COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES The Library of Congress
In re
DISTRIBUTION OF CABLE ROYALTY CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING FUNDS NO. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2010-13)
In re CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDING DISTRIBUTION OF SATELLITE DOCKET NUMBER 14-CRB-0011-SD ROYALTY FUNDS (2010-13)
RULING AND ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO CABLE AND SATELLITE CLAIMS
In September, 2015, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) consolidated proceedings for distribution of cable royalties for the years 2010 to 2013, inclusive. At the same time, the Judges consolidated proceedings for distribution of satellite royalties for the same years. The Judges set October 10, 2016, as the date for participants to file objections to the validity of claims in the consolidated cable proceeding.1 Participants filed claims objections to both cable and satellite claims. Claimants to funds in the Devotional Claimants category, appearing as the Settling Devotional Claimants (SDC); the Program Suppliers category represented by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA); and the Joint Sports Claimants category, appearing as Joint Sports Claimants (JSC) objected to claims filed against their respective categories by Multigroup Claimants (MGC) or Spanish Language Producers (SLP). Correspondingly, MGC2 objected to claims asserted by JSC, MPAA, and SDC in each of the respective categories3.
1 See Order Granting in Part Emergency Mot. to Extend Deadline for Mots. for Allowance or Disallowance of Claims (Sep. 30, 2016). 2 During the proceeding, SLP assigned its interests in asserting claims and collecting royalties for Spanish language programs to MGC. 3 The fund categories in the cable proceeding are: Canadian Claimants, Commercial Television Claimants, Devotional Claimants, Joint Sports Claimants, Music Claimants, National Public Radio, Program Suppliers, and Public Television Claimants. See Notice of Participant Groups, Commencement of Voluntary Negotiation Period (Allocation), and Sched. Order, Ex. A, Docket No. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2010-13) (Nov. 25, 2015) (Cable Participant Notice). The fund categories in the satellite proceeding are: Commercial Television Claimants, Devotional Claimants, Joint Sports Claimants, and Program Suppliers. See Notice of Participant Groups, Commencement of Voluntary Negotiation Period (Allocation), and Sched. Order, Ex. A, Docket No. 14-CRB-0011-SD (2010-13) (Nov.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 1
In the interest of judicial economy, the Judges rule on the validity of claims to both cable and satellite funds for the relevant years. The Judges’ conclusions are described in this Order. I. Disqualification of MGC The SDC seek to disqualify MGC as a claimant representative and, effectively, dismiss MGC from these proceedings. MGC is a first-time participant in these proceedings and has never filed royalty claims with the Judges. Rather, each of the claims that MGC pursues in these proceedings was either filed by Worldwide Subsidy Group dba Independent Producers Group (IPG), which has participated in several royalty distribution proceedings in the past, by the claimant, or by some other claimant representative. See MPAA’s Mot. for Disallowance of Claims Made by Multigroup Claimants at 8 (Oct. 11, 2016) (MPAA Motion) (“Except in a few instances where MGC has identified a purported interest in claims filed by other parties, IPG filed all the claims represented by MGC.”); Multigroup Claimants’ Opp’n to MPAA Motion … , at 11 (Oct. 31, 2016) (MGC Opp’n to MPAA) (MGC produced “the agreements between IPG and the underlying copyright owners.”); Multigroup Claimants’ Opp’n to Settling Devotional Claimants’ Motion … , at 16 (Oct. 31, 2016) (MGC Opp’n to SDC) (“authority was granted by underlying claimants to IPG, and then such authority was transferred to SLP and MGC.”). MGC is an assumed business name filed by Alfred Galaz as a sole proprietor in Bell County, Texas, on January 20, 2015. See Settling Devotional Claimants’ Mot. to Disqualify Multigroup Claimants and to Disallow Certain Claimants and Programs, Ex. 10 (Oct. 11, 2016) (SDC Motion). IPG executed an “Authorization and Transfer” agreement (also on January 20, 2015), whereby IPG “engage[d] and authorize[d]” MGC to act as IPG’s representative in U.S. cable and satellite royalty distribution proceedings. See SDC Mot. Ex. 9. Alfred (also referred to as Alfredo or Al) Galaz is the father of Raul Galaz and Denise Vernon, both of whom have carried out IPG’s business as owners, employees, or contractors at various times over the past two decades. See Galaz v. Katona, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125595, *5 (W.D. Tex. 2015). In the present proceedings, Raul Galaz and Denise Vernon are the only individuals (apart from counsel) who have acted on behalf of MGC. See, e.g., Multigroup Claimants’ Opp’n to Settling Devotional Claimants’ Motion …, Exs. A-B (Oct. 31, 2016) (MGC Opp’n to SDC). The SDC propose several grounds for disqualifying MGC. The Judges address each of these grounds. As the moving parties, it falls on the SDC to establish that MGC should be disqualified from representing claimants in these proceedings. A. Lack of Consent to MGC Representation The SDC note that MGC has produced no evidence that any of the claimants MGC purports to represent have agreed to the substitution of MGC for IPG as a claimant representative. SDC Mot. at 5-6. The SDC argue that MGC, therefore, fails to meet the Judges’ requirement that a claimant representative “must have representation authority from each rights holder that [it] purports to represent [and] must have continuing authority to pursue the claimants’ royalty rights through the distribution proceeding(s).” Id. at 5 (quoting Mem. Op. and Ruling on Validity of … Claims at 6, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD, 2012-7 CRB SD (March
25, 2015) (Satellite Participant Notice). In each case the categories are mutually exclusive. See Cable Participant Notice, Ex. A; Satellite Participant Notice, Ex. A.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 2
2015 Claims Ruling). The SDC conclude that, absent the underlying claimants’ consent to the substitution and/or fresh authorization to MGC’s representation, MGC is not a valid claimant representative and must be disqualified. SDC Mot. at 6-7. For the reasons set forth in section III.A.1, infra, the Judges find that the lack of direct authorization of MGC by its underlying claimants (in the absence of an express contractual obligation) does not disqualify MGC as a claimant representative. The Judges will not disqualify MGC or dismiss any of MGC’s claimants in any category on this basis. B. Deception as to MGC’s True Identity The SDC claim that MGC, through its counsel, intentionally sought to deceive the Judges and other participants as to MGC’s true identity, and argue that the deception should disqualify MGC. SDC Mot. at 7. The SDC note that, initially, two groups of claimants now represented by MGC filed petitions to participate under separate names: MGC and SLP.4 None of the petitions disclosed the nature of MGC or SLP as “an individual, a business entity, or some other structure.” Id. Subsequently, MGC and SLP notified the Judges and other parties that the two claimant groups had reached a “confidential settlement,” and that SLP has “assigned its rights in these proceedings to MGC” and MGC would take over representation of the claimants that SLP had represented. SDC Exs. 36, 37. The SDC contend the foregoing facts demonstrate that Alfred Galaz, through counsel, falsely held out MGC and SLP as separate entities, reasoning that “if MGC and SLP were one and the same, then they could not appear as two different parties in the same proceeding” and “a single entity cannot ‘assign’ its rights to itself ….” SDC Mot. at 7-8. The SDC conclude that “[b]y asserting and implying that MGC and SLP are separate and distinct entities, and by failing to disclose that they are merely two different names for the same person, MGC breached its duty of candor to the Judges and to the other participants in this proceeding.” Id. at 9. The SDC draw a comparison to Raul Galaz’s use of the alias “Bill Taylor” as part of the fraud he perpetrated in prior royalty distribution proceedings and for which he was incarcerated. Id. at 10-11. In response, MGC cites a lack of evidence to support the SDC’s accusation of deception by MGC. MGC Opp’n to SDC at 8. MGC states that in discovery it produced documentation of “aggregate chain-of-title” for programs claimed in the proceeding, and that “Al Galaz” was signatory for SLP and MGC. Id. at 7-8. MGC asserts that MGC and SLP are “two different sole proprietorships,” so treating them as such was not deceptive. Id. at 9; see also id. at 10 (“they are separate entities”). In reply, the SDC assert that “MGC and SLP are not ‘entities’ or organizations at all; rather, they are one and the same person, Alfred Galaz.” Settling Devotional Claimants’ Reply in Supp. of Their Motion …, at 8 (Nov. 15, 2016) (SDC Reply). The SDC cite Texas case law for the proposition that “a sole proprietorship has a legal existence only in the identity of the sole proprietor.” Id. (citing Ideal Lease Serv., Inc. v. Amoco Prod. Co., 662 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. 1983)). The SDC conclude that “a single person does not transact business with himself, settle
4 As it happens, SLP is another assumed business name for Alfred Galaz. SDC Mot. Ex. 39.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 3
disputes with himself, enter agreements with himself, or transfer interests to himself. For one person to do such things is a sure sign of fraud.” Id. Neither the Copyright Act, nor the Judges’ procedural rules, requires a participant to disclose the structure of its business in a petition to participate in a royalty distribution proceeding.5 Alfred Galaz’s failure to do so on the MGC and SLP petitions to participate is not evidence of deception. The Judges were not deceived by Mr. Galaz’s failure to answer a question they did not ask. The Judges further do not find the subsequent “settlement” between SLP and MGC to be deceptive. Alfred Galaz treated SLP and MGC as though they were separate entities. The record does not reveal why. There is insufficient evidence in the record for the Judges to draw any inferences as to Mr. Galaz’s motives from the mere fact that he carried on business under two different assumed business names and treated those businesses as if they were separate entities. Finally, the Judges find the SDC’s proffered analogy between IPG’s transfer of authority to MGC and Raul Galaz’s use of the alias “Bill Taylor” to be inapt. Bill Taylor was a non- existent person whom Raul Galaz held out to be an actual person in order to further a fraudulent scheme. Information ¶¶ 10-11 and Plea Agreement ¶ 7, U.S. v. Galaz, Crim. No. 02-230 (D. D.C. filed May 30, 2002). Alfred Galaz is an actual person, who, according to the evidence, has lawfully adopted two different assumed business names in Bell County, Texas. C. Alleged Fraud by Alfred Galaz The SDC assert that IPG’s authorization of MGC to represent IPG’s claimants in these proceedings was a “fraudulent conveyance” that was “designed to evade the sanctions and loss of presumptions that should certainly befall IPG and any successor to it.” SDC Mot. at 12. The SDC maintain that the transfer of authority from IPG to MGC was precisely the “transparent subterfuge” that the Judges warned in a prior case “could well constitute fresh and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on IPG’s representation.” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 12-13 n.14.6 On this basis, the SDC urge the Judges to exercise their “inherent authority to sanction fraudulent conduct” to disqualify IPG and MGC and debar them from further participation in these proceedings. SDC Mot. at 4, 12-17. The SDC review Alfred Galaz’s role in a number of litigated cases involving Raul Galaz’s business dealings (including a decision in which a bankruptcy court found Alfred Galaz to have been the recipient of a fraudulent conveyance of copyright royalty rights from Raul Galaz). At the very least, the SDC argue, MGC’s claims should not be entitled to a presumption of validity.7
5 The required elements of a joint petition to participate in a distribution proceeding are the full name and contact information of the person filing the petition; a list identifying all participants to the joint petition; identification of whether the petition covers a Phase I proceeding, a Phase II proceeding, or both; a description of the participants’ significant interest in the proceeding; and a statement certifying that, as of the filing date the claimant representative filing the petition has the authority and consent of the participants it represents. 37 C.F.R. § 351.1(b)(2)(ii). 6 The Judges address this contention in the context of their discussion concerning application of the presumption of validity to MGC’s claims. See infra, section II. 7 See supra note 6.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 4
MGC argues that the SDC’s recitation of the history of litigation relating to the Galaz family has no bearing on the issue at hand and, in any event, denies that Alfred Galaz has ever been found to have engaged in any fraudulent activity. MGC Opp’n to SDC at 11-13. The SDC respond that “the cases … speak for themselves.” SDC Reply at 9. As discussed below, the Judges consider withholding the presumption of validity from the claims filed by IPG and pursued by MGC to be an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the past misconduct of IPG and Raul Galaz and for IPG’s transparent attempt to avoid this evidentiary burden by flipping its claims to Mr. Galaz’s father. Notwithstanding the withholding of that presumption, the Judges do not completely disqualify MGC on the present record, particularly in the absence of regulations setting forth standards and procedures for such an extreme remedy.8 D. MGC’s Failure to file Claims to 2014 Royalties The SDC also point to the fact that MGC did not file claims in July 2015 as confirmation that its asserted representation of claimants is a fiction. SDC Mot. at 18. MGC’s filing or non- filing of claims to 2014 retransmission royalties has no bearing on the question whether MGC is authorized to participate in royalty distribution proceedings relating to 2010-2013 royalties. II. Application of the Presumption of Validity to MGC The sheer volume of claims at issue in royalty distribution proceedings creates a particular requirement that participants act with honesty and integrity, in addition to the general ethical duty in all proceedings. Each year, tens of thousands of copyright owners file claims to the royalties deposited by cable systems and satellite services. The Copyright Act and the CRB regulations permit claimants to file claims individually or jointly, represented by an entity that is authorized by the claimants to receive and distribute the royalties on deposit.9 In prior proceedings, the Judges and their predecessors have relied upon the integrity of the system to manage orderly distribution. The requirements for authenticating claims and asserting authority to collect on those claims are now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 360.4(b)(1)(vi), & (b)(2)(vi) (2017) . Based upon the filers’ certifications, the Judges afford a presumption of validity to claims and assume authority of the claims representative appearing in a distribution proceeding. The presumption may be lost if a participant can “produce evidence sufficient to show facts or circumstances to rebut the presumption of validity.” Ruling and Order Regarding Claims …, at 10, Docket No. 2008-1 CRB CD 98-99 (Phase II) (June 18, 2014) (June 2014 Claims Ruling). In two recent distribution proceedings the Judges have found that a presumption of validity should not apply to claims filed by IPG. In the 1998-99 phase II cable proceeding, the Judges determined that it was appropriate to place the burden on IPG to demonstrate the validity of its claims due to IPG’s filing of false claims for the royalty year at issue in that proceeding. See June 2014 Claims Ruling at 4, 10. In the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite phase II distribution proceeding, the Judges determined that Raul Galaz testified falsely
8 The Judges are currently conducting a rulemaking with a view to adopting a regulation to address violations of standards of conduct in CRB proceedings. See 82 Fed. Reg. 18601 (Apr. 20, 2017); 82 Fed. Reg. 28800 (Jun. 26, 2017). 9 See 37 C.F.R. § 368.4(b)(2) (2017).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 5
concerning the filing of IPG’s 2008 satellite royalty claims, and denied IPG’s claims a presumption of validity on that basis. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 7-8, 9-10. Both the SDC and MPAA argue that the Judges should deny MGC claims any presumption of validity in these proceedings. The SDC contend that MGC is not entitled to a presumption of validity for the same reasons that the SDC seek to disqualify MGC as a claims representative: (1) the lack of any evidence that IPG’s claimants consented to representation by MGC in these proceedings; (2) what the SDC describe as MGC’s efforts to deceive the Judges and the other participants as to MGC’s true identity; (3) what the SDC describe as an effort by IPG, MGC, and members of the Galaz family to evade a loss of presumptions by assigning IPG’s claimants to MGC in a sham transaction; and (4) MGC’s failure to file claims for 2014 cable and satellite royalties. See SDC Mot. at 2, 5-17. The Judges reject the first, second, and fourth of these proposed bases for the same reasons articulated in connection with the SDC’s efforts to disqualify MGC;10 the Judges discuss the third basis below.11 MPAA argues that MGC’s claims should not be entitled to a presumption of validity “because (1) [MGC] is an integral part of IPG’s shell game designed to perpetuate IPG’s scheme of pursuing invalid claims; (2) [MGC], like IPG, has submitted false information on its, and by adoption, SLP’s, Petition to Participate; and (3) [MGC], like IPG, is pursuing royalties for dismissed claimants.” MPAA Mot. at 6. For the reasons discussed below, the Judges find and conclude that MGC is not entitled to a presumption of validity as to the claims it purports to represent. Consequently, MGC must bear the burden of producing evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the claims are valid, and that MGC validly represents the claimants. A. “Authorization and Transfer” Designed to Evade the Effect of Prior Rulings IPG has, on multiple occasions, argued that the Judges subject it unfairly to a greater burden than they require of MPAA because the Judges do not require MPAA to produce documentation from copyright owners it represents through an entity such as a collecting society, rather than directly. See, e.g., [MGC] Mot. to Strike Claims of [MPAA] at 7-8 (MGC-MPAA Claims Motion)12 In the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution
10 See supra, sections I.A, I.B, and I.D. 11 See infra, section II.A 12 MGC, like IPG before it, misapprehends the fundamental difference between the claims represented by MPAA and claims represented by IPG. The Judges on two occasions have explained why MPAA’s “chain-of-title” evidence has been (and continues to be) sufficient in the face of challenges by IPG (and now MGC). The Judges can do no better than repeat their reasoning from those prior rulings: MPAA has produced fully-executed Representation Agreements with each of the MPAA- represented program suppliers. Each Representation Agreement includes a provision stating that if the “Claimant” (MPAA’s counterparty) has filed a joint claim, MPAA is authorized to represent all joint claimants to that joint claim. Each Representation Agreement also includes a provision stating that the Claimant is the duly authorized representative of all joint claims submitted by the Claimant, and that the Claimant is authorized by all joint claimants to execute the Representation Agreement on their behalf. By their terms, the Representation Agreements are perpetual—i.e., they remain effective until terminated by one of the parties. The Judges find this evidence sufficient to establish that MPAA is duly authorized to represent the joint claimants covered by these Representation Agreements. Further evidence of representation, such as the contracts between the MPAA represented program suppliers and the underlying
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 6
