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was preempted by the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 301) and that Jackson’s recording agreement foreclosed the claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Roberts. Jackson appealed.

## Issues

1. Did Jackson’s recording agreement with Shady/Aftermath bar him from bringing a Connecticut common-law right-of-publicity claim against Roberts?
2. Is a Connecticut right-of-publicity claim based on use of a performer’s recorded voice from a copyrighted sound recording, plus use of the performer’s stage name as credit on a mixtape track, preempted by the Copyright Act?

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Roberts.
- The court rejected the argument that the recording agreement categorically barred Jackson’s claim, concluding that any grant of publicity-related rights to the label became nonexclusive after the contract term ended.
- The court held that Jackson’s Connecticut right-of-publicity claim was preempted by the Copyright Act, concluding the claim was preempted under implied conflict preemption and also under the express preemption terms of 17 U.S.C. § 301.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright Act preemption applies when a state-law claim targets conduct that is, in substance, control over the reproduction, distribution, or exploitation of a work within the subject matter of copyright and seeks rights equivalent to those protected by federal copyright law.
- A right-of-publicity claim is especially vulnerable to preemption when the alleged misappropriation is the use of a copyrighted sound recording itself (including the performer’s recorded voice fixed in that recording), rather than a separate harm such as consumer deception, false endorsement, or invasion of privacy.
- A performer who has transferred the copyright in a sound recording generally cannot use state publicity law to obtain control over copying or sampling of that recording; enforcement ordinarily lies with the copyright owner, and any dispute about the owner’s failure to enforce may sound in contract against the owner rather than in publicity law against the user.
- Crediting a performer’s stage name in connection with a track that uses the performer’s recorded performance, without more (such as use of the performer’s image or a misleading endorsement message), does not supply a distinct extra element that avoids copyright preemption where the complaint’s core is unauthorized use of the recording.

## Conclusion

Because Jackson’s claim sought to use Connecticut’s common-law right of publicity to restrict Roberts’s use of a copyrighted sound recording (including Jackson’s fixed vocal performance) that Jackson no longer owned, and because the alleged harm did not rest on false endorsement or privacy-based injury, the Second Circuit held the claim was preempted by the Copyright Act and affirmed judgment for Roberts.


Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2020)