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)

Download PDF
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?