proceeding, IPG went a step further and foreshadowed its intention to insert a new layer of representative entities in forthcoming proceedings, in an attempt to create what it asserted would be a tier of relationships analogous to those utilized by MPAA. The Judges took note of IPG’s suggestion that “if IPG, as an agent of copyright owners, contracted with another entity to act as IPG’s agent in these proceedings, and simply represented in its contract that ‘IPG is the duly authorized representative of all joint claims submitted by IPG, and that IPG is authorized by all joint claimants to execute the Representation Agreement on their behalf, then no further scrutiny of IPG’s contractual or program claims could occur.’” IPG’s Rebuttal Statement to Claims Asserted by MPAA at 9 n.8, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II) (Oct. 14, 2014). In response to that threatened approach, the Judges cautioned IPG that: “Given the circumstances that have led to IPG’s loss of the ‘presumption of validity,’ such a transparent subterfuge could well constitute fresh and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on IPG’s representation, underscoring the need to place the burden on IPG to substantiate its claims.” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 13 n.14. (emphasis added). The SDC and MPAA both assert that IPG has carried through with its threat by assigning its claims to a related entity, and they both urge the Judges to deny MGC a presumption of validity for doing so. See SDC Mot. at 13-14; MPAA Mot. at 9-10. There is no direct evidence of motivation for IPG to substitute MGC as a claims representative. MGC denies that the assignments from IPG to MGC and SLP were intended to evade the Judges’ rulings concerning evidence of authorization to represent claimants (what MGC refers to as “chain of title”), and cites as evidence the fact that, in addition to providing the agreements whereby IPG assigned representation to MGC and SLP, MGC produced evidence that its claimants authorized IPG to represent them. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 10-12. Because MGC produced the same underlying claim documentation that IPG would have produced, the Judges are persuaded that IPG/MGC/SLP did not transfer representational authority for the reasons IPG suggested in these consolidated distribution proceedings. The Judges find, however, sufficient evidence, as described below, to support the inference that IPG and MGC engaged in this transaction, at least in part, to evade the effect of the Judge’s prior rulings concerning the application of the presumption of validity to IPG’s claims. The Judges conclude that IPG/MGC/SLP’s efforts to evade the Judges’ rulings on the
claimants, is unnecessary in the absence of any evidence calling into question the authority of MPAA or the joint claimants that it represents—e.g., a disavowal of representation by an underlying claimant or evidence that the claimant is represented by another party. IPG has offered no such evidence with respect to the 615 claims that it seeks to challenge. Therefore, the challenge, even if IPG had raised it properly, would have been rejected. Final Distribution Order, Docket No. 2008–2 CRB CD 2000–2003 (Phase II), 78 Fed. Reg. 64984, 64988 (Oct. 30, 2013) (citations and footnote omitted), aff’d sub nom. Indep. Prods. Grp. v. Librarian of Cong., 792 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (2000-03 Cable Determination). While it is fair and reasonable to require a participant to document its own contractual relations with third parties, the Judges will not require evidence of contractual relations between third party nonparticipants in the absence of evidence that calls the participant’s authority into question. That is, the “presumption of validity” described supra applies in such a factual context. March 2015 Claims Ruling, at 11-12 (emphasis added); MGC conveniently ignores the italicized portion of the quoted language. As detailed in this ruling, MPAA has presented evidence that calls IPG’s authority into question.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 7
presumption of validity are “fresh and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on [IPG/MGC’s] representation, underscoring the need to place the burden on [IPG/MGC] to substantiate its claims.” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 13 n.14. 1. “Authorization and Transfer” Not an Arms-Length Transaction In these proceedings, for the first time, MGC has stepped into the shoes of IPG to represent claimants that had contracted with IPG to collect royalties on their behalf. IPG was founded by Raul Galaz, whose history the Judges have discussed in prior decisions,13 and Marian Oshita. See Galaz v. Katona, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125592, *1-*2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015). Except for the period of his incarceration for fraud in a previous distribution proceeding, Mr. Galaz has been a key actor14 for IPG over the past two decades. Together with his sister, Ms. Denise Vernon, Mr. Galaz has been IPG’s primary fact witness in proceedings before the Judges. Since the exit from the business of Marian Oshita and Lisa Katona Galaz, Mr. Galaz’s ex-wife, virtually all IPG business correspondence introduced in distribution cases has been conducted by Mr. Galaz and Ms. Vernon. Denise Vernon and her and Raul Galaz’s father, Alfred Galaz, were the owners of IPG as of September, 2015.15 See id. at *5. In short, IPG is a family business conducted primarily, if not entirely, by Mr. Galaz and his sister. Enter MGC and SLP. Both are assumed business names for Alfred Galaz as a sole proprietor, registered in Bell County, Texas, on January 20, 2015. See MPAA Mot., Olaniran Decl. at Ex. A.; SDC Mot. Ex. 39. IPG assigned its right to collect royalties to MGC and SLP in documents signed by Denise Vernon, for IPG and Alfred Galaz for MGC and SLP. See Olaniran Decl. Exs. B, C. The documents, which are nearly identical, consist of a single paragraph,16 and lack many of the terms that IPG, for example, includes in its agreements with the claimants it
13 See, e.g., 2000-03 Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 65000; June 2014 Claims Ruling, at 4; March 2015 Claims Ruling at 7-10; see also, e.g., Galaz v. Jackson, No. BC302194 (L.A. County Super. Ct. Mar. 16, 2006); Information, U.S. v. Galaz, Crim. No. 02-230 (D. D.C. filed May 30, 2002); Plea Agreement, U.S. v. Galaz, Crim. No. 02-230 (D. D.C. filed May 30, 2002). 14 Mr. Galaz has represented in recent proceedings that he has no ownership interest in IPG, but is only an employee or contractor. The Judges have found previously, however, that Mr. Galaz was a founder of IPG, engaged in litigation to protect his interests in IPG, and subsequently assigned his interests in IPG to his sister and mother, while remaining as a principal employee, controlling operational decisions. See, e.g., Memorandum Opinion and Order Following Preliminary Hearing …, Docket No. 2008-1 CRB CD 2000-2003 (Phase II) at 4, n.9 (Mar. 21, 2013); Final Distribution Order, 78 Fed. Reg. 64984, 65000 (Oct. 30, 2013). 15 MGC states (without citing any evidence) that “Al Galaz has never been identified as a co-owner of IPG in any documents public or private.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 7. A U.S. District Court, however, found in 2015 that Alfred Galaz acquired a 25% interest in the company in November 2012 through a California judgment. See Galaz v. Katona, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125592 at *5. 16 For example, the MGC document reads in full (minus the signature lines): AUTHORIZATION and TRANSFER For good and valuable consideration, hereby acknowledged as received, Worldwide Subsidy Group LLC dba Independent Producers Group hereby engages and authorizes Multigroup Claimants to act as its representative in connection with all proceedings relating to U.S. cable and satellite retransmission royalties, to the extent that such proceedings relate to 2010 broadcasts and thereafter, until such parties agree otherwise. Such authorization and transfer shall apply to all categories of programming, subject to the caveat that it shall include Spanish language programming only in the event that such programming is not defined as a separate "Phase I" category, whether by order or stipulation of participants in such proceedings. Effective Date: January 20, 2015
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 8
represents. They include no provisions concerning compensation (apart from a recitation acknowledging receipt of “good and valuable consideration”), cooperation, accounting and payments, confidentiality, representations and warranties, indemnification, or remedies on default. In essence, the “Authorization and Transfer” documents are quitclaims, merely assigning over to MGC and SLP whatever interest IPG possessed. On March 18, 2016, counsel for MGC and SLP17 sent an email to the participants stating that SLP had “assigned its rights in these proceedings” to MGC, and that MGC “shall act for SLP in these proceedings from this point forward.” Id. at 7-8. On March 29, 2016, MGC and SLP filed a Joint Notice of Settlement of Controversy with the Judges in both the 2010-13 cable and satellite proceedings, stating, inter alia, that “any SLP claims have been transferred to and will be prosecuted by MGC ….” Id. at 8. Thus, SLP is no longer a participant, and only MGC purports to act as the participant representing claims filed by IPG in these proceedings. Raul Galaz and Denise Vernon apparently conduct MGC’s (and SLP’s) business. For example, contract documents with Azteca International Corporation that were executed after January 20, 2015, were all signed by Raul Galaz on behalf of IPG, SLP, and MGC. See Olaniran Decl, Ex. H; IPG Opp’n to MPAA, Exs. N, O. Raul Galaz and Denise Vernon are MGC’s primary fact witnesses in these proceedings: MGC’s filings are supported by affidavits of Raul Galaz and Denise Vernon. See, e.g., MGC Opp’n to SDC, Exs. A, B. There is no evidence that Alfred Galaz has taken an active role in the royalty collection business since signing the “Authorization and Transfer” documents, The transfers from IPG to MGC and SLP are among family members; the subsequent transfer from SLP to MGC is from Alfred Galaz to himself. The documentation for these transactions is minimal. The same individuals who conducted IPG’s business now conduct MGC’s business. The Judges find the transfers to bear little resemblance to an arms-length business transaction. Rather, they are consistent with the use of a family member as a straw man.18 2. Evidence of Intent Regarding Transfer from IPG The first argument set forth in MGC’s Opp’n to MPAA is that MGC’s claims are entitled to a presumption of validity because MGC “is a separate legal entity from [IPG] ….” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 6. MGC goes on to argue that its insertion into the royalty distribution process was not “purposely designed to violate the Judges’ prior rulings by attempting to shield IPG’s claims from meaningful scrutiny ….” Id. (quoting MPAA Mot.).19
17 MGC and SLP filed a Joint Notice of Settlement of Controversy on March 29, 2016. IPG, MGC, and SLP are all represented by the same attorney, Brian D. Boydston, Esq., who has represented IPG in many previous distribution proceedings. 18 This would not be the first time Raul Galaz has used his father as a straw man. In other litigation involving Raul Galaz and his ex-wife, the bankruptcy court ruled against Raul Galaz, in a fraudulent conveyance of copyright royalty rights to his father. See Galaz v. Galaz (In re Galaz), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 229 at *13 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2015) (reproduced at SDC Mot. Ex. 12) (“Alfredo [Galaz] was a mere straw man, while Raul [Galaz] had full knowledge of the fraudulent nature of his actions … to defraud debtor by transferring the royalty rights to … an LLC purportedly owned by Alfredo, an insider—for no consideration”). 19 MGC also argues that there is “no commonality of ownership” between MGC and IPG—a statement that is unsubstantiated and appears to be untrue. See supra note 15.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 9
While MGC argues persuasively that IPG did not transfer its representation to MGC to avoid producing evidence of what it describes as “chain of title,” MGC never states what the purpose of this transaction was. MGC’s “separate legal entity” argument, however, strongly suggests that MGC exists, at least in part, to avoid the evidentiary burden that the Judges have placed on IPG in past proceedings by denying IPG claims a presumption of validity. This strong suggestion, derived from MGC’s own arguments, combined with the nature and circumstances of the transaction described in the previous section, and the absence of an alternative explanation for substituting MGC for IPG, is a strong implication that IPG sought to evade the Judges’ prior rulings on presumptions of claims validity by means of this subterfuge. Accordingly, the Judges find that IPG’s layering of MGC and SLP into the chain-of- representation constitutes fresh and sufficient evidence to cast doubt on IPG’s (and MGC’s and SLP’s) representation, and deny MGC the benefit of a presumption of claims validity. B. Additional Layer of Agency Does Not Effectuate a Presumption of Validity 1. IPG’s Claims Not Entitled to Presumption of Validity IPG filed multiple claims for the claims years covered by these proceedings without the authorization of the claimants. Examples include: • Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) renounced any agency relationship that may have existed with IPG no later than July 30, 2012. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. E, at Ex. B.20 Nevertheless, IPG filed 2012 and 2013 cable and satellite royalty claims in July 2013 and July 2014, respectively.
• Phil Slater Associates terminated its agreement with IPG by letter dated April 11, 2003. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. F, at Bates No. MPAA-012082. Nevertheless, IPG filed cable and satellite royalty claims for each of the royalty years covered by these proceedings.21
• Image Entertainment, Inc., terminated its agreement with IPG by email on April 16, 2014, and repeated its desire to terminate the relationship in emails on April 18, 2014, and May 4, 2014. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. J.22 Nevertheless, IPG filed cable and satellite royalty claims on behalf of Image Entertainment, Inc., and its subsidiary, Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment), in July 2014 for the 2013 royalty year.
• Big Feats Entertainment, L.P. (through its successor, HIT Entertainment), terminated its agreement with IPG as of June 30, 2012, by letter dated January 13,
20 MGC’s arguments concerning FIFA and the Judges’ responses, are discussed infra, section III.A.2.a. 21 In its opposition, MGC concedes that it “has no basis to challenge the veracity of the termination letter” and “withdraws any claim to Phil Slater Associates programming.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 18. MGC’s withdrawal of Phil Slater Associates programming in 2016 does not alter the fact that IPG filed claims to this programming without authorization in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014—many years after the termination—and took no steps to correct the public record. See June 2014 Claims Ruling at 4 (addressing affirmative obligation to correct the claims record); March 2015 Claims Ruling at 9 (same). 22 This claim is discussed in greater detail infra, section III.A.2.b .
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 10
2012. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. K. Nevertheless, in July 2012 and July 2013, IPG filed claims on behalf of Big Feats for 2011 and 2012 cable and satellite royalties.23
• Bob Ross, Inc., entered into one-year agreements with IPG for collection of royalties in 2001, 2002, and 2003. See 12/11/14 Tr. at 215-21, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) and 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II) (Kowalski). Long after those agreements expired, IPG filed cable and satellite royalty claims for Bob Ross for each year covered by these proceedings.24
• Devillier Donegan Enterprises, L.P. (DDE), was dissolved in 2007, and its principal, tasked with winding up the business, terminated any agreement that DDE had with IPG by letter dated August 11, 2011. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. L. IPG nevertheless filed cable and satellite royalty claims on DDE’s behalf for the 2012 royalty year in July 2013—i.e., nearly two years after DDE unequivocally revoked IPG’s authorization.25
• Feed the Children terminated its agreement with IPG by email on July 1, 2014, followed by a letter dated August 29, 2014. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. M, at Exs. 1, 2. The July 1, 2014, letter expressly directed that “IPG refrain from filing any claim on behalf of [Feed the Children] for any retransmission royalties for the 2013 calendar year or for any future years.” Id., Ex. M, at Ex. 1. Nevertheless, IPG filed claims on behalf of Feed the Children in July 2014, for 2013 cable and satellite royalties.26
• Golden Films Finance Corporation dba Golden Films Entertainment (Golden Films) terminated its agreement with IPG by letter dated September 7, 2004. See
23 The Judges have, on multiple occasions, noted that it is not their role to enforce contract rights such as IPG’s asserted “post-Term collection right,” and that participants must seek any remedies for an alleged breach of contract in a court of competent jurisdiction. For purposes of representation of claimants before the CRB—including filing royalty claims with the CRB—the Judges will honor a claimant’s expressed desire not to be represented by putative claims representative. MGC argues that email correspondence from Big Feats demonstrates that Big Feats wished IPG “to continue making claim” for certain programs “consistent with IPG’s post-Term collection right ….” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 29. This assertion is a non-sequitur. The cited emails relate to collection of 2000-2003 royalties; they in no way authorize IPG to continue filing claims in 2012 and future years. See id, Ex. K. The Judges will honor Big Feats’ termination of IPG’s representation. MGC also points out (as does MPAA) that it removed Big Feats from its list of represented claimants. See id. at 29- 30; MPAA Mot. at 13. This does not alter the fact that IPG filed claims to Big Feats programming without authorization in 2012 and 2013 and took no steps to correct the public record. 24 MGC points out that it does not seek royalties for Bob Ross, Inc. in these proceedings. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 31. This does not alter the fact that for years IPG filed claims on Bob Ross, Inc.’s behalf without authorization and never took steps to correct the public record. 25 MGC makes the same two points regarding DDE—i.e., that IPG retains a post-term collection right and that MGC is not seeking royalties for this claimant—as it does regarding Big Feats. Those points are just as unavailing when applied to DDE. See supra note 23. 26 Again, MGC argues that IPG was entitled to file claims on behalf of this claimant pursuant to its “post-Term collection right,” and that, even if the filing was unauthorized, the Judges should overlook it because MGC does not seek royalties for this claimant’s programming. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 35-37. The Judges reject these arguments for the reasons articulated supra, note 23.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 11
Olaniran Decl. Ex. N, at Ex. A. Nevertheless, IPG filed cable and satellite claims for each year covered by these proceedings.27
• Worldwide Pants Incorporated terminated its agreement with IPG by letter dated August 6, 2002. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. Q, at Ex. B. IPG, nevertheless, filed cable and satellite royalty claims on Worldwide Pants’ behalf for each year covered by these proceedings.28 These are the examples of IPG’s unauthorized royalty claims for the 2010-2013 claims years that participants have uncovered and disclosed to the Judges. The Judges have no way of knowing whether there are other examples as yet uncovered. The level of uncertainty regarding the veracity of IPG’s royalty claims cannot be understated. “In short, the Judges cannot rationally consider any of IPG’s claims to be presumptively valid.” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 10. The Judges find and conclude that the presumption of validity cannot apply to IPG’s claims. 2. MGC Not Entitled to Presumption of Validity As the filing participant, MGC asserts that IPG’s lack of entitlement to the “presumption of validity” is irrelevant because it is MGC (in its own right and as successor to SLP)—not IPG—that is representing the claimants and their claims in these proceedings. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 6 (“[MGC’s] claims are entitled a presumption of validity [because] [MGC] is a separate legal entity from [IPG].”). For the reasons stated below, the Judges reject MGC’s argument, and hold that it cannot benefit from the “presumption of validity” with regard to claimants and their claims that were represented by IPG at the time those claims were filed. In other words, the absence of a presumption of validity for IPG claims extends to IPG’s successors in interest. IPG was the contractually-designated agent of claimants, pursuant to a Representation Agreement between IPG and the claimant parties to those agreements. See, e.g., Olaniran Decl. Ex. F (Mandate Agreement between IPG and Phil Slater Associates). In this proceeding, IPG purports to have assigned not the copyrights but rather its agency rights to MGC. In like manner, IPG also assigned its agency rights to SLP, and SLP, in turn, assigned its agency rights to MGC. Indeed, the document by which MGC and IPG claim to have effected the assignment (for all years at issue) states in pertinent part: For good and valuable consideration … IPG hereby engages and authorizes [MGC] to act as its representative in connection with all proceedings relating to U.S. cable and satellite retransmission royalties ….
