## Facts

- Debra Laws, a professional vocalist, recorded “Very Special,” released in 1981 on an Elektra album; Elektra registered the copyright in the sound recording.
- Under a 1979 recording agreement, Elektra received the sole and exclusive copyright in Laws’s master recordings and an exclusive perpetual worldwide right to license and use them.
- The agreement also allowed Elektra to use, and permit others to use, Laws’s name and likeness in connection with the master recordings, subject to specified limitations requiring Laws’s written consent for certain uses.
- In 2002, Elektra’s agent (Warner Special Products) granted Sony a nonexclusive license to sample Laws’s recording in “All I Have,” performed by Jennifer Lopez and LL Cool J.
- The license required a credit: “Featuring samples from the Debra Laws recording ‘Very Special.’”
- Sony released commercially successful recordings and a music video incorporating the sample and included the required credit.
- Warner did not obtain Laws’s permission for the license, and Laws alleged she received no compensation.
- Laws sued Sony under California common law and California Civil Code § 3344, alleging misappropriation of her name and voice.

## Issues

1. Whether claims alleging misappropriation of a singer’s name and voice, when based on use of a copyrighted sound recording containing the performance, fall within the subject matter of copyright for purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).
2. Whether California common-law and statutory right-of-publicity claims premised on copying and using a sound recording assert rights equivalent to the exclusive rights in 17 U.S.C. § 106, and are therefore preempted.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sony.
- The court held the claims satisfied § 301(a)’s subject-matter prong because the alleged misuse targeted Laws’s performance as fixed in a copyrighted sound recording.
- The court held the claims satisfied § 301(a)’s equivalency prong because they sought control over reproduction, distribution, and incorporation of the recording, without any “extra element” making the rights qualitatively different from copyright.
- Contract-based limits in Laws’s recording agreement did not change the preemption analysis as to the state-law publicity claims asserted against Sony.

## Legal Principles

- A state-law claim is preempted by 17 U.S.C. § 301(a) when (1) it falls within the subject matter of copyright under §§ 102–103 and (2) it asserts rights equivalent to the exclusive rights under § 106.
- Although a person’s name or likeness is not itself copyrightable, a vocal performance fixed in a sound recording is within the subject matter of copyright.
- Right-of-publicity claims are preempted when they rest entirely on copying, distributing, or adapting a copyrighted work and do not include an additional element (such as deception or false endorsement) that changes the nature of the right asserted.
- Contractual disputes over whether a licensor exceeded contractual authority may exist, but they do not prevent preemption of a state-law claim that, as pleaded, seeks copyright-like control over use of the recording.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that California right-of-publicity claims based on licensed sampling and credited use of a copyrighted sound recording were preempted because the alleged harm arose from reproduction and use of the fixed performance, interests governed by federal copyright law rather than state publicity law.


Laws v. Sony Music Ent. Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006)