## Facts

- Systems XIX, Inc., doing business as Maritime Hall Productions, operated a San Francisco concert venue and recording studio.
- A promoter and the performer Lawrence Parker (KRS-ONE), through his road manager, negotiated an Artist Engagement Contract for a March 15, 1997 concert.
- During negotiations, Maritime stated it would require compensation and producer credit if any recording of the performance was commercially used, but the written contract was never signed and recording-related terms were not agreed.
- On the concert date, Parker’s sound engineer was absent; Parker’s team requested Maritime record the performance using Maritime’s equipment and personnel.
- Maritime recorded the show and delivered master tapes to Parker’s road manager.
- Two tracks from the recorded performance were later used on a commercial album marketed/distributed by Zomba Recording Corporation, without payment or producer credit to Maritime.
- Maritime sued for declaratory relief and damages, alleging joint copyright ownership of the sound recordings and asserting state-law compensation theories including quantum meruit.

## Issues

1. Whether Maritime was a joint author/joint owner of the copyright in the sound recordings of Parker’s live performance.
2. Whether Maritime could recover under quantum meruit or related state-law theories for recording services used in commercially released tracks.
3. Whether Maritime’s state-law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants on Maritime’s federal copyright ownership/joint authorship theory.
- The court denied summary judgment on Maritime’s quantum meruit claim, permitting it to proceed.
- The court rejected copyright preemption as to quantum meruit because the claim was based on the value of services provided, not merely on rights equivalent to copyright.

## Legal Principles

- Joint authorship of a sound recording requires (1) a copyrightable contribution and (2) intent, at the time of creation, to be co-authors and co-owners.
- Providing recording facilities, equipment, and technical services—without mutual intent to share authorship—does not establish joint authorship in the resulting sound recording.
- A state-law quantum meruit claim seeking restitution for services rendered may avoid Copyright Act preemption when it includes an “extra element” (service-based duty/value conferred) beyond the exclusive rights protected by copyright.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows no genuine dispute that the parties lacked the requisite co-authorship intent.

## Conclusion

The court held that a venue/studio that recorded a performer at the performer’s request did not become a joint copyright owner absent a shared intent to co-author the sound recording, but it could still seek compensation in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of recording services used in a commercial release, and that claim was not preempted by federal copyright law.


Systems XIX, Inc. v. Parker, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (N.D. Cal. 1998)