27 MGC claims that IPG never received the termination letter, and points to “Acknowledgement of Representation” documents that Golden Films executed (and later recanted) in connection with an earlier proceeding. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 37-38. MGC provides no evidence to support the first assertion. As to the “Acknowledgement of Representation” documents, the Judges find credible the sworn statement of Diane Eskinazi, President of Golden Films, that she “executed the Acknowledgements in error based on misrepresentations made by IPG” and revoked the documents on behalf of Golden Films. The Judges find that IPG filed claims for Golden Films without authority. 28 MGC does not address this claimant in its opposition papers.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 12
Olaniran Decl. Ex. B (emphasis added). “[T]he words ‘representative’ and ‘agent’ are synonyms.” See All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 754 F.3d 1047, 1051(D.C. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Thus, IPG assigned to MGC (and SLP) the rights it had, viz., rights as an agent for claimants in these proceedings. The relationship between IPG and MGC is one of assignor and assignee.29 It is black-letter law that when a contracting party (IPG, here) assigns its contract rights, the assignee can only acquire those rights possessed by the assignor. A. Corbin, Assignment of Contract Rights, 74 U. Pa. L. Rev. 207, 229 (1926) (“An assignee never gets a better right than the assignor had.”). In the present proceedings, the Judges have determined that IPG’s claims are not entitled to a presumption of validity. See supra, section II.B.1. While IPG possessed the right to represent its claimants by serving as their agent in these proceedings, that right was subject to any limitations imposed upon IPG by the Judges. Therefore, when IPG assigned its agency rights to MGC (and SLP), IPG could not assign a greater right than it possessed, i.e., it could not assign an agency right that incorporated the presumption of validity.30 C. Conclusion Regarding Presumption of Validity For the foregoing reasons, separately and collectively, the Judges do not extend the presumption of validity to MGC’s and SLP’s representations of claims and claimants in these proceedings. III. Challenges in Program Suppliers Category A. MPAA Challenges to MGC Claims MPAA has set forth nine separate categories of objections to claimants purportedly represented by MGC, as well as additional objections to specific program titles. In its Motion for Disallowance of Claims Made by [MGC] (MPAA Motion), the MPAA organized these nine categories in sections identified as: A, B, C, D, E, F(1), F(2), G(1) and G(2). Many of the challenged MGC claimants fall within more than one of these categories and, in aggregate, the categories cover all of MGC’s claimants. See MPAA Mot. App. A. For ease of organization, the Judges utilize this format in Appendix A to this Ruling to summarize their decisions to allow or disallow the individual MGC claims MPAA has challenged.31 1. Claimants did not Authorize or Consent to MGC Agency MGC was not engaged directly by any of the claimants it represents; rather, each of the MGC claimants (with one exception discussed below) allegedly entered into agreements with
29 To be clear, IPG was not an assignee of copyrights or any constituent right created by copyright law. IPG was the assignor of its agency rights vis-à-vis its purported claimants, The Judges have found that such IPG/Claimant Representation Agreements constitute agency agreements (rather than assignments of copyrights). See June 2014 Claims Ruling at 12. 30 IPG’s contracts with MGC and SLP respectively (and MGC’s contract with SLP), could also be construed as sub- agency agreements, whereby IPG as agent for its claimants has engaged MGC and SLP as sub-agents to perform the task of representing the IPG claimants in this proceeding. As in the assignor/assignee relationship, the sub-agent cannot obtain greater rights than the agent from whom it acquired the sub-agency. See generally W. Seavey, Subagent and Subservants, 68 Harv. L. Rev. 658 (1955). 31 In the event of any discrepancy between Appendix A and the text of this Ruling, the text of this Ruling takes precedence.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 13
IPG which subsequently delegated its authority to either MGC or SLP. See MPAA Mot. at 8-9, 20. SLP, in turn, delegated its authority to MGC. See id. at 7-8, 20. MPAA argues that IPG’s (and SLP’s) purported delegation of authority was ineffective without the claimants’ authorization or consent. See id. at 20-21.32 MPAA challenges all of MGC’s claimants on this basis.33 MGC responds that it had no obligation to obtain consent directly from its claimants, and that it derived the requisite authorization from IPG. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 44-45. MGC avers that, with one exception, none of the representation agreements between IPG and the underlying claimants “restrict IPG’s authority to engage third parties to perform some or all of IPG’s duties ….” Id at 45. Moreover, MGC asserts that the agreements cover worldwide royalty collection, and it has been IPG’s practice to engage third parties to collect royalties outside the United States. See id. at 46. MGC also argues that there is no rule of law that requires MGC or IPG to seek consent for MGC’s representation. See id. at 45. As support, MGC points to a provision of the California Civil Code that, it argues, sets forth the required elements for a transfer of general intangibles. Consent of the obligor is not among them. See id. (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 955.1).34 With one exception, MPAA has not shown that MGC was under any contractual obligation to obtain consent from claimants that had entered into representation agreements with IPG for MGC to act as their representative in these proceedings. MPAA cites a single example of a representation agreement with a non-transferability provision to support its conclusion that MGC must obtain consent from all of IPG’s claimants to assign representational authority to MGC. See MPAA Mot. at 21. Such a sweeping generalization is not warranted by this example. MPAA has also failed to point to any legal rule that would impose that obligation by operation of law. MPAA’s citation to the March 2015 Claims Ruling is not on point. See id. at 20 & n.62. In the cited ruling the Judges stated that a claimant representative must have continuing authority from the right holders it seeks to represent in a proceeding. The Judges did not state that the authority must be obtained directly from the right holder. As MGC correctly points out, it is a common practice for participants in distribution proceedings to contract with collecting societies and other entities that represent groups of claimants, without having a direct contractual relationship with the underlying right holders. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 46. Nothing in the March 2015 Claims Ruling would negate that practice. The Judges find that MPAA’s evidence and arguments do not support a general rule requiring consent from each of IPG’s claimants in order to represent them in these proceedings.
32 The SDC make essentially the same argument. See SDC Mot. at 5-7. 33 MGC characterizes the MPAA’s argument as requiring participants in CRB proceedings to “be in direct privity with the underlying claimants.” See, e.g., MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 58. This characterization is inaccurate. MPAA’s challenge goes to the delegability of obligations under an agency agreement. Even in a case where an underlying claimant’s consent is required in order to substitute a new agent, the claimant’s consent does not necessarily result in privity of contract with the new agent. 34 MPAA argues in reply that the Copyright Act and the CRB regulations—not state contract law—determine this issue. See MPAA Reply to [MGC] Opposition to MPAA Mot. for Disallowance of Claims Made by [MGC] (MPAA Reply) at 18-19. Because MGC did not present any argument or evidence to establish that this section 955.1 (or any provision of California law) would govern the “Authorization and Transfer” agreement, the Judges need not reach the question whether it is subordinated to provisions of the Copyright Act and the CRB Regulations.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 14
This finding is particularly appropriate in light of the Judges’ ruling that the assignees obtained no greater right than the assignor had. MPAA has identified one instance in which IPG is obligated by contract to obtain a claimant’s consent before transferring representation to another party. IPG’s representation agreement with the claimant Azteca International Corporation (AIC) includes a provision rendering its authorization “non-transferable, non-assignable, [and] non-sublicensable.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. G.35 MPAA argues that this specific limitation on assignment renders ineffective IPG’s and SLP’s delegation of authority to MGC to represent AIC. In response, MGC provides two letters seeking AIC’s consent to the transfers. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Exs. N, O. The first, dated January 21, 2015, is from IPG and seeks AIC’s consent to IPG’s assignment of the representation agreement to SLP. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. N. The second, dated October 22, 2016, is from SLP and seeks AIC’s consent to SLP’s assignment to MGC. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. O. Both are countersigned by officers of AIC. Neither, however, was produced to MPAA in discovery. See MPAA Reply Ex. 1 (Plovnick Reply Decl.), at ¶ 6. The discovery period for claims issues commenced on March 14, 2016. Order for Further Proceedings at 4 (March 14, 2016). On April 12, 2016, the Judges suspended the case schedule pending resolution of a dispute concerning the scope of discovery. Order Denying Mot. for Clarification …, at 2 (April 12, 2016). The Judges resolved that dispute in their July 21, 2016, Order Regarding Disc., lifted the suspension of the discovery period, and set August 22, 2016, as the end of the discovery period for claims issues. Order Regarding Disc., at 9 (July 21, 2016). The January 21, 2015 letter was in existence well before the discovery period and was responsive to MPAA’s discovery requests. See Plovnick Reply Decl. Ex. B. MGC should have produced it. Having failed to do so, MGC may not now rely on that letter to support its claim to represent AIC. The Judges will disregard the January 21, 2015 letter. MGC could not have produced the October 22, 2016 letter during the discovery period as it did not yet exist. The earliest that MGC could have produced the letter to MPAA was little more than a week before it filed its opposition (with the letter attached). The Judges do not find the one-week delay between execution of the letter and its being furnished to MPAA to be unreasonable. The Judges will consider the October 22, 2016 letter. In addition, MPAA has provided an amendment to the IPG-AIC agreement that MGC produced in discovery. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. H. The amendment is between AIC and SLP as “successor in interest” to IPG. Id. The amendment recites that “SLP assumed the Agreement and agreed to perform all obligations of [IPG] under the Agreement after January 21, 2015 ….” Id. The Judges infer from this document that AIC consented to the transfer of representation from IPG to SLP. The October 22, 2016 letter states, in relevant part:
35 The parties later amended the agreement by, inter alia, substituting SLP for IPG. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. H. The non-assignment provision in the original agreement was not amended and, according to section 4 of the amendment, remains in full force and effect. Id.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 15
This letter is SLP’s request to obtain AIC’s consent to assignment of the Agreement to Multigroup Claimants …. Please confirm your consent to the foregoing by signing this letter below …. MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. O. The Judges accept the October 22, 2016, letter as evidence of AIC’s consent to SLP’s transfer of the amended agreement to MGC—particularly because SLP and MGC are merely d/b/a’s for the same individual. The Judges reject the MPAA’s argument in section IV.A of the MPAA Motion both as a general proposition and as applied to AIC. The Judges will not dismiss any of MGC’s claimants on the basis of this argument. 2. Claimants that Terminated or Disavowed IPG Representation It is well-established in distribution proceedings that “[w]here a claimant has unambiguously manifested that it no longer wants a particular entity to represent its interest … the Judges will honor that request.” 2000-03 Cable Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 64988.36 The MPAA argues that five of the claimants MGC purports to represent have expressly terminated or disavowed IPG’s (and, derivatively, MGC’s) representation.37 MPAA Mot. at 22-23. MGC interposes various arguments, discussed below, as to why four of the five challenges to MGC’s representation should fail. a. FIFA In previous proceedings the Judges have found that FIFA renounced IPG as its agent no later than July 30. 2012, when FIFA’s outside counsel stated in an email to IPG that FIFA “does not authorize [Raul Galaz or IPG] to represent it before the Copyright Royalty Board.” Order on JSC Mot. for Summ. Adjudication at 4, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) & 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II) (August 29, 2014) (citation omitted); see also Mem. Op. and Ruling on Validity and Categorization of Claims at 30, Docket Nos. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004- 09 (Phase II) & 2012-7 CRB SD 1999-2009 (Phase II) (March 13, 2015) (March 2015 Claims Ruling); Mem. Op. and Order following Preliminary Hearing on Validity of Claims at 12, Docket No. 2008-2 CRB CD 2000-2003 (Phase II) (March 21, 2013) (March 2013 Claims Ruling). IPG is currently engaged in litigation against FIFA in which IPG argues that IPG and FIFA entered into a binding contractual arrangement under which a termination by either party is effective “only after written notice … and the conclusion of the next ‘first full calendar semi- annual period,’” and IPG retains a “perpetual post-term collection right (and obligation).” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 15. MGC argues that, should IPG prevail in its lawsuit, MGC’s claims for FIFA programming would be “deemed resurrected.” Id. at 17.
36 To be sure, a claimant’s termination of representation may well have implications for its contractual obligations under a representation agreement. “To the extent that the claimant’s action may affect the rights and obligations under an agreement between the claimant and the entity that purports to represent it, those issues must be resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Id. (citation omitted). 37 These claimants are Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Aviva International LLC, Image Entertainment, Inc., Phil Slater Associates, and West 175 Enterprises, Inc. MGC has withdrawn its claim to represent Phil Slater Associates. MGC Opp’n to MPAA, 18, 51.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 16
MGC is incorrect. Assuming, arguendo, that IPG were to prevail in its lawsuit, IPG would be entitled to whatever remedy the court deems appropriate. That result would have no bearing, however, on MGC’s right (or lack thereof) to represent FIFA before the Judges. As the Judges have made clear repeatedly, they will not force a claimant to accept the representation of a party in CRB proceedings against the claimant’s will. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim in the Program Suppliers category for FIFA programming. b. Aviva International LLC and Image Entertainment, Inc. The MPAA asserts that Aviva International LLC (Aviva) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Image Entertainment, Inc. (Image), and that Image terminated its relationship with IPG no later than April 16, 2014. MPAA Mot. at 12-13. MPAA offers as evidence of the first assertion a declaration signed by Dennis Hohn Cho and attached to IPG’s representation agreement with Image, which states “One of Image’s wholly-owned subsidiaries during all relevant periods has been Aviva International (‘Aviva’), in whose name this claim is made.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. I, at Bates No. IPG 3233. As evidence of Image’s termination of IPG, MPAA offers a string of email correspondence between Denise Vernon of IPG and Jess De Leo, Vice President, Legal and Business Affairs, of RLJ Entertainment.38 In three separate emails Mr. De Leo stated that Image wanted to terminate IPG’s services. See id. at Ex. J, at Bates Nos. IPG 5275 (“We would like to terminate your services.”), 5273 (“we still intend to terminate”), 5269 (“We still intend to terminate services going forward.”). MGC asserts that Aviva and Image are separate entities and that IPG had “separate contractual arrangements” with each. Id. at 26. MGC argues it never received a notice of termination from the subsidiary entity (Aviva), and that termination by the parent entity (Image) does not suggest termination by the subsidiary—particularly when the notice of termination did not mention the subsidiary. See id. MGC seeks to bolster its argument by pointing out that CRB practice requires parent and subsidiary companies to file separate royalty claims. See id. As to Image, MGC does not dispute that Image terminated IPG’s representation, but relies on what it describes as IPG’s “perpetual post-term collection rights” under its representation agreement with Image to support MGC’s continued representation. Id. at 28. MGC asserts that Image has acquiesced in this post-term collection right by executing an “Acknowledgement of Representation” form on May 4, 2014, approximately three weeks after its notice of termination. See id. at 27, Ex. I. There is nothing in the record to support MGC’s statement that it has “separate contractual arrangements” with Aviva and Image. Both MPAA and MGC provided a copy of the representation agreement between IPG and Image, but there is no separate agreement between IPG and Aviva in the record. See id. at Ex. H; Olaniran Decl. Ex. I. Moreover, the evidence in
38 The relationship between RLJ Entertainment and Image is unclear; however, Ms. Vernon describes Mr. De Leo as “the identified representative (or alternative representative) of Image Entertainment, Inc.” in her April 16, 2014 email. Olaniran Decl. Ex. J at Bates No. IPG 5275. In addition, MGC offers an “Acknowledgement of Representation” signed by Mr. De Leo on behalf of Image in connection with the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding. In short, MGC does not dispute Mr. De Leo’s authority to act on behalf of Image.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 17
the record tends to support an inference that IPG derives its authority to represent Aviva through its (now terminated) agreement with Image. For example, the Cho declaration referred to above states “One of Image’s wholly-owned subsidiaries … has been [Aviva], in whose name this claim is made.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. I, at Bates No. IPG 3233 (emphasis added). MGC’s representation agreement with Image requires that notices to “Principal” be sent both to Image and Aviva. Id. at Ex. I, at Bates No. IPG 3231 (¶ 10). And MGC’s Exhibit AA, a document IPG prepared for the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding, identifies the IPG-Image representation agreement by bates number as the source of IPG’s authority to represent “Aviva International (via Image Entertainment)” in CRB proceedings. MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. AA, at 1. The Judges find that MGC’s authority, if any, to pursue claims of Aviva derives from the IPG representation agreement with Image. Termination of the agreement with Image thus terminates MGC’s authority to represent Aviva. Regarding MGC’s reliance on IPG’s post-termination collection right, the Judges reiterate that they will not force a claimant to accept the representation of a party in CRB proceedings against the claimant’s will. If the evidence shows that Image wanted no further part of IPG’s efforts in its behalf, MGC may not represent Image (or Aviva) in these proceedings, and must look to the courts for any remedies to which IPG may be entitled under the representation agreement. Image acknowledged IPG’s representation on May 4, 2014, in connection with the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding. The email transmitting the acknowledgement to IPG reads in full: Here you go. We still intend to terminate services going forward. Please make a note of that in your records. Thank you. Olaniran Decl. Ex. J, at Bates No. IPG 5269. Image’s acknowledgement was limited to the consolidated proceeding. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. I. The email makes clear that, “going forward”—i.e., in future proceedings—Image wishes to have nothing further to do with IPG. The Judges will respect those wishes. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of Image and, through Image, Aviva. c. West 175 Enterprises, Inc. MPAA argues that MGC’s claimant West 175 Enterprises, Inc. (West 175-E) no longer exists, and that a separate (MPAA-represented) entity, West 175 Media LLC d/b/a West 175 Productions (West 175-P), owns the copyrights to the program titles that MGC attributes to West 175-E. MPAA Mot. at 11-12. As evidence, MPAA presents a declaration of Jamie Hammond, President of West 175-P stating that West 175-E was dissolved in 2001, and West 175-P acquired the copyright in seven specified program titles39 that MGC attributes to West 175-E. See Decl. of Jamie Hammond ¶ 5, 2 (September 8, 2016). Ms. Hammond makes clear that West 175-P is not represented by IPG or MGC:
39 These programs are Best of Kerr, Chefs of Cucina Amore, Cucina Amore, Cucina Amore Pledge Marathon, Great Food, MasterchefUSA, and World of Wildlife.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 18
[West 175-P] has never authorized IPG or [MGC] to represent its interests in royalty distribution proceedings before the Judges. [West 175-P] has not (and does not) authorize either IPG or [MGC] to collect royalties for any television programs owned or controlled by West 175 Productions, including [the seven specified program titles]. Id. at ¶ 6. MGC argues that IPG never received a notice of termination from West 175-E, and that Ms. Hammond has no basis for her statement concerning West 175-E’s dissolution, or authority to represent West 175-E. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 18-19; id., Ex. B ¶ 34 (Galaz Decl.). MGC’s counsel alleges that IPG attempted to contact a representative of West 175-E but was unsuccessful. Id. at 19. In addition, MGC offers screenshots of search results from Copyright Office online records for West 175-E and West 175-P, respectively. Id. at Ex. II. The searches found three entries for West 175-E (two copyright registrations from 1995 and 1996, and a recorded document from 1994) and no entries for West 175-P. Id. The Judges agree with MGC that there is no record evidence establishing a basis for Ms. Hammond to make assertions concerning the legal status of West 175-E. The Judges cannot conclude, therefore, that West 175-E has been dissolved. Moreover, by its terms the IPG-West 175-E agreement remains in force until terminated. See id., Ex. F ¶ 2. In the absence of any evidence that West 175-E terminated its representation agreement with IPG, the Judges find that MGC represents West 175-E in these proceedings. As President of West 175-P, however, Ms. Hammond is in a position to attest to West 175-P’s acquisition of the seven program titles listed in paragraph 2 of the Hammond Declaration. The Judges accept this evidence. By contrast, the Judges find MGC’s Copyright Office search results inconclusive and unpersuasive. The records that MGC retrieved are all from the 1990s; they are not inconsistent in any way with Ms. Hammond’s assertion that West 175-P acquired the specified program titles subsequent to its formation in April 2003. In addition, the copyright registrations that MGC found each bear a “TX” prefix, indicating that the predominant authorship in the work is textual (as distinguished from audiovisual). Without further evidence the Judges cannot conclude that these registrations are for television programs, much less the specific programs for which MGC seeks royalties. The Judges will not dismiss West 175-E as an MGC-represented claimant; however, the Judges find that West 175-P is entitled to claim royalties for the seven program titles listed in the Hammond Declaration. 3. Claimants that Substituted a Representative for IPG MPAA identifies five claimants that, subsequent to entering into a representation agreement with IPG, allegedly switched their allegiance to MPAA or one of the claimants it represents.40 MPAA relies on a prior decision of the Judges in which the Judges found that when there are “overlapping claims where there has been no instruction from the claimant concerning
40 The five claimants are Cinemavault Releasing, Inc., Knight Enterprises, Productions Pixcom, Questar, and AIC.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 19
representation, the Judges will take the later-in-time agreement between a claimant (or its representative) and a party as the most persuasive evidence concerning representation.” 2000-03 Cable Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 64989. One counterargument that MGC interposes with respect to each of MPAA’s challenges is that MPAA did not produce the documents underlying its challenge to MGC by an April 6, 2016 deadline. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 57 (Cinemavault), 60 (Knight Enterprises and Productions Pixcom), 62 (Questar), 64 (AIC/TV Azteca). This argument has no merit. First, the Judges never set an April 6, 2016, discovery deadline for claims-related discovery in these proceedings. The Judges’ original deadline was April 15, 2016, but the Judges suspended the case schedule on April 13, 2016. The Judges subsequently issued a revised case schedule on July 21, 2016, that set an August 22, 2016 deadline for claims-related discovery. To the extent that the parties may have set an interim deadline that differs from that set by the Judges (e.g., April 6, 2016), the Judges will not enforce that deadline. See Order Granting in part and Denying in part Services’ Mot. to Set Specific Disc. Deadlines …, at 2, Docket No. 16-CRB-001 SR/PSSR (2018-2022) (“Although the parties certainly could voluntarily agree to a [discovery] schedule with interim dates, such a voluntary schedule would not be binding under any order issued by the Judges.”) (August 23, 2016).41 MGC states that it received a number of the disputed documents on July 29, 2016, and does not allege that it received any of them after the August 22, 2016 discovery deadline. The Judges find that the documents were timely produced and will consider them. Another counterargument that affects each of the five claimants is based on MGC’s assertion that none of them notified IPG of an intent to terminate its agreement. See, e.g., MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 56. MGC would have the Judges infer MGC’s continued representation from the absence of a termination notice. The existence of a claimant’s termination notice is evidence of a claimant’s intent to terminate the representation agreement; the absence of a termination notice, however, is evidence neither of a claimant’s intent to terminate representation nor its intent to continue that representation. The Judges look to other evidence, such as a new agreement with a new representative, to infer whether or not the claimant intended to continue its arrangement with IPG.42 MGC interposes various additional arguments, specific to each of the five claimants, why the Judges should deny MPAA’s objections. The Judges discuss each of these specific arguments.
