Bryan Pringle v. William Adams Jr et al
Filing
178
DECLARATION of Thibaud Fouet [CORRECTED] In Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment 159 filed by Defendants David Guetta, Frederick Riesterer, Shapiro Bernstein and Co. (Miller, Donald)
1 DONALD A. MILLER (SBN 228753)
dmiller@loeb.com
2 BARRY I. SLOTNICK (Pro Hac Vice)
bslotnick@loeb.com
3 TAL DICKSTEIN (Pro Hac Vice)
tdickstein@loeb.com
4 LOEB & LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 2200
5 Los Angeles, California 90067-4120
Telephone: 310-282-2000
6 Facsimile: 310-282-2200
7 Attorneys for Defendants SHAPIRO,
BERNSTEIN & CO., INC.;
8 FREDERIC RIESTERER
and DAVID GUETTA
9
10
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SOUTHERN DIVISION
14
15 BRYAN PRINGLE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
16
17
v.
18 WILLIAM ADAMS, JR.; STACY
FERGUSON; ALLAN PINEDA; and
19 JAIME GOMEZ, all individually and
collectively as the music group The
20 Black Eyed Peas, et al.,
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. SACV 10-1656 JST (RZx)
Hon. Josephine Staton Tucker
Courtroom 10A
CORRECTED DECLARATION OF
THIBAUD FOUET IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[logo:] sacem
The music, all the music
Society Relations Management Division
Allocations Verification
Department
ATTESTATION
I, the undersigned, Thibaud FOUET, Head of the Allocations Verification Department of SACEM (Society of Songwriters,
Composers, and Music Publishers), hereby certify that:
SACEM, as a civil society for the collection and allocation of royalties for the public performance and mechanical
reproduction of works by the songwriters, composers, and [music] publishers who are members in good standing
who have paid their dues, aims to authorize the public use of its catalog, and, in return, to collect copyright
royalties from those who make use of this catalog and are located within the society’s administrative territories,
which primarily include France;
SACEM thus collects royalties for public performances from television and radio networks, from organizers of
concerts and other musical events, from nightclubs and cabarets, and from miscellaneous establishments equipped
with sound systems (cafés, hotels, restaurants, stores, etc.),
SACEM has also signed representation agreements with 110 copyright organizations that handle music rights and
royalties throughout the world, notably the U.S. organization BMI. In accordance with the terms of these
agreements, each contracting organization manages, within its own respective administrative territory, the rights
and royalties issued by its own members to another contracting organization. Thus, SACEM, by virtue of the
representation agreement established with BMI, collects, in France, the royalties due for the use of works by
members of BMI, to which Mr. Bryan Pringle appears to belong,
by and large, SACEM allocates the royalties that it collects on the bases of detailed broadcast reports that are
submitted to SACEM by users such as radio networks, television networks, concerts, events (80% of collected
royalties) and, to a lesser degree, based on the results of surveys targeting dances with bands and orchestras,
nightclubs, and those who produce private copies (13% of collected royalties) or, mutatis mutandis, based on works
reproduced on CDs if they have been broadcast on the radio or at concerts and thus concern rights and royalties
pertaining to sound systems in public establishments, such as cafés, restaurants, stores, etc. (7% of collected
royalties),
over the past ten years, the works “Take a Dive” and/or “take a Dive (Dance Version)” have generated no copyright
royalties in territories covered by SACEM because they have not appeared on any broadcast reports submitted by
those who have made use of its catalog and have not been noted down on any of the surveys.
This attestation is hereby drawn up with all advantages thereto pertaining.
Signed in Neuilly Sur Seine on August 17, 2011.
[signature]
Thibaud FOUET
[text cut off]
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?