## Facts

- Multiple copyright owners of musical compositions affiliated with ASCAP granted ASCAP nonexclusive rights to license public performances of their works.
- H. Jack Mizell owned and controlled two corporations that operated radio stations broadcasting religious services and other programming.
- During specific broadcasts, the stations publicly performed 15 copyrighted songs owned by the plaintiffs.
- ASCAP attempted to obtain a license from Mizell, but he did not secure a license or other permission to perform works in the ASCAP repertory.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Copyright Act for unauthorized public performances and moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the undisputed evidence established copyright infringement based on (a) valid ownership, (b) public performance by the stations, and (c) lack of authorization.
2. Whether Mizell could be held personally liable for infringement occurring through stations operated by corporations he owned and controlled.
3. Whether Mizell raised any genuine dispute of material fact or viable defense (including arguments tied to third-party programming or religious broadcasts) sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on liability.
- The court found undisputed evidence of plaintiffs’ ownership of valid copyrights in the 15 compositions.
- The court held the radio broadcasts constituted public performances of the compositions.
- The court found the performances were unauthorized because Mizell lacked an ASCAP license or other permission.
- The court held Mizell personally liable based on his ownership and control over the stations and his ability to supervise the infringing activity.
- The court rejected defenses unsupported by specific evidence and noted that generalized denials do not create a triable issue under Rule 56.
- The court later awarded attorneys’ fees and expenses in a subsequent order.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the nonmovant must present specific facts, not mere denials.
- Copyright infringement for unauthorized public performance requires proof of (1) ownership of a valid copyright, (2) a public performance of the work, and (3) lack of authorization (no license).
- Radio broadcasts of copyrighted musical compositions are public performances within the Copyright Act.
- An individual who owns and controls a business that publicly performs copyrighted works may be personally liable where he has the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and a direct financial interest in the operation.
- The religious character of programming and the involvement of outside content providers do not negate liability when the station under the defendant’s control publicly performs the works without authorization.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the copyright owners because the record showed unlicensed public performances of 15 copyrighted songs on stations controlled by Mizell, and Mizell failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute as to infringement or his responsibility for the broadcasts.


Simpleville Music v. Mizell, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1293 (M.D. Ala. 2006)