41 The parties, of course, could have requested that the Judges include the interim deadlines in a stipulated order, which would have been binding. They did not do so. 42 In addition, MGC notes several times that MPAA did not reach out to an individual claimant to seek confirmation of MPAA’s representation, implying that MPAA had a duty to do so. See, e.g., MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 57-58. MPAA has no such duty. For the four claimants to which this criticism applies, MPAA’s contractual relationship is with an intermediary, and not the underlying claimant. As the Judges have ruled in prior proceedings, for claims that are subject to a presumption of validity, a participant’s representation agreement—whether with a claimant directly, or with a representative of the claimant—is sufficient evidence of the participant’s representation. 2000-03 Cable Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 64988. MPAA’s proffer of conflicting agreements, combined with the presumption of validity that applies to MPAA’s claims, is sufficient to cast doubt on MGC’s representation of the claimants affected by those agreements. The burden falls on MGC to demonstrate that its claim to represent those claimants is superior.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 20
a. Cinemavault Releasing According to MGC, Cinemavault Releasing (Cinemavault) entered into a representation agreement with IPG dated July 24, 2002. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 55.43 On May 14, 2012, Cinemavault entered into an agreement with Compact Collections Ltd. (Compact), an entity represented by MPAA in these proceedings. See Decl. of Jane Saunders (Saunders Decl.) Ex. B, at Ex. A (Agreement between Cinemavault and Compact); id. at Ex. C (Agreement between MPAA and Compact). MPAA argues that the later-in-time agreement between Cinemavault and Compact supersedes the agreement between Cinemavault and IPG. MGC argues that the territorial scope of the Cinemavault-Compact agreement doesn’t clearly cover collection of U.S. retransmission royalties, based on the contractual definition of “Territory,” Cinemavault’s retained right to assign rights in its works, and the fact that the agreement does not identify the specific titles that Compact is to represent. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 55. The Judges reject MGC’s argument. The Cinemavault-Compact agreement defines “Territory” to include “the World subject to territorial restrictions imposed on CINEMAVAULT in respect of an individual Film as notified in writing to Compact.” Saunders Decl. Ex. B, at Ex. A, Bates No. MPAA-011533. There is no record evidence that Cinemavault identified any individual film as being subject to a territorial restriction. MGC’s suggestion that the “territorial restrictions” referred to in the Cinemavault-Compact Agreement are intended to cover “pre-existing restrictions such as those dictated by the IPG/Cinemavault agreement” is merely conjecture, unsupported by evidence. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 55. Cinemavault’s retained right to assign or license its works, in itself, is irrelevant, as is the absence of a list of titles to which Compact is to make claim under the agreement. MGC also proffers a partial email exchange between IPG and Cinemavault as evidence that Cinemavault believed IPG continued to represent it as of April 4, 2012. See id. at Ex. Q. Cinemavault entered into its agreement with Compact on May 4, 2012. Even assuming, arguendo, that the April 4, 2012 email is evidence of continuing representation as of that date, the later agreement with Compact supersedes the earlier agreement with IPG. MGC objects to MPAA’s proffer of the letter from Compact because it is not in the form of a declaration and is not signed under penalty of perjury. The Judges do not rely on any factual assertions made in the letter. The Judges do, however, rely on the attached agreements which are business records of a kind that are kept in the ordinary course of business. Finally, MGC points out that a May 14, 2012 termination letter from Cinemavault to IFTA was not produced “in these or any prior proceedings, despite being expressly requested.” Id. at 57. The termination letter was an attachment to the Compact letter that MPAA produced to MGC on July 29, 2016, prior to the August 22, 2016 discovery deadline. See id. Whether or not it was produced in prior proceedings is irrelevant. The Judges find that MPAA, and not MGC, is entitled to represent Cinemavault in these proceedings.
43 The Cinemavault-IPG agreement is not in the record.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 21
b. Knight Enterprises Knight Enterprises (Knight) executed a representation agreement with IPG on November 15, 2001, authorizing IPG to represent Knight in collection of 2000 cable and satellite royalties. Olaniran Decl. Ex. T. Knight entered into a representation agreement with Compact on July 5, 2007, and renewed the agreement on November 11, 2010. Saunders Decl. Ex. A, at Ex. A. The renewal agreement ran to December 31, 2014. Id. at Bates No. MPAA-011525. Knight executed Acknowledgements confirming IPG’s representation in U.S. cable and satellite proceedings on May 22, 2014 (for 2000-2009) and May 30, 2016 (for 2010-2013). MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. R. MPAA argues that it represents Knight through its agreement with Compact44 by virtue of Compact’s agreement with Knight. MPAA argues that the Knight-Compact agreement is later-in-time than the Knight-IPG agreement, which, in any event, only covered 2001 royalties. MPAA Mot. at 24. MGC argues that the Acknowledgments of Representation that Knight executed in 2014 and 2016 constitute a “post-facto acknowledgement of the prior existing agreement between the parties” that the Judges have accepted in prior proceedings as evidence of an agreement where a contemporaneous written agreement cannot be located. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 59 (citing 2000-2003 Final Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 64988; March 2013 Claims Ruling at 12).45 In addition, MGC argues that, since MGC’s documentation is later in time than the Knight- Compact agreement, MGC’s documentation supersedes that of MPAA. The documents in the record indicate that Knight’s agreement with Compact expired on December 31, 2014.46 Knight’s Acknowledgement of Representation, evidencing Knight’s apparent belief that it is represented by IPG for the years 2010-2013, was executed in May 2016, nearly eighteen months after the expiration of the Knight-Compact agreement. On this basis, the Judges find that MGC, and not MPAA, is entitled to represent Knight in these proceedings.47 c. Productions Pixcom, Inc. Productions Pixcom, Inc. (Pixcom) entered into a representation agreement with IPG on November 9, 2001, covering collections of royalties for U.S. cable and satellite retransmissions in calendar year 2000.48 See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. T. Pixcom and IPG signed an
44 See Saunders Decl. Ex. B, at Ex. C (MPAA-Compact representation agreements). 45 MGC also states that MPAA made “the identical argument” in the consolidated distribution case, and the Judges rejected it. This is incorrect. In the earlier case MPAA argued that the Judges should reject IPG’s representation of Knight because Knight failed to return an executed Acknowledgement of Representation. The Judges rejected that argument. 46 Compact, in its April 21, 2016 letter to MPAA, states that its agreement with Knight “applies to the 2010-13 royalty years.” Saunders Decl. Ex. A, at Bates No. MPAA-011519. The letter (like the letter regarding Cinemavault) was not executed under penalty of perjury and constitutes a legal conclusion by a lay witness. The Judges give no consideration to that assertion. 47 The Judges express no view on MGC’s additional argument that the territorial scope of the Knight-Compact agreement is limited by the Knight-IPG agreement. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 59. 48 MPAA alleges that MGC did not produce its representation agreement and extension letter with Pixcom in discovery and urges the Judges to give no consideration to these documents. See MPAA Reply at 25. The Judges need not reach this issue in light of their ruling below.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 22
extension covering calendar year 2001 and subsequent retransmissions on May 13, 2002. Pixcom also executed an Acknowledgement of Representation covering the 1999 and 2001-2009 royalty years in connection with the consolidated distribution proceeding relating to those years. See id. Pixcom and MPAA entered into a representation agreement on April 20, 2016. Saunders Decl. Ex. D. MPAA argues that the later-in-time Pixcom-MPAA agreement supersedes the Pixcom-IPG agreement. MPAA Mot. at 25. MGC notes that the Pixcom-MPAA agreement was executed after the commencement of these proceedings and “after the production dates for both initial and follow-up discovery.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 60.49 MGC also states that “not one piece of correspondence associated with this post-facto engagement was produced …, including any submitted list of titles being claimed for [Pixcom],” and points out that no Pixcom programming appears on MPAA’s list of claimed programs. Id. at 60-61. MGC concludes from these observations that “it is wholly unclear whether [Pixcom] realized that it already had engaged IPG in these proceedings, or whether the MPAA (which was aware of IPG's engagement from produced documents) informed Pixcom] of such fact.” Id. at 61. Pixcom entered into a representation agreement with MPAA. That agreement came many years after Pixcom’s representation agreement with IPG. Pixcom’s agreement with MPAA supersedes its agreement with IPG. The Judges will not accept MGC’s invitation to speculate as to Pixcom’s state of mind. The written agreement with MPAA is sufficient to determine which entity is entitled to represent Pixcom. MPAA, and not MGC, represents Pixcom in these proceedings.50 d. Questar, Inc. Questar Video aka Questar, Inc. (Questar) entered into a representation agreement with IPG dated as of July 21, 2001. Olaniran Decl. Ex. W. On April 28, 2014, Questar executed an Acknowledgement of Representation, affirming IPG’s representation in connection with the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceedings. Questar also entered into representation agreement with Audio-Visual Copyright Society (AVCS) on December 13, 2012;51 and registered its works with AVCS on December 14, 2012, and January 9, 2013. Saunders Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. E. MPAA represents AVCS in these proceedings,52 and argues that it represents Questar by virtue of the later-in-time agreements between Questar and AVCS. MGC urges the Judges to reject MPAA’s proffer of the Questar-AVCS agreements due to insufficient foundation. The agreements are exhibits to a declaration by Jane V. Saunders, Senior Vice President, Rights Management Policy and Relations for MPAA. MGC states that Ms. Saunders “provides zero information about how she has any personal knowledge regarding
49 The Judges’ rejection of MGC’s arguments based on interim discovery deadlines is discussed supra, p. 15. 50 The Judges note if, as MGC asserts, MPAA has not asserted any claim for Pixcom programming then, as of the date of this ruling, Pixcom might be unrepresented in these proceedings, putting at risk any claims it might rightfully assert. See 37 C.F.R. part 360, subpart C. 51 According to section 1.3 of the agreement, it became effective on January 10, 2013, the date it was countersigned by a representative of AVCS. See Saunders Decl. Ex. E, at Bates Nos. MPAA-11568—MPAA-11569. 52 See Saunders Decl. Ex. F.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 23
agreements between [Questar] and AVCS.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 61 (citing Saunders Decl. ¶¶ 13-14.). This is incorrect. In paragraph 4 of Ms. Saunders’ declaration she states The copies of documents attached as exhibits hereto are true and correct copies of business records maintained by MPAA. The records were made at or near the time that MPAA received the documents from third parties, and are kept in the course of MPAA’s [Rights Management Policy and Relations (RMPR)] department’s regularly conducted activity of collective and statutory copyright management both domestically and worldwide on behalf of MPAA’s members and, in some cases, other producers and distributors of compensable works. Maintaining such records is a part of MPAA’s RMPR department’s regularly conducted activity. Saunders Decl. ¶ 4. Ms. Saunders’ declaration provides sufficient foundation for the Judges to consider the Questar-AVCS agreements in this “on-the-papers” portion of these proceedings. Alternatively, MGC argues that the Acknowledgement of Representation provided by Questar in the consolidated distribution proceeding post-dates and therefore supersedes the AVCS agreements. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 62. The Acknowledgement of Representation, by its terms only applies to IPG’s representation in connection with royalty years 2000-2009—i.e., before the period covered by these proceedings. See id. at Ex. T. The AVCS agreement, by contrast, applies to AVCS’s collection activities from and after January 10, 2013. See Saunders Decl. Ex. E, at Bates No. MPAA-011569 (sec. 1.3). The Judges find that the AVCS agreement is the most recent expression of Questar’s intention concerning its representation in these proceedings. Finally, MGC asserts that “it is by no means evident that the AVCS agreement was intended to apply to the U.S. distribution proceedings.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 62. The Judges disagree. The documents that Questar executed to register its programming with AVCS include check boxes to designate which royalties Questar was claiming through AVCS. On both documents, under the heading “Outside Australia and New Zealand” Questar checked the box next to “I claim all the royalties listed below.” Saunders Decl. Ex. E, at Bates No. MPAA- 011573, MPAA-011575. The list includes “International Retransmission Royalties,” a term clearly applicable to U.S. retransmission royalties. The next section of that form affords the claimant an opportunity to list any territorial exclusions to its claim. The form clearly states “Your program registration automatically covers all countries (subject to the royalty types you have selected [in the previous section]) and all language versions of your program. You can exclude specific countries or language versions by specifying below.” Id. Questar left the provided space for exclusions blank on both documents. See id. The Judges find that, by its terms, the Questar-AVCS agreement covers collection of U.S. retransmission royalties. MPAA, and not MGC, is entitled to represent Questar in these proceedings. e. AIC/TV Azteca TV Azteca entered into a representation agreement with Fintage Publishing and Collection B.V. (Fintage) dated March 1, 2004. See Saunders Decl. Ex. H, at Ex. 6. TV Azteca terminated the agreement with Fintage effective March 1, 2013. See id., Ex. G, at Ex. B. TV Azteca also entered into a representation agreement with Entidad de Gestion de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) dated February 22, 2011, that EGEDA claims is still in
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 24
force. See id., Ex G. EGEDA also entered into an agreement with Fintage, dated July 1, 2008, under which EGEDA engaged Fintage to collect U.S. television retransmission royalties on its behalf. See Saunders Decl. Ex. H. That agreement appears to remain in force.53 MPAA represents both Fintage and EGEDA in these proceedings. See Saunders Decl. at ¶ 22, Exs. J, I. MPAA claims royalties for TV Azteca programming on the basis of Fintage’s former and EGEDA’s current representation of TV Azteca, and Fintage’s representation of EGEDA. AIC entered into a representation agreement with IPG as of January 21, 2015. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. G. As of June 9, 2016, AIC and SLP (as “successor in interest” to IPG) entered into an amendment to the agreement. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. H. As discussed supra, section III.A.1, the Judges have concluded that the IPG agreement with Azteca, as amended, was assigned to MGC. In the agreement, AIC states that it “holds the rights to use and exploit TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V.’s programming in the U.S. … and it is a subsidiary of TV Azteca.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. G, at ¶ 1. AIC also represents and warrants that it “retains the exclusive authority to the Distribution Proceeds, and has not previously conveyed the right to collect the Distribution Proceeds to any third party.” Id. ¶ 8. MGC claims royalties for TV Azteca programming on the basis of this agreement with AIC. MGC contends that, under the Judges rulings in prior proceedings, MGC’s claims take precedence over MPAA’s because IPG/SLP/MGC’s agreement with AIC is later in time. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 23. MPAA and MGC represent different entities in these proceedings.54 MPAA represents TV Azteca (the parent company) derivatively through Fintage and/or EGEDA. MGC represents AIC, TV Azteca’s U.S. subsidiary. The conflict arises because they each claim to represent the same catalog of TV Azteca programming. The central issue, then, is which entity—TV Azteca or AIC—has the right to determine which agent may collect U.S. royalties for TV Azteca programming. The evidence on this point is slim.55 In its agreement with MGC, AIC represents that it possesses the requisite rights. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. G, at ¶¶ 1, 8. TV Azteca represents that it “has the exclusive right for the Programs to enter into [its (now superseded) agreement with Fintage] and to grant and assign the Rights herein free and clear from any encumbrance or counterclaim, so that Fintage has, subject to this assignment, thereby acquired all rights necessary to register and collect on audio-visual work ….” See Saunders Decl. Ex. H, at Ex. 6 ¶ 4.1. The Fintage-Azteca agreement covers the entire world, other than Mexico, and any “film, program or audio-visual work” that TV Azteca owns or controls. See id. ¶ 1 (definitions of “Territory” and “Programs”). The agreement between EGEDA and TV Azteca may or may not contain similar provisions. Because the agreement is in Spanish, and MPAA did not submit a
53 The term of the agreement is five years, but renews automatically unless EGEDA terminates it. See Saunders Decl. Ex. H, at Ex. 7 (second agreement) ¶ 1.6. Fintage took the position that it still represented EGEDA as of November 21, 2014. See id., Ex. H. 54 This is not a situation where a single entity has renounced one participant’s representation in favor of another’s. Consequently the so-called “last-in-time” rule does not apply. 55 As discussed above, MPAA was under no obligation to obtain a declaration from TV Azteca. The record might have been a great deal clearer, however, had it done so (or asked EGEDA to do so).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 25
translation in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 350.4(c), the Judges cannot consider it (beyond acknowledging its existence). Based on this admittedly scanty record, the Judges find that AIC possessed the right to collect U.S. retransmission royalties for the TV Azteca programming when it entered into a representation agreement with IPG. The Judges reject this basis for MPAA’s challenge to MGC’s representation of TV Azteca’s programming. 4. Claimants the Judges Dismissed in Prior Proceedings The Judges have stated previously that in the absence of any new evidence or other appropriate basis to contradict the Judges’ findings and conclusions contained in prior orders dismissing claimants, the findings and conclusions set forth in those prior orders are applicable and binding with respect to the same claimants in the present proceedings. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 29. MPAA seeks dismissal of seven MGC claimants on this basis.56 MPAA Mot. at 27. MGC contends that as to certain of these claimants it has presented new evidence to support its representational authority. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 66. As to other claimants, MGC argues that the Judges should not follow their prior rulings because the Judges overlooked evidence supporting IPG’s position. The Judges will follow the rule articulated in the March 2015 Claims Ruling. Unless MGC presents new evidence or any “other appropriate basis” to contradict the Judges prior rulings dismissing the challenged claimants, the Judges will dismiss those claimants from these proceedings. a. Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.), Nelson Davis Productions, and Venevision International
The Judges dismissed IPG’s claim on behalf of Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.) (Firing Line), Nelson Davis Productions (Nelson Davis) and Venevision International (Venevision) in the March 2015 Claims Ruling because IPG provided insufficient evidence that each of them owned the program titles for which IPG was seeking royalties. IPG in that proceeding, like MGC in the present proceedings, did not benefit from a presumption of validity. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 9-10; supra, section II.C. Consequently, the Judges allocated the burden of production to IPG to demonstrate ownership of claimed program titles. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 35. MGC shall bear the same burden in these proceedings. For Firing Line, MGC provides a February 28, 2012 email from James X. Kilbridge confirming that certain titles were controlled by Firing Line. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. U. Mr. Kilbridge provided the email in response to a request from IPG to confirm ownership of those titles in connection with the 2000-2003 cable distribution proceeding. Id. The Kilbridge email is new evidence. The Judges, however, do not find it adequate evidence of Firing Line’s contemporaneous ownership of program titles justifying collection of
56 The claimants MPAA seeks to dismiss are Big Events Company, FIFA, Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.), King Motion Picture Corporation, Nelson Davis Productions, TEAM Communications, and Venevision International. MGC has withdrawn its claim for Big Events Company. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 66.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 26
2010-2013 royalties. The Kilbridge letter is more than five years old and relates to royalty years a decade before those at issue in the present proceedings. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of Firing Line. For Nelson Davis, MGC seeks to introduce a February 16, 2016 email confirming ownership of certain program titles. MGC failed to produce this document in discovery, however, and the Judges will not consider it. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of Nelson Davis. As to Venevision, MGC offers Venevision’s 2001 cable claim which lists the claimed program “Los Buenos Dias de HTV” as an example. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. W. Venevision’s cable claim is new evidence.57 However, the Judges find it insufficient evidence of Venevision’s current ownership of “Los Buenos Dias de HTV” in connection with collection of 2010-2013 royalties. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of Venevision. b. FIFA The Judges have dismissed IPG’s claims on behalf of FIFA in two prior proceedings as a result of FIFA’s unequivocal disavowal of IPG’s representation. See March 2013 Claims Ruling at 11-12; March 2015 Claims Ruling at 30. IPG offers no new evidence, but “maintains its claim to FIFA programming pending a determination by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a decision that will likely address whether IPG has a continuing entitlement to make claim to FIFA programming in these proceedings.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 69. As articulated supra, section III.A.2.a, the Judges find that the outcome of the IPG-FIFA litigation has no bearing on MGC’s entitlement to represent FIFA in these proceedings. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims for FIFA programming. c. King Motion Picture Corporation The Judges dismissed IPG’s claims on behalf of King Motion Picture Corporation (King) in past proceedings because the only evidence of representation that IPG provided was an extension letter lacking in essential terms. See March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 18 (“Extension agreements alone, without the underlying agreement, cannot establish the validity of the original representation”); March 2013 Claims Ruling Ex. B, at 4 (“Extension agreement lacks essential terms.”). MGC now offers the original representation agreement, along with the letter of extension, to document MGC’s authority to represent King. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. X. MGC states that the agreement “in the course of responding to the MPAA motion was discovered has now been located ….” Id. at 70. Although MGC produced the letter of extension in discovery, it did not produce the original representation agreement. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6. The agreement was executed in 2001; it has been in existence for more than a decade and a half. MGC provides no information about how or when the document was found. In short, MGC offers no basis to excuse its failure to produce the document in discovery. The Judges will not consider it.
57 MGC claims that IPG introduced this document in the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding and the Judges overlooked it in dismissing IPG’s Venevision claim. Since MGC relies on Exhibit W, as “new evidence,” rather than resting its argument on the Judges’ alleged error in a prior case, the Judges will not delve into MGC’s claim of judicial error.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 27
In the absence of any new evidence, the Judges’ prior rulings concerning King must stand. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of King. d. Team Communications The Judges dismissed IPG’s claim for Team Communications (Team) in the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding due to insufficient evidence of authority to seek retransmission royalties for Team in the U.S. See March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 31. MPAA argues that MGC offers no new evidence and seeks dismissal of MGC’s claims on behalf of Team in these proceedings on the same basis. MGC confirms that it offers no new evidence. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 71. Instead, MGC argues that the Judges’ prior decision was wrong. See id. Specifically, MGC contends that the Judges overlooked evidence that IPG submitted in the preliminary hearing: Noticeably absent from the Judges’ ruling is any reference to documents obtained from the U.S. Copyright Office demonstrating [Team’s] grant of a lien on its programming, which IPG also submitted for consideration. Copyright registrations to works constitutes [sic] prima facie evidence of ownership, and nothing submitted by the MPAA contradicted such fact. Id. at 72 (citation and footnote omitted). The document that MGC submits is a “Mortgage of Copyright and Security Agreement,” dated February 13, 2001, and recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office on May 21, 2001. See id., Ex. Z. The document includes an attachment listing numerous works. See id., Ex. Z, at Bates Nos. IPG 4130 – IPG 4135. It is not a copyright registration. A recorded document and a copyright registration are two different things. See, e.g., Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 2303 (3d ed. 2014) (“recording a document is not a substitute for registering a copyright claim, and registering a copyright claim is not a substitute for recording a document”). Unlike a copyright registration, a recorded document does not constitute prima facie evidence of ownership. Compare 17 U.S.C. § 205 (concerning recordation of transfers and other documents) with 17 U.S.C. §§ 410(c) (copyright registration as prima facie evidence). Document recordation is permissive, not mandatory. See 17 U.S.C. § 205(a). Subsequent transfers of a recorded copyright interest, therefore, will not necessarily appear in the records of the Copyright Office. The Judges find that Exhibit Z is some evidence of Team’s ownership in 2001 of the works listed at Bates Nos. IPG 4130 – IPG 4135. It tells the Judges nothing about what Team owned in 2010-13 or what it owns today. Given the considerable amount of time that has passed since the document was prepared and recorded, the Judges find it of so little weight as to be essentially valueless in supporting MGC’s claim of authority to seek retransmission royalties in the U.S. for Team. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim on behalf of Team.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 28
5. Claimants for which MGC has Produced Insufficient Documentation MPAA alleges that MGC has produced insufficient documents to support its claimed authority to represent 18 claimants in these proceeding and asks the Judges to dismiss those claimants on this basis.58 MPAA Mot. at 30. MGC has withdrawn its claims for two of these claimants (Big Events Company and Phil Slater Associates). See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 66, 18. As to seven of the challenged claimants, MGC contends that the Judges rejected MPAA’s challenges in prior cases and MPAA has offered no new evidence in support of its position. MGC argues that in the absence of new evidence the Judges must reject MPAA’s current challenges. See id. at 74. MGC misstates the allocation of burdens at this stage of the proceedings. Because MGC does not receive the benefit of a presumption of validity for its claims,59 it bears the burden of demonstrating that it had contemporaneously and currently has authority to represent each of its claimants—regardless of how the Judges may have ruled on IPG’s representational authority at other points in time. In other words, the Judges will not presume that circumstances have not changed in the interim because MGC is not entitled to that presumption. With that in mind, the Judges will consider MPAA’s challenges to each of the remaining 16 claimants. a. Adams Golf There is no evidence in the record supporting MGC’s claimed representation of Adams Golf. MGC relies on the Judges’ denial of MPAA’s challenge to this claimant in a prior case as well as Exhibit AA to its opposition papers. See id. at 74 & Ex. AA. Exhibit AA is a document IPG prepared for a prior case identifying by Bates number the documents that IPG offered to rebut MPAA’s claims challenges. Exhibit AA would be a helpful guide to the relevant documents if those documents were in the record. They are not, however, and the exhibit is not an adequate substitute for the documents themselves. In the absence of any record evidence in these proceedings to support MGC’s claim to represent Adams Golf, the Judges must dismiss this claimant. b. AIC/TV Azteca MPAA provided a copy of the representation agreement between IPG and AIC. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. G. MGC also has provided evidence that AIC consented to the transfer of the agreement (which, by its terms are non-transferable) from IPG to SLP and from SLP to MGC. See supra, section III.A.1. There is adequate evidence to support IPG’s representation of this entity, and the Judges will not dismiss this claimant on this basis.
58 The claimants MPAA seeks to dismiss on this basis are Adams Golf, AIC, Aviva, Big Events Company, Cogeco Radio-Television, FIFA, Films By Jove, Inc., Image, IWV Media Group, Inc., King, Lawrence Welk Syndication, Phil Slater Associates, Pixcom, Raycom Sports, Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd., Venevision, West 175-E, and Whidbey Island Films, Inc. 59 See supra, section II.C.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 29
c. Aviva MGC appears to claim authority to represent Aviva through IPG’s agreement with Image.60 That agreement is in the record. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. H. The Judges will not dismiss this claimant on this basis.61 d. Cogeco Radio-Television MGC seeks to demonstrate its authority to represent Cogeco Radio-Television (Cogeco) by proffering IPG’s representation agreement dating from 2001 and a letter of extension. See id. Ex. BB. MGC did not, however, produce the representation agreement in discovery. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6. The Cogeco-IPG agreement was responsive to MPAA’s discovery requests. Because of MGC’s failure to provide it in discovery, the Judges will not consider it. The letter of extension, however, was provided in discovery and is part of the record. See id. The Judges have ruled that “[e]xtension agreements alone, without the underlying agreement, cannot establish the validity of the original representation.” March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 18; see also March 2013 Claims Ruling at 5. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Cogeco. e. FIFA MGC has presented an unsigned representation agreement between IPG and FIFA together with an email from a FIFA representative to IPG stating that “FIFA is interested in testing the services of [IPG] in the administration of retransmission royalties. Please go ahead with the necessary steps and keep us informed about the proceedings and the outcome.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA Exs. D, E. Because the Judges have found that FIFA renounced IPG’s representation, the Judges need not reach the question whether MGC’s documentation would be sufficient to demonstrate its authority to represent FIFA in these proceedings.62 f. Films By Jove, Inc. MGC’s claim of authority to represent Films By Jove, Inc. (Jove) rests on Jove’s executed Acknowledgement of Representation for calendar years 1999-2009 and the Judge’s rejection of MPAA’s challenge to this claimant in a prior proceeding. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. R; MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 42; March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 11. In the March 2015 Claims Ruling, the Judges stated a general rule that “such ‘Acknowledgements’ constitute sufficient evidence of the representative capacity of IPG for the term specified in the ‘Acknowledgement.’” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 32 (emphasis added). The acknowledgement before the Judges presently is deficient in two ways that render that rule inapplicable.
60 See discussion supra, section III.A.2.b. 61 However, the Judges have ruled that Image has terminated the agreement. See supra, section III.A.2.b. 62 See additional discussion of FIFA issues in section IV.A.1.b.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 30
First, the acknowledgment covers calendar years 1999-2009 and thus only constitutes “sufficient evidence of representative capacity” for those years—i.e., “the term specified” in the acknowledgement. Second, the acknowledgement bears the handwritten notation “Please note that we sold the rights in Nov. 2007 (approximately) and we would need to forward to new owner any payments for transmissions [unreadable] payment date.” Olaniran Decl. Ex. R. MGC argues that the document demonstrates IPG’s continuing representation of Jove. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 42. That may be true, but the Judges also find that it is compelling evidence that Jove is not a copyright owner for purposes of collecting retransmission royalties.63 The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Jove because Jove is no longer a copyright owner. g. Image MGC has provided an agreement between IPG and Image as evidence of its authority to represent Image. See id., Ex. H. The Judges do not dismiss MGC’s claim on behalf of Image due to insufficient documentation.64 h. IWV Media Group, Inc. MGC rests its claim to represent IWV Media Group, Inc. (IWV), primarily on a written agreement between “Maureen Millen & Companies” and IPG, dated as of 200265 but prepared and executed in 2011. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. BB (Millen Replacement Agreement). To explain the circumstances that led to the execution of the Millen Replacement Agreement, MGC provides a declaration signed by Maureen Millen on November 13, 2014.66 See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 77-78, Ex. EE (Millen Decl.). The Millen Declaration recounts the history of IWV’s entry into a contract with IPG, the loss of the original document, and subsequent efforts to replace it. See generally Millen Decl. An Acknowledgement of Representation executed by Ms. Millen in connection with an earlier proceeding is also in the record. See Olaniran Decl. Exs. BB-CC. The Judges have previously found the Millen Replacement Agreement, standing alone (and backdated by nearly a decade), insufficient evidence of IPG’s authority. See March 2013 Claims Ruling Ex. B., at 4. The Judges did accept Ms. Millen’s April 29, 2014 Acknowledgement of Representation as sufficient evidence of IPG’s representation in a subsequent proceeding. See March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 17. That acknowledgement, however, only covers calendar years 2002-2009 and is insufficient evidence of IPG’s representation for the period covered by these proceedings. The Judges find the Millen Replacement Agreement, together with the Millen Declaration, to be sufficient evidence of an ongoing contractual relationship. The Millen
63 The Judges reject MGC’s unsubstantiated contention that the notation is ambiguous because it does not specifically identify what rights were sold. 64 However, the Judges have found that Image has renounced IPG’s representation and dismissed MGC’s claim on that basis. See supra, section III.A.2.b. 65 The precise date is illegible. 66 While the Millen Declaration was prepared in connection with an earlier proceeding, it does not purport to be limited to the royalty years covered by that proceeding.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 31
Declaration establishes an approximate date for Ms. Millen’s original execution of an agreement with IPG (mid-2002), explains how Ms. Millen was unable to locate her copy of the original agreement, and describes how she requested IPG to provide her with a copy of its form representation agreement “in order that the terms of any services be clarified.” Millen Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6. In addition, Ms. Millen’s Declaration also provides evidence as to the meaning of “Maureen Millen & Companies” in the Millen Replacement Agreement: [In 2002] I was actively producing and distributing several programs for broadcast television …. In connection therewith, several stand-alone companies were organized for the program production, including Healthy TV, Inc., Inner World Video, Light Duty Productions, Reel Enlightenment, Searchlight Entertainment, International Wholesale Video, Inc., The Horse Show, Today’s Horseman and IWV Media Group, Inc. IWV Media Group, Inc. was the entity to which all rights of the foregoing entities were held. Id. ¶ 3. The Judges find that “Maureen Millen & Companies” denotes, not a single entity, but the group of entities that Ms. Millen controls, as identified in the Millen Declaration, viz., Healthy TV, Inc., Inner World Video, Light Duty Productions, Reel Enlightenment, Searchlight Entertainment, International Wholesale Video, Inc., The Horse Show, Today’s Horseman, and IWV Media Group, Inc. The Judges will not dismiss MGC’s claim on behalf of IWV or any of the other entities listed in the preceding paragraph due to insufficient documentation of representational authority. i. King MGC seeks to demonstrate its authority to represent King by proffering IPG’s October 12, 2001 representation agreement with King and a May 10, 2002 letter of extension. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA Ex. X. MGC did not, however, produce the representation agreement in discovery. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6. The King-IPG agreement was responsive to MPAA’s discovery requests. Because MGC failed to produce it in discovery, the Judges will not consider it. The letter of extension, however, was provided in discovery and is part of the record. See id. The Judges have ruled that “[e]xtension agreements alone, without the underlying agreement, cannot establish the validity of the original representation.” March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 18; see also March 2013 Claims Ruling at 5. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent King due to insufficient documentation of representational authority. j. Lawrence Welk Syndication MGC seeks to demonstrate its authority to represent Lawrence Welk Syndication (Welk) through IPG’s representation agreements dated October 12, 2001, and November 7, 2001, a June 24, 2002 letter of extension, and a March 5, 2014 Acknowledgement of Representation covering calendar years 1999-2009. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. CC. MGC did not, however, produce any of that documentation in discovery apart from the acknowledgement. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 32
The Welk-IPG agreements and letter of extension were responsive to MPAA’s discovery requests. Because MGC failed to produce them in discovery, the Judges will not consider them. Only the acknowledgement was provided in discovery and forms part of the record. See id. Welk’s Acknowledgement of Representation does not cover the years at issue in these proceedings and is inadequate evidence of IPG’s authority. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Welk due to insufficient documentation of representational authority. k. Pixcom MGC rests its claim to represent Pixcom on the representation agreement, letter of extension, and Acknowledgement of Representation (covering calendar years 1999-2009) attached to its opposition papers as Exhibit S. MGC did not produce any of these documents in discovery apart from the acknowledgement. See Plovnick Decl. ¶ 6. Because they were responsive to MPAA’s discovery requests and MGC failed to produce them, the Judges will not consider the representation agreement or letter of extension. The Acknowledgement of Representation was produced and forms part of the record. See id. Pixcom’s Acknowledgement of Representation does not cover the years at issue in these proceedings and is inadequate evidence of IPG’s authority. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Pixcom due to insufficient documentation of representational authority. l. Raycom Sports MGC’s claim to represent Raycom Sports (Raycom) rests on a June 14, 1998 agreement between Raycom and IPG. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. DD. There is no record evidence that casts any doubt that the Raycom-IPG agreement remains in force. Nevertheless, MPAA seeks to dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Raycom based on August 2, 1999 correspondence from Raycom stating that it had engaged IPG to represent it in connection with the program “Holidays at Home.” See MPAA Mot. at 34; Olaniran Decl. Ex. EE. MPAA argues that IPG’s representation of Raycom is limited to that one title. MPAA Mot. at 34. Because that program is not claimed in these proceedings, MPAA argues that the Judges should dismiss MGC’s claim for Raycom. See id. MGC contends that MGC’s program claims include other titles belonging to Raycom. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 78-79. MGC attaches a spreadsheet listing program titles that IPG put forward in a previous proceeding. See id. Ex. FF. The Raycom-IPG agreement is not limited to the single title “Holidays at Home.” The 1999 correspondence from Raycom does not purport to modify or narrow the scope of the Raycom-IPG agreement. The Judges find that MGC represents Raycom in these proceedings. m. Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. MGC acknowledges that it failed to produce in discovery the agreements between IPG and Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. (Sound Venture) that establish MGC’s representational authority due to an “oversight.” See id. at 77. MGC only produced an Acknowledgement of Representation covering calendar years 1999 and 2001-2009. See id. at 77, Ex. DD. The Judges will not consider the documents that MGC failed to produce in discovery and find that the acknowledgement is insufficient evidence of MGC’s authority as to
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 33
the years addressed by these proceedings. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Sound Venture due to insufficient documentation of representational authority. n. Venevision MGC’s claim to represent Venevision rests on a July 24, 2002 representation agreement between Venevision and IPG and Venevision’s July 24, 2002 cable claim. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. W. The Judges dismissed IPG’s claim to represent Venevision in the consolidated 2004-2009 cable and 1999-2009 satellite distribution proceeding because, inter alia, IPG failed to provide documentation of the programs identified by the claimant. See March 2015 Claims Ruling Ex. A-1, at 35. MGC argues that Venevision’s July 24, 2002 cable claim constitutes new evidence that properly identifies the claimant’s programming. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 69. The claim identifies a single example of Venevision’s programming called “Los Buenos Dias de HTV.” See id. Ex. W, at Bates No. 3791. IPG’s agreement with Venevision is for collection of royalties attributable to cable and satellite retransmissions in 2001 only. It has no relevance in proceedings to distribute 2010-2013 cable and satellite retransmission royalties. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claim to represent Venevision due to insufficient documentation of its authority to represent that claimant in connection with collection of 2010-2013 cable and satellite retransmission royalties. o. West 175-E MGC’s claim to represent West 175-E is discussed supra, section III.A.2.c. The Judges find the representation agreement provided by MGC to be sufficient documentation of MGC’s authority to represent West 175-E. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. F. MGC represents West 175-E in these proceedings.67 p. Whidbey Island Films, Inc. There is no evidence in the record supporting MGC’s claimed representation of Whidbey Island Films, Inc. (Whidbey). MGC relies on the Judges’ denial of MPAA’s challenge to this claimant in a prior case.68 See id. at 75. MGC cannot rely on the Judges’ decision in another proceeding on a different evidentiary record to demonstrate its authority to represent this claimant. In the absence of any record evidence in these proceedings to support MGC’s claim to represent Whidbey, the Judges must dismiss this claimant. 6. Claimants that Did Not File a Claim or Petition to Participate MPAA seeks to dismiss claims of 12 MGC claimants for certain royalty years, alleging that those claimants (or IPG, on behalf of those claimants) failed to file a claim or failed to
67 As discussed, however, MGC does not represent West 175-E as to the program titles that the record shows West 175-E transferred to West 175-P. 68 MGC also points to Exhibit AA, a document identifying supporting evidence introduced in a previous proceeding. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 75. As discussed supra, the Judges find this document unhelpful to the extent that the underlying evidence is not in the record of the instant proceedings. See supra, section III.A.5.a.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 34
include the claimant in its (or SLP’s) Petition to Participate.69 See MPAA Mot. at 34. MGC opposes MPAA’s challenge for a number of reasons that are described below. a. Challenge Regarding Claim Years MGC contends that MPAA challenges six claimants for years in which MGC asserts no claim. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 79-80. Specifically, MGC asserts that its claims on behalf of these claimants are limited as follows.
Claimant Years Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. 2010-2012 Farm Journal Electronic Media 2010-2011 MoneyTV.net, Inc. 2010 Thump Records, Inc. 2010 St. Jude Children’s Hospital 2011-2013 Tremendous Entertainment 2011-2013
Accordingly, MGC may pursue royalties for these six claimants, if at all, only for the royalty years set forth in the preceding table. As to Venevision, MGC states that it erroneously stated the years for which it seeks royalties. See id. at 80-81. MGC now “withdraws any claim to 2011-2013 royalties attributable to Venevision” programming and only seeks 2010 royalties. Id. at 81. However, Venevision is not included in either MGC’s or SLP’s petition to participate in either the cable or satellite proceeding. MGC’s claims on behalf of Venevision are dismissed on this basis.70 b. Challenge Based on Immaterial Differences (Image, InCA Productions, and GTSP Records) MGC argues that MPAA’s challenges to Image, InCA Productions, and GTSP Records are based on the claimant’s use of an “obvious tradename” instead of its true corporate name. See id. at 80. As the Judges have noted elsewhere in this ruling, they will overlook trivial or inconsequential differences between an entity’s name as stated on a royalty claim and the entity’s true legal name.71 The Judges find the difference between “Image Entertainment” and “Image Entertainment, Inc.” to be immaterial; similarly, the Judges find the difference between “InCA
69 The claimants that MPAA contends failed to file claims are AIC, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., Farm Journal Electronic Media, GTSP Records, Image, InCA Productions, MoneyTV.net, Inc., St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital, Thump Records, Tremendous Entertainment, and Venevision. MPAA contends that these same claimants, plus Knight, are not included in either MGC’s or SLP’s petitions to participate. 70 The Judges have dismissed MGC’s claims on behalf of Venevision on other bases as well. See supra, sections III.A.4.a; III.A.5.n. 71 See infra, section V.B.1.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 35
Productions” and “Inca” to be immaterial. Both appear to be short versions of an entity’s full name. Absent evidence suggesting that these highly similar entity names refer to different entities, the Judges will not dismiss any of MGC’s claims on behalf of Image or InCA Productions on the basis of those differences.72 As to GTSP Records, the Judges do not find the difference between “GTSP Records” and “GTS Records” to be trivial. The initials “GTSP” and GTS” may well denote different individuals or groups of individuals. Moreover, there is nothing in the record that would lead the Judges to conclude that GTSP Records and GTS Records are the same entity, apart from a bald assertion to that effect in a spreadsheet prepared by MGC. See id. Ex GG. IPG did not file a claim for GTSP Records for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 cable and satellite royalty years. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of GTSP Records for those years. c. Another Party Filed Claims MGC asserts that it is entitled to pursue royalties on behalf of Knight because Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) included Knight in its joint claims for the 2010-2012 royalty years and Compact included Knight in its joint claims for the 2013 royalty year. See id. at 80, Ex. GG. However, as MPAA points out in its reply, MPAA’s challenge was premised on MGC’s and SLP’s failure to include Knight in a petition to participate. See MPAA Reply at 35. Consequently, MGC cannot represent Knight in these proceedings. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of Knight. As the Judges have already determined that MGC, and not MPAA, is entitled to represent Knight,73 the Judges find that Knight is not participating in these proceedings and neither MPAA nor MGC may pursue royalties on Knight’s behalf. d. Claimant and the Contracting Party are Different MPAA seeks to dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of AIC because IPG did not file claims for AIC and neither MGC nor SLP included AIC in its petitions to participate. See MPAA Mot. at 35, 36. MGC argues that it “does not, nor ever has, asserted a claim on behalf of AIC. Rather, AIC is the contracting party who has the authority to dictate the agent for collection of TV Azteca royalties.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 81. SLP included TV Azteca in each of its petitions to participate. In each, SLP identified the joint claim filed by Fintage as covering TV Azteca. The Judges have found that MGC represents AIC in these proceedings and that AIC has the right to collect U.S. retransmission royalties for TV Azteca programming.74 The Judges reject this basis for challenging MGC’s representation of TV Azteca programming through AIC. 7. Claimants with Insufficient Evidence of Program Ownership MPAA seeks dismissal of numerous MGC-represented claimants on grounds that MGC failed to produce sufficient evidence that those claimants own the copyrights to their claimed programs. See MPAA Mot. at 38. MPAA argues that “[d]istribution of royalties under Sections
72 The Judges have, however, dismissed MGC’s claims on behalf of Image on other grounds. See supra, section III.A.2.b. 73 See supra, section III.A.3.b. 74 See supra, sections III.A.1; III.A.3.e.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 36
111 and 119 are expressly limited to ‘copyright owners,’ such that if a claimant does not own a claimed program, the claimant (or their duly authorized representative) is not entitled to royalties.” Id; see also March 2015 Claims Ruling at 34. The Judges generally apply a presumption of validity to ownership of program titles by the underlying claimants. Where, as here, the Judges have found that a participant should not be afforded that presumption, the Judges must examine the evidence produced by that participant to support ownership. See id. a. No Evidence of Program Ownership MPAA identifies five claimants for which MGC has produced no evidence of program ownership: Big Events Company, Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.), Nelson Davis Productions, TEAM Communications, and Venevision. See MPAA Mot. at 38. MGC has withdrawn its claims on behalf of Big Events Company. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 66. MGC treats MPAA’s argument as to the remaining four claimants as a reiteration of MPAA’s argument concerning lack of evidence of representational authority and directs the Judges to its arguments and evidence opposing that argument. See id. at 81-82. MGC is incorrect. Lack of evidence of copyright ownership is a separate issue from lack of authority to represent a claimant and is, by itself, a sufficient basis for dismissing a claimant. MGC produced no evidence to support its program claims for these claimants. The Judges find that MGC’s claims on behalf of Firing Line (DBA for National Review, Inc.), Nelson Davis Productions, TEAM Communications, and Venevision must be dismissed on this basis. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 35 (“With regard to any entities for which IPG failed to produce any evidence that the titles were actually owned or controlled by the IPG-represented claimant it is clear that such claims must be dismissed.”). b. Evidence of Copyright Ownership from a Prior Proceeding MPAA has identified 67 MGC-represented claimants for which MGC has provided documentation collected by IPG in connection with a prior proceeding as evidence of copyright ownership75. See MPAA Mot. at 39. MPAA argues that “such documentation is insufficient to satisfy IPG’s burden to produce evidence of its claimants’ ownership and/or control of specific program claimed for the 2010-2013 royalty years.” Id. As a threshold matter, MPAA is correct that MGC bears the burden of producing evidence of its claimants’ ownership. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 34-35. It has done so. MPAA acknowledges that MGC has produced “email correspondence and/or other documentation” of these 67 claimants’ program ownership. MPAA Mot. at 39.76 MPAA’s challenge really goes to whether MGC has met its “ultimate burden of persuading the Judges— by a preponderance of the evidence—of the validity of any of its questioned claims.” Ruling and
75 Those claimants are identified on Appendix B to the MPAA Motion. 76 Inexplicably, neither party has placed MGC’s evidence of program ownership in the record. Based on MPAA’s acknowledgement of the existence of MGC’s title verification evidence, the Judges find that MGC has met its burden of production.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 37
Order Regarding Claims and Separate Op. at 11, Docket No. 2008-1 CRB CD 98-99 (Phase II) (June 18, 2014) (June 2014 Claims Ruling). MPAA’s only argument for why MGC’s documentation is inadequate is “the frequency with which program ownership and control changes over the course of time ….” The proceeding for which IPG collected title verification evidence covered the period immediately preceding the period covered by these proceedings. IPG’s title verification process was not limited to the years covered in the prior proceeding. When IPG solicited information about program ownership it asked its claimants to specify any temporal limitations to their ownership. The Judges cannot say that, as a rule, evidence collected under these circumstances for a prior proceeding is too stale to demonstrate ownership. The Judges will not dismiss the 67 claimants identified on MPAA’s Appendix B on this basis. 8. MGC has not Established Claimant’s Copyright Ownership In addition to MPAA’s challenges to various MGC claimants, MPAA also challenges a number of specific MGC-represented programs based on MGC’s alleged failure to demonstrate the underlying claimant’s copyright ownership. See MPAA Mot. at 40. MPAA divides its challenges into two groups. The first are programs for which MPAA alleges that the claimant has disavowed ownership. See id. The second, far larger, group consists of programs for which MPAA alleges MGC has provided no evidence of ownership. See id. a. Claimant has Expressly Disavowed Ownership MPAA alleges that four MGC-represented claimants have “expressly disavowed IPG’s … right to collect royalties for specific programs claimed in the current proceedings” and seeks dismissal of MGC’s program claims on that basis. Id. i. Aviva International MPAA points out that Aviva has stated that the program Barry Manilow: Live by Request is “clearly a VH-1 title.” Id.; Olaniran Decl. Ex. FF. MGC concedes this and withdraws its claim to the program. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 84. ii. Filmline International 1999 Filmline International 1999 (Filmline) states that the programs Breakthrough and Peacekeepers are “NOT [theirs].” Olaniran Decl. Ex. GG. MGC contends that the programs for which it seeks royalties on Filmline’s behalf are The Breakthrough and The Peacekeepers, which it asserts are different, similarly titled programs. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 85. MGC offers no evidence for this contention. Nor does MGC offer any evidence that Filmline owns programs titled The Breakthrough and The Peacekeepers. The Judges find that MGC has failed to meet its burden of establishing that Filmline is the copyright owner for these two titles (if they are, in fact, different from the titles Filmline disavowed in its email). MGC’s claims for The Breakthrough and The Peacekeepers are dismissed. iii. Films By Jove MPAA contends that Jove “expressly stated that its single claimed program, ‘Mikhail Baryshnikov: Stories from my Childhood’ belongs to ‘PBS.’” MPAA Mot. at 41. MGC
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 38
counters that Jove “stated ‘Mikhail Baryshnikov’s Stories From My Childhood was PBS,’ indicating that the program was broadcast on PBS.” MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 85. MGC also states that “this fact is corroborated by the very next sentence, where Films By Jove stated, ‘A quick glance shows Stories from My Childhood, which is definitely ours ….’” Id. (emphasis added by MGC). Jove’s statements concerning ownership of Mikhail Baryshnikov: Stories from my Childhood are not as cut and dried as either party suggests. Jove did state that it “definitely” owned this program, in an email sent on April 3, 2012, at 12:20 pm. See Olaniran Decl. Ex. HH. In a subsequent email Jove stated that “Mikhail Baryshnikov’s Stories from my Childhood was PBS.” Id. MGC’s interpretation that Jove was clarifying that the program was broadcast on PBS is plausible. It is also plausible that Jove was following up to correct its first email and that PBS owns the program. The Judges need not resolve this disagreement over the statements in Jove’s emails. Whether Jove owns the program and it was broadcast on PBS, or PBS owns the program, it is not compensable to Jove in the Program Suppliers category. If MPAA is correct, i.e., PBS owns the program, MGC cannot collect royalties for it. If MGC is correct, i.e., the program was broadcast on PBS, then it is compensable, if at all, in the Public Broadcasting category, and MGC cannot collect royalties for that program in the Program Suppliers category. Either way, MGC cannot collect royalties for this program in these proceedings. In any event, as the Judges have determined in connection with another challenge by MPAA, Jove sold its rights to its programs around 2007 and is no longer a copyright owner for purposes of these proceedings. See supra, section 5.f. MGC’s claim on behalf of Jove for Mikhail Baryshnikov: Stories from my Childhood is dismissed. iv. West 175-E MPAA seeks to dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of West 175-E for seven programs allegedly transferred to West 175-P. MPAA Mot. at 41. For the reasons set forth in section III.A.2.c, supra, the Judges find that MPAA, and not MGC, may pursue royalties for these programs. b. Claimant has not Verified Copyright Ownership MPAA seeks to dismiss MGC’s claims for numerous programs (listed in Appendix B to this Ruling)77 because MGC produced no evidence that the claimant owned or controlled the programs. In response, MGC states that this challenge is identical to the challenge MPAA makes in section IV.G.1 of its motion, based, in part, on the following sentence in footnote 140 of the MPAA Motion: The list contained in Appendix C [to the MPAA Motion] includes the programs claimed by those claimants identified in Section IV.G.1 of the Motion who MPAA seeks to dismiss from these proceedings.
77 Appendix B to this Ruling reproduces the list set forth in Appendix C to the MPAA Motion.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 39
MPAA Mot. at 41 n.140; see MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 87. MGC then points out that Appendix C to the MPAA Motion includes programming of “far, far more claimants” than the five claimants that MPAA challenges in section IV.G.1 of the MPAA Motion. MGC Opp’n to MPAA at 87. MGC concludes that “[a]ddressing the accuracy of Appendix C [to the MPAA Motion] at this point is largely a moot exercise because, with the few exceptions addressed immediately above, the Judges’ rulings will be in response to the MPAA’s challenges to claimants, not programs. Nevertheless, [MGC] is unable to address such Appendix C document other than to note that it is clearly not what it purports to be.” Id. at 87-88. MGC misconstrues MPAA’s challenge. In section IV.G.1 of its motion MPAA challenges five claimants because MGC failed to demonstrate that it had verified a single one of the programs it was claiming on behalf of those claimants. See section III.A.7.a, supra. In section IV.H.2 of its motion, MPAA challenges numerous individual programs for the same reason. To be sure, there is overlap between the two, as MPAA acknowledges in footnote 140 by stating that Appendix C to the MPAA Motion “includes the programs claimed by those claimants identified in Section IV.G.1 ….” MPAA Mot. at 41 n.140 (emphasis added).78 In other words, the programs claimed on behalf of the claimants challenged in section IV.G.1 are a subset of the larger universe of programs challenged in section IV.H.2. Consequently, the “accuracy” of Appendix C to the MPAA Motion is not the pertinent issue. The pertinent issue, which MGC fails to address at all, is MGC’s failure to produce sufficient evidence that its claimants verified their ownership or control of the programs listed in Appendix C to the MPAA Motion. MPAA’s challenge on this basis is essentially uncontroverted.79 The Judges find that MGC has not met its burden of demonstrating that its claimants own or control any of the programs listed on Appendix B to this Ruling. MGC’s claims to those programs are dismissed. B. Multigroup Claimants’ Objections 1. “Chain-of-title” weaknesses MGC attacks MPAA’s authority to pursue claims filed by or on behalf of various claimants or their authorized representatives. See MGC-MPAA Claims Mot. at 6. MGC argues that MPAA has failed to substantiate its authority to represent 539 copyright owners in the present cable distribution proceeding and an additional 412 claimants in the companion satellite distribution proceeding. See id. at 8. The basis of the MCG objection is that MPAA represents the enumerated claimants by contract with an agent of the underlying copyright owners. According to MGC, MPAA has produced no evidence that the agent in privity with MPAA (1) has authority to represent the actual copyright owner, (2) has verified that the claimant is the
78 The footnote clearly states that Appendix C “includes” those programs, not that it “is comprised of” or “includes only” those programs. 79 As discussed supra, in section III.A.4.d, MGC did produce a document recorded in the U.S. Copyright Office in 2001 as evidence of Team’s ownership of certain programs. The Judges found that evidence insufficient, however. The Judges also note that MGC produced an email from AIC’s in-house counsel listing a number of program titles. See MGC Opp’n to MPAA, Ex. G. The email merely states “Hi Raul. Enclosed are the revised files. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.” Id. The email says nothing concerning those “revised files” or the lists they contain—much less that they are programs that AIC owns or controls. The Judges find Exhibit G to be insufficient evidence of AIC’s ownership or control of the programs listed in the attachment.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 40
actual copyright owner, or (3) has notified the copyright owners that MPAA is representing its or their interests in these consolidated proceedings. Id. at 6. MGC argues that without underlying documentation, it is unable to determine if the agents in privity with MPAA are in fact authorized representatives of the claimants they purport to represent. 80 MGC fails to acknowledge that MPAA’s agreements with its principals include a certification by the principal that it is the authorized representative of each named claimant. MGC purports to support the application of a presumption of validity “for the feasibility of the proceedings.” MGC-MPAA Claims Mot. at 12. MGC contends, however, that the Judges apply the presumption only at “certain levels in the chain-of-title” and that acceptance of remote party certifications “defies rationality.” Id.
MGC also fails to acknowledge that since the March 2015 Claims Ruling MPAA has undertaken a more active verification procedure that involves specific inquiry relating to any claims or claimants for which it becomes aware of any controversy. See Saunders Decl. and exs. thereto. MGC’s chain-of-title reasoning is flawed. The legal authority upon which MGC relies is inapposite. It concerns the burden of proof to establish copyright ownership in an infringement action.81 It does not concern the effect or application of presumptions. Nor does it concern the authorization of one party to represent another. The body of copyright ownership and infringement law does not inform the Judges’ decisions in these proceedings regarding a claimant’s ability to receive retransmission royalties or authorize others to collect those royalties. MGC’s chain-of-title arguments are unavailing. MPAA benefits from the presumption of validity with regard to the individual and joint claimants it represents. Beyond that, MPAA has instituted a verification process that is sufficiently rigorous to assure the integrity of these proceedings. Claimants and claimant representatives certify their authority to assert the underlying claims. The certifications appear to be sufficient to permit any party with evidence of malfeasance or misfeasance to pursue damages. MGC cannot benefit from the presumption of validity because MGC is a direct assignee of IPG, an entity without the benefit of the presumption. MPAA-represented claims, including its claim on behalf of Magus/Conexion are valid. 2. Certification Processes MGC criticizes MPAA’s method of verifying that the representatives with which it contracts are in fact duly authorized representatives of the copyright owners they purport to represent. MGC implies that the MPAA method of providing a list of programs for a claimant or
80 For example, MGC provides anecdotal evidence of an individual agent represented by MPAA (Conexion) whose claims to represent Magus Entertainment conflict with MGC’s claim to represent Magus Entertainment. See MGC- MPAA Claims Mot. at 12; Ex. 1 (Oct. 7, 2016 Declaration of Raul Galaz) at 2-3 (Galaz Decl.). The MGC assertions are limited to passing mention by Raul Galaz in his declaration, without any substantiating documentation. MPAA did not respond directly to MGC’s allegations regarding Magus Entertainment. The Judges have no evidence before them on which to resolve a factual dispute, if any, between MGC and MPAA relating to the alleged conflicting claims of Magus and Conexion. In the circumstances of this case, the Judges acknowledge the presumption of validity of the MPAA claim and note a lack of evidence to rebut that presumption. 81 MGC relies on Fleischer Studios v. A.V.E.L.A., 654 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 41
authorized representative to confirm or deny leads to false or erroneous claims. The IPG method of claim verification is to send each claimant a complete list of all retransmitted titles and require the claimant to identify those for which it claims royalty rights. See id. at 15. The Judges have previously reviewed MPAA’s verification procedures regarding claimants’ representation authority. The Judges do not find that the process employed by MPAA is lacking, much less sufficiently lacking to call into question all of MPAA’s program claims. In fact, from the standpoint of producing accurate results, the Judges do not find IPG’s process to be clearly superior to MPAA’s, or vice versa. The main differences between the two methods of attributing programs to claimants relate to the resources expended by the [sic] IPG and MPAA, on the one hand, and the burden placed on the claimants, on the other. The Judges reject IPG’s argument that MPAA’s program claims should be subject to wholesale rejection, or to a higher level of scrutiny, due to defects in the MPAA certification process. March 2015 Claims Ruling at 13. The Judges’ prior reasoning continues to apply and to resolve this issue.82 3. Foreign Collecting Societies MGC argues that MPAA erroneously asserts claims in the name of foreign collecting societies; for example, Audio-Visual Collection Society aka Screenrights, or EGEDA. MGC asserts, without more, that it is “thoroughly familiar” with Screenrights and EGEDA and that “[n]either organization retains copyright ownership to programming, and typically only collect and distribute royalties derived from their own territories.” Id. at 16, Ex. 1 ¶ 8. The Judges may assume for purposes of this analysis that a collecting society does not own copyrights in any program retransmitted by cable or satellite that qualifies for a royalty payment. MGC continues to urge the Judges to take the leap from a collecting society’s alleged non-ownership of a copyright to an unrelated conclusion; that is, that a collecting society could not obtain by contract the right to pursue U.S. retransmission royalties on behalf of its stakeholders. As the Judges have ruled previously, an assignment of the right to collect royalties does not render the assignee a copyright owner. See Mem. Op. and Order Following Preliminary Hearing on Validity of Claims at 8, Docket 2008-2 CRB CD 2000-2003 (Phase II) (Mar. 21, 2013). The right to collect royalties is a contract right implicating the principles of agency law. The inverse is also true. Ownership of a copyright does not preclude the owner from entering a contract to permit another entity to administer its rights to royalties. The assertion that a collecting society “cannot logically” be considered a copyright owner is not evidence that the collecting society is not an authorized representative of its stakeholders or that it is prohibited from asking MPAA to represent interests of those stakeholders in these
82 The Judges note that in 2013 MPAA adopted an automated verification procedure. The automation of the procedure tends to bolster the legitimacy of MPAA’s representation of joint claimants and the legitimacy of the joint claimants’ representation of the underlying individual claimants.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 42
proceedings. Further, MGC’s (and Raul Galaz’s) bare assertion that Screenrights and EGEDA “typically” only collect territorial royalties is not evidence of their role in the present proceeding. The Judges have previously ruled that the claims of these foreign collectives are “presumed valid unless IPG presents evidence that questions their validity.” Mem. Op. and Ruling … at 14, Docket 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II) (Mar. 13, 2015). The MGC argument regarding the collecting societies is hollow and without sufficient evidentiary support. 4. False Attribution to Fintage Publishing and Collections, B.V. MGC seeks dismissal of all claims asserted by Fintage Publishing and Collections, B.V. (Fintage) and represented in these proceedings by MPAA. In its motion regarding claims, MGC first asserts that MPAA falsely attributes to Fintage copyright ownership of 132 programs retransmitted by cable and 4 programs retransmitted by satellite. MGC-MPAA Claims Mot. at 18. In the following paragraph, MGC complains that MPAA has failed to produce agency agreements between Fintage and the “underlying copyright owners.” Id. If Fintage were claiming copyright ownership, an agency agreement with “underlying copyright owners” would be unnecessary. Nonetheless, nothing in the lists submitted by MGC supports the MGC assertion that MPAA attributes ownership of any copyrights to Fintage.83 In its Reply, MGC continues to contend that MPAA “attribute[s] copyright ownership to an agent that is neither an owner nor a distributor of the attributed programs.” Multigroup Claimants’ Reply [re … MPAA] at 8 (MGC-MPAA Reply). The Judges reject this repeated argument by MGC. An agent representing claimants to cable and satellite retransmission royalties need not have any relation, other than a fiduciary obligation, to the copyright owner. The agent need not be owner or distributor. Authorized representatives of copyright owners are agents. The Judges rejected MGC’s objections to MPAA representation of Fintage claimants in their 2015 ruling because of a lack of evidence to support the IPG objection in that (2004-09) proceeding. 2015 Claims Ruling at 25. In the MGC-MPAA Motion in the present proceeding the evidence was no more persuasive. An allegation by Mr. Galaz, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of the Fintage claims. See id. at 20 n.26. In the MGC-MPAA Reply, however, MGC alleges that a letter from EGEDA that MPAA presented with its motion included as an attachment a November 2012 letter from TV Azteca to Fintage, terminating Fintage as its claim representative. See MGC-MPAA Reply at 9; Saunders Decl. Ex. G, at Ex. B. MGC urges the Judges to dismiss all claims asserted by or through Fintage because “when Fintage’s claims were challenged in the Consolidated Proceedings, Fintage had omitted production of a termination letter received by Fintage from TV Azteca ….” Id. MGC acknowledges that the Judges have ruled that agreements and correspondence between an MPAA-represented agent and its claimants need not be produced in discovery. MGC argues, however, that the current circumstances are distinguishable because “Fintage affirmatively asserted its right to claim TV Azteca programming with the submission of supporting documentation and purposely withheld the termination letter.” Id.
83 The column headings in the subject lists appended to the MGC-MPAA Claims Motion is “MPAA Claimant Name.” See Exs. 9 -10.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 43
The record of that earlier proceeding is not before the Judges in these proceedings, and, in any event, MPAA, and not Fintage, was a participant. MGC has presented no evidence from which the Judges can conclude that MPAA engaged in any misconduct in that proceeding or in these proceedings. Moreover, the question of Fintage’s representation of TV Azteca would arise in these proceedings only in determining which MPAA-represented joint claimant—EGEDA or Fintage—is entitled to any share of royalties attributable to Azteca.84 The Judges dismiss MGC’s arguments against Fintage claims based upon ownership attribution and decline MGC’s backdoor motion for sanctions against non-participant Fintage. 5. Lack of Documentation (2013 claims) MGC makes the argument that, because of the number of claims asserted by MPAA for the 2013 royalty year and a lack of documentation of those claims, MPAA’s 2013 claims must be invalid. MGC further asserts that MPAA provided no evidence relating to the 2013 claims. MPAA responded that it provided detailed documentation of the 2013 claims albeit in a different form from prior years’ documentation. For 2013 MPAA sought verified documentation from the parties it represents in the present proceeding in the form of a “Claimed Works Request.” MPAA provided all the data collected in response to its Claimed Works Requests for 2013. See MPAA Response to Multigroup Claimants… (MPAA Response) at 12, citing relevant portions of Saunders Decl. MGC has failed to support a motion to dismiss all 2013 cable and satellite claims represented by MPAA. 6. Not Named on a Petition to Participate The MGC-MPAA Claims Motion is supported by a declaration of Raul Galaz. In his declaration, Mr. Galaz contends that the Judges should dismiss all claims listed on Exhibit 15, which he identifies as claims by entities that did not have the authority to represent their constituent claimants at the time the respective July claims were filed or that did not engage MPAA as their “legal agent” until a date that post-dated the respective Petitions to Participate relevant to the present proceedings. See Galaz Decl. at 5 ¶ 12. In response to the MGC assertions regarding timeliness of authority, MPAA details the circumstances of each entity. See MPAA Response at 14-26; Saunders Decl. at 3-7. The detail reveals that MPAA (1) had the claimant’s authority by virtue of an executed representation agreement that pre-dated the respective MPAA Petitions to Participate, (2) were subsumed by MPAA’s listing of joint claim agents in the respective MPAA Petitions to Participate, or (3) were participants in each pre-consolidation proceeding whose representatives asked MPAA after the fact to assume representation of the claimants. The Judges need not detail the circumstances of each challenged claim, as the detail is in evidence in the Saunders Declaration. MGC’s objections to the claims of entities listed on Exhibit 15 are overruled.
84 The Judges have determined that MGC is entitled to claim Azteca programming in these proceedings. See supra, sections III.A.1, III.A.3.e. However, MGC failed to substantiate many of the TV Azteca titles it is claiming. See supra, section III.A.8.b (dismissing multiple MGC claims for Azteca programming for failure to provide evidence of program ownership (i.e., title verification)).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 44
7. No Filed Claims As a final objection, MGC contends that the MPAA “data dump” makes it impossible to compare MPAA claimants with the CRB claims lists, the lists associated with participants’ Petitions to Participate, or information produced in disclosures or discovery responses. See MGC-MPAA Mot. at 25-26. MGC acknowledges that “in certain circumstances the error may be the addition or omission of a comma, or the listing of a company suffix as ‘Ltd.’ instead of ‘Limited’.” Id. MGC cites the Judges’ March 2015 Claims Ruling to argue that the burden of claims identification should be on MPAA. Id. at 26. The circumstances that underlay the Judges’ 2015 ruling against IPG related to the issue of ascribing program titles to more than one copyright owner or asserting claims without specifying the year’s fund from which they were to be paid. Id. The circumstances identified by MGC in these proceedings are not comparable. By MGC’s own admission, the difficulties of identification of claimants in these proceedings are comparatively trivial.85 In the MPAA Response, MPAA’s counsel provided clarification.86 The parties could have achieved this clarification by telephone conference. Having received the clarification spreadsheet from MPAA, MGC contends that the Judges should sanction MPAA for its failure to offer the clarification without having been asked for it. Id.at 28-30. The Judges DENY MGC’s motion for dismissal of the enumerated claims and DENY MGC’s back door motion for sanctions. IV. Objections in Sports Category A. Challenges by the Joint Sports Claimants 1. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) a. Issue Preclusion MGC presents claims in these proceedings on behalf of FIFA, as IPG did in prior distribution proceedings. The JSC assert that the issue of MGC’s authority to assert claims on behalf of FIFA has been resolved in the prior proceedings87 and that MGC is barred from relitigating the issue. Motion of the Joint Sports Claimants to Disallow the Multigroup Claimants’ Claims against the Sports Category at 3-6 (Oct. 11, 2016) (JSC Motion). The JSC assert that MGC relies in these proceedings on the same documentary evidence it relied upon in past proceedings. In the prior proceedings, the documents were insufficient to establish (1) that FIFA owned the copyright to any retransmitted sports programs or (2) that IPG/MGC had the right to represent FIFA, in any event.
85 The Judges will not dismiss claims on the basis of inconsequential differences between a claimant’s name as it appears on a claim form and the claimant’s true legal name. See discussion, infra, section V.B.1. 86 Representations by counsel are not evidence, but in its reply MGC did not dispute the substance of the MPAA clarification. 87 In the 2000-03 proceeding, IPG failed to disclose correspondence indicating FIFA’s termination of the IPG representation, resulting in the FIFA claims being disallowed. See March 2013 Claims Ruling at 11-12. In the proceeding regarding distribution of royalties deposited between 2004 and 2009, IPG failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish its right to act as authorized representative of FIFA. See Order on JSC Mot. for Summ. Adjudication (Aug. 29, 2014) at 5-6, Docket No. 2012-6 CRB CD 2004-09 (Phase II).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 45
On the issue of documentation of FIFA’s copyright ownership, MGC resubmitted its discovery responses from the distribution proceeding for 1999-2009 satellite claims and 2004- 2009 cable claims.88 Nothing in the proffered documents establishes FIFA ownership of any of the programs for which MGC seeks royalty distributions. MGC has failed to remedy the shortcomings in its documentation. The second prong of the JSC’s issue preclusion argument revolves around MGC’s right to represent FIFA. This question is moot because MGC has failed to make a valid sports programming claim on behalf of FIFA. Even if MGC had established FIFA’s copyright, FIFA has repudiated the right of IPG or its counsel to represent FIFA, as of July 30, 2012, at the latest.89 As noted above, MGC has no greater rights than its assignor, IPG. Neither IPG nor MGC has produced any evidence that FIFA has retained either entity to represent its interests in these proceedings. MGC disputes the JSC’s issue preclusion argument, noting that IPG filed legal claims against FIFA in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of California (California District Court). The California District Court dismissed the claims finding lack of personal jurisdiction over FIFA. IPG appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 23, 2017, MGC informed the CRB of a ruling by the Ninth Circuit, asserting that the court “agreed with IPG and issued its decision reversing the California District Court’s ruling on the grounds that FIFA entered into the 2001 agreement and the forum selection clause therein conferred jurisdiction on FIFA.” Multigroup Claimants’ Notice of Ruling … at 2 (Jan, 23, 2017) (Notice of Ruling). The Ninth Circuit issued a non-published decision reversing the California District Court’s dismissal, concluding that the documents provided by IPG were sufficient, when taken “in the light most favorable to [IPG, to make] a prima facie showing of an enforceable contract and, thus, of personal jurisdiction.” Worldwide Subs. Grp. v. Federation Int’l de Football Ass’n at 6, No. 14-56819, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00013-MMM-MAN (Jan. 11, 2017). As noted by the JSC, the Ninth Circuit ruling did not establish the existence of a valid contract between IPG and FIFA; it merely found evidence of a prima facie case, sufficient to return the matter to the California District Court for adjudication. See Response … to Multigroup Claimants’ Notice of Ruling at 3 (Jan. 23, 2017) (JSC Response). Further, as the JSC point out in the JSC Response, the documents before the California District Court do not address two other issues fatal to the MGC alleged claims for FIFA: whether FIFA owns or has the right to assert a copyright in the programs at issue and whether those programs, if under a FIFA copyright, are compensable in the Sports category. Id. at 4.
88 The reproduced discovery responses included an article from Wikipedia describing the FIFA World Cup competition, a list of broadcasts of FIFA World Cup Finals (2010 is the only year at issue in this proceeding, as the World Cup occurs only once every four years), an article from Wikipedia describing Conmebol, FIFA’s South American continental confederation, a Wikipedia article describing the quadrennial “Copa América”, excerpts from the Copyright Office public catalog showing FIFA registration between 1972 and 2011 (registering such things as a World Cup logo, emblem, mascot, and “Official Look”, a Canadian copyright registration of a documentary entitled “The Grand Finale” and various emblems and mascots, and excerpts from assorted FIFA publications (print and website). 89 See discussion, infra, section III.A.2.a. relating to MPAA challenges.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 46
b. Termination of Contract The Ninth Circuit action does not affect the present proceeding before the Judges. In previous proceedings, the Judges found that FIFA terminated IPG’s representation, which would in turn deny MGC of any representation authority. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 30; March 2013 Claims Ruling at 12. MGC has presented no evidence to contravene that prior conclusion. The issue of damages, if any, for FIFA’s alleged breach of contract, is outside the Judges’ jurisdiction. The Judges need not reach any of the JSC’s further challenges to the FIFA claims asserted by MGC. c. Claims Not Within the Sports Programming Category The JSC challenge MGC’s categorization of the FIFA programs it purports to represent. If MGC’s assertion of FIFA claims had indicia of validity, the burden of categorization (or de- categorization) of this programming would shift to the challenger, the JSC.90 MGC has not proffered evidence that would establish, even prima facie, that the FIFA programs are compensable from the sports programming category. MGC cites the 1978 cable distribution determination of the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (CRT) for the proposition that sports leagues are entitled to sports category retransmission royalties in a distribution proceeding. See [MGC] Opp’n to [JSC] Mot. to Disallow … at 9 (Oct. 31, 2016) (MGC Sports Opp’n) (citing 1978 Cable Royalty Distribution Determination, Docket No. CRT-79-1, 45 Fed. Reg. 63026 (Sept. 23, 1980). MGC’s reliance on the CRT language to support its position is misplaced. In the determination regarding 1978 royalties, the CRT addressed the issue of copyright ownership as between sports leagues and broadcasters. That question is long settled and is not before the Judges in these proceedings. The question before the Judges in these proceedings is whether FIFA is a valid claimant of funds the Sports Programming category of royalties. In these proceedings, as in several prior proceedings, sports programming royalties are those allocated for “live telecasts of professional and college team sports by U.S. and Canadian television stations ….”91 MGC seeks to collect royalties for soccer programming that does not appear to be, and that MGC has not established as, professional team or league play. The invalidity of MGC’s purported FIFA claim notwithstanding, none of the programs listed indicates a team rivalry, i.e., “Team A vs. Team B.” MGC asks a share of Sports Programming royalties for programs, the titles of which are presented in Spanish.92 The JSC assert that the programming itself does not fit the definition of Sports Programming and should be disallowed. For all of the foregoing reasons, however, the FIFA claims are disallowed and the JSC need not go further to challenge the claims, their validity, or their categorization.
90 A timely copyright registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and the facts stated in the certificate. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). This evidence has nothing to do with the categorization of a work for purposes of these proceedings. 91 Cable Participant Notice, Ex. A (definition of “Joint Sports Claimants”); Satellite Participant Notice, Ex. A (definition of “Joint Sports Claimants”). 92 According to the CRB procedural rules, any submission “in a language other than English shall be accompanied by [a certified] … English-language translation.” 37 C.F.R. § 350.4(c). MGC did not abide by this regulation.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 47
2. Canadian Football League The JSC move to strike any claims MGC asserts against Sports Programming funds for broadcasts of Canadian Football League (CFL) games retransmitted by a cable system or systems in the United States. The parties agree that in July 2012 the CFL contracted with IPG for representation in royalty proceedings relating to cable retransmission royalties. The JSC presented evidence that the CFL terminated the representation agreement effective July 29, 2016. In response, MGC referred to an Acknowledgement of Representation dated August 18, 2016, confirming the CFL’s engagement of IPG for collection of cable and satellite retransmission royalties for calendar years 2012 and 2013. See [MGC] Opp’n to [JSC] Mot. to Disallow … at 12 (MGC-JSC Response). Consistent with earlier rulings regarding termination of representation, the Judges conclude that an Acknowledgement of Representation is insufficient to reinstate a terminated agreement. See March 2015 Claims Ruling, Ex. A-1 at 1(termination letter controls for all representation and claims past and future; acknowledgement cannot reinstate terminated agreement.). The Judges have often repeated that “[w]here a claimant has unambiguously manifested that it no longer wants a particular entity to represent its interest … the Judges will honor that request.” 2000-03 Cable Determination, 78 Fed. Reg. at 64988. The CFL unambiguously terminated IPG’s representation on July 29, 2016, “effective immediately.” However, MGC asks the Judges to infer from the CFL’s subsequent “Acknowledgement of Representation” that, notwithstanding the CFL’s termination, the CFL intended for IPG to continue collecting royalties on its behalf for 2011 or 2012 through 2013.93 MGC offers one plausible explanation for the conflicting signals from the CFL, but there are other, equally likely, explanations. For example, since the communications came from different individuals in different departments, the conflicting documents may have resulted from a failure of communication within the CFL.94 The Judges cannot conclude, on such equivocal evidence, that the CFL’s termination was not what it purported to be—a termination of IPG’s services “effective immediately.” The JSC also assert that the CFL licensed NBC Sports Network, a cable network, to broadcast all CFL games in 2012 and 2013. Thus, the JSC assert there were no U.S. broadcasts subject to the cable retransmission royalty during the period in which the CFL had an agreement with IPG. MGC asserts that the burden is upon the JSC to prove up the NBC Sports Network arrangement with the CFL. The Judges need not reach this dispute, however, as the CFL terminated IPG, which renders any action by MGC moot. MGC makes two responses to this argument. First, MGC asserts that the JSC bear the burden to establish that the CFL agreement with NBCSN was an exclusive agreement, obviating
93 IPG filed royalty claims for the CFL for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 royalty years. The “Acknowledgement of Representation” covers only 2012-2013. 94 The termination letter was sent by the legal department while the “Acknowledgment of Representation” was executed by a “SVP Finance.” Kientzle Decl. Exs. 14-15. While it’s fair to assume that the legal department had a full awareness of the CFL’s intent regarding its contractual relations with IPG, the same cannot necessarily be said of the finance department. The termination letter directed IPG to direct inquiries concerning the letter to Bobbi Marshall in the legal department. Had IPG done so, instead of (or in addition to) sending the “Acknowledgement of Representation” to an individual in finance, it might have clarified the matter.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 48
the possibility of broadcasts of CFL games that could be retransmitted by cable systems operators. Second, MGC queries: If there were not compensable retransmissions, why would the JSC seek dismissal of these claims? Again, the Judges need not adjudicate this dispute between the JSC and MGC, as the Judges have determined MGC has no authority to represent the CFL in these proceedings. The Judges dismiss MGC’s claims against the Joint Sports category on behalf of the CFL. 3. Azteca MGC and the JSC engage in lengthy exchanges regarding the identity of the Azteca entity or entities that MGC purports to represent. The JSC assert that TV Azteca is represented by MPAA through an intermediary (Fintage or EGEDA). IPG contends that AIC (Azteca International Corporation) is a subsidiary of TV Azteca and the rightful owner of “rights to use and exploit TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V.’s programming in the U.S.” MGC Sports Claim Opp’n at 18. The JSC also argue that no MGC entity (IPG, SLP, MGC) filed a Petition to Participate on behalf of any Azteca entity. See JSC Mot. at 16-17. The Judges have found that MGC represents AIC in these proceedings and that AIC had authority to designate an agent to collect U.S. retransmission royalties for TV Azteca programming. See supra, sections III.A.1, III.A.3.e and III.A.5.b. However, the Judges have dismissed many program titles for which MGC failed to demonstrate TV Azteca’s ownership or control. See supra, section III.A.8.b. Another angle of attack by the JSC is the failure of MGC to establish that any of the purported sports programs it represents is entitled to royalties from the Sports Programming funds. Neither the JSC nor the Judges can ascertain the nature of the Azteca programming because the titles are listed in Spanish and are presented without the requisite English translation, let alone any description of the contents of the listed programs. This final objection is dispositive. MGC has failed to demonstrate that any of the titles MGC lists is clearly a retransmission of a live “professional or college team sports broadcast by U.S. … television stations ….” See Cable Participant Notice at Ex. A. The Judges REJECT MGC’s claims asserted against the Sports category on behalf of AIC or TV Azteca. B. Challenges by Multigroup Claimants MGC seeks to dismiss “the vast majority” of the JSC’s claims. See Multigroup Claimant’s Mot. to Strike Claims of the Joint Sports Claimants at 20 (Oct. 10, 2016). MGC’s central argument is that the uncorroborated written declarations of the executives of the JSC’s constituent members are insufficient evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the sports teams that own the broadcasts for which they seek royalties. See id. at 5. Whatever merit might otherwise exist in MGC’s challenges, the Judges note that they have dismissed all of MGC’s claims in the Joint Sports category. Consequently, MGC is no longer a participant in that category. The Judges need not reach the merits of MGC’s claims challenges in the Joint Sports category, and dismiss MGC’s challenges as moot.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 49
V. Objections in the Devotional Category A. The SDC’s Challenges 1. All Claims for 2010 Royalty Year The SDC argues that all claims filed by IPG in July 2011 are invalid because Denise Vernon, who submitted the claim form for IPG, had no authority to act on IPG’s behalf. [SDC] Mot. to Disqualify and … Disallow … (Oct.11, 2016) at 19 (SDC Motion). From May 18, 2011, until November 15, 2011, IPG was in the hands of a bankruptcy court-appointed interim receiver. SDC Ex. 21 (Order Appointing Receiver, Galaz v. Worldwide Subsidy Grp. LLC (In re: Lisa Ann Galaz), Case No. 07-53287 rbk (Chapter 13) (Bankr. W.D. Tex. May 18, 2011)) (Order Appointing Receiver); SDC Ex. 22 (Order Discharging Receiver, Galaz v. Worldwide Subsidy Grp. LLC (In re: Lisa Ann Galaz), Case No. 07-53287 rbk (Chapter 13) (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2011)). The SDC argue that the appointment of the receiver divested Ms. Vernon of authority to file royalty claims on behalf of IPG and its clients. In addition, the SDC argue that MGC’s failure to produce the Order Appointing Receiver in discovery shifts the burden onto MGC to demonstrate the Ms. Vernon had authority to submit claims in July 2011. SDC Mot. at 19-20. MGC responds that the court’s order did not deprive Ms. Vernon of authority to file claims. See MGC Opp’n to SDC at 17-18. Moreover, MGC asserts that the receiver expressly authorized Ms. Vernon to file claims in July 2011 and provides Ms. Vernon’s declaration as supporting evidence. See id. at 18; MGC Ex. B ¶ 3 (Decl. of Denise Vernon). MGC also denies that it had any obligation to produce the bankruptcy court order in discovery. MGC Opp’n to SDC at 18-19. Ms. Vernon was (and is) a principal of IPG. As such, she had authority to act on IPG’s behalf (by, inter alia, filing royalty claims), unless the Order Appointing Receiver stripped her of that authority. The Judges find that, on its face, the order did not take away Ms. Vernon’s authority to file royalty claims. The bankruptcy court appointed a receiver “to manage the ongoing business and affairs of [IPG] during the pendency” of the adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court and granted the receiver “authority to decide whether or not [IPG] will continue to prosecute the claims of its clients in pending Copyright Royalty Board Proceedings ….” Order Appointing Receiver at 2-3. The court also barred Denise Vernon from “signing any contract or lease or incurring any debt in the name of or on behalf of” IPG. Id. at 3. As MGC correctly points out, the order appoints the receiver to manage IPG’s business, not to carry out all of IPG’s functions single-handedly. See MGC Opp’n to SDC at 17. The order clearly contemplates that Ms. Vernon would have a continuing role in the business: she was to continue receiving monthly distributions from IPG, Order Appointing Receiver at 2; and, while the order bars her from entering into contracts or leases, or incurring debt on behalf of IPG, the order otherwise does not limit her participation in the day-to-day operation of the firm. Id. at 3. In addition, the filing of claims is different in kind from the prohibited activities, as it does not bind the company in any way. The SDC’s argument that the receiver’s authority was “vast” misses the point. See SDC Reply at 12. At issue is not the breadth of the receiver’s authority to manage IPG but Ms. Vernon’s authority to file annual royalty claims. There is nothing in the Order Appointing Receiver that suggests that the receiver would be responsible for carrying out the fairly mundane
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 50
task of preparing and filing royalty claim forms. Nor is Ms. Vernon’s preparation and filing of claims inconsistent with the receiver’s “vast” authority to manage the business. In addition, the Judges’ find credible the statement in Ms. Vernon’s declaration that she filed the claims with the knowledge and authorization of the receiver. The Judges decline the SDC’s invitation to discount Ms. Vernon’s credibility based on “IPG’s history.” Id. at 13. The “history” to which the SDC advert is, presumably, Raul Galaz’ criminal history. There is no legal or factual basis for the Judges to impute Mr. Galaz’ past criminal behavior to his sister. The SDC’s argument that MGC should have produced the Order Appointing Receiver in discovery is moot in light of the Judges’ finding that the order, on its face, did not deprive Ms. Vernon of authority to file claims. The SDC asked the Judges to remedy the alleged discovery violation by placing the burden on MGC to demonstrate that Ms. Vernon had authority to file claims. Even if the Judges were to impose that remedy and shift the burden to MGC, MGC has met that burden. The Judges also deny the SDC’s request, first appearing in its reply papers, that the Judges request testimony from the receiver. See SDC Reply at 13. The receiver’s testimony could, potentially, rebut Ms. Vernon’s statement that she had the receiver’s express authorization to file claims. However, in view of the Judges’ finding that the Order Appointing Receiver did not take away Ms. Vernon’s preexisting authority to file claims, the receiver’s testimony could not change outcome of the Judges’ ruling concerning the 2010 royalty claims. The Judges reject the SDC’s challenge to all of the 2010 royalty claims filed by IPG, based on Denise Vernon’s alleged lack of authority. 2. Salem Baptist Church The SDC challenge a number of program titles claimed by MGC on behalf of Salem Baptist Church of Chicago, Inc., (Salem-Chicago) asserting that “MGC has made a specious claim for programming produced by different entities, New Salem Church and New Salem Baptist Church.”. SDC Mot. at 20. In support of this assertion, the SDC offer a listing of programs claimed by MGC and several pages of Google search results for “new salem church.” SDC Exs. 23, 19. In its reply papers the SDC goes further, challenging the validity of IPG’s (and thus MGC’s) representation of Salem-Chicago. SDC Reply at 13. To the SDC’s first challenge, MGC responds that Salem-Chicago verified each of the claimed program titles as part of the program/broadcast verification process described by Raul Galaz in his declaration (MGC Ex. A). See MGC Opp’n to SDC at 20. MGC offers as documentary evidence a 2012 email and attachment in which Salem-Chicago verified the broadcasts claimed by IPG on its behalf in the 2000-2003 cable royalty proceeding. See MGC Ex. C. MGC, of course, did not respond to the SDC’s second challenge as it was raised for the first time in the SDC’s reply papers. MGC has met its burden of coming forward with evidence sufficient to support its claims to these program titles. By contrast, the SDC has not put forward any evidence sufficient to cast doubt on Salem-Chicago’s ownership of the programs MGC claims on its behalf in these proceedings. The only evidence relating to this question supplied by the SDC is a Google search on “new salem church.” That search demonstrates that there are many entities that bear similar names to Salem-Chicago. It tells the Judges nothing about television broadcasts or ownership of
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 51
program titles. The Judges find that MGC has demonstrated by sufficient evidence that Salem- Chicago is the copyright owner of the programs that the SDC challenges, and the SDC has failed to rebut that evidence. The Judges will not consider the SDC’s challenge to MGC’s representation of Salem- Chicago as it was raised for the first time in the SDC’s reply papers, giving MGC no opportunity to respond. MGC may seek royalties for the titles it claims on behalf of Salem-Chicago. 3. Discovery Sanctions (Eagle Mountain International Church, Creflo Dollar Ministries, and Bennie Hinn Ministries) The SDC asks the Judges to disallow claims for Eagle Mountain International Church (EMIC), Creflo Dollar Ministries (Dollar), and Bennie Hinn Ministries (Hinn) as a sanction for MGC’s alleged failure to produce documents in discovery. SDC Mot. at 21. The SDC assert that MGC offered no specific objection to the SDC’s follow-up document request for “two agreements with Copeland” referred to in a 2005 email produced in discovery, but did not produce any other document. Id. at 21-22. The SDC point out that the Judges dismissed claims for these entities as a discovery sanction in a prior distribution proceeding and urge the same treatment here. Id. at 22. MGC responds that it has “comprehensively produced all responsive documents in its possession” and no further documents exist. MGC Opp’n to SDC at 22. In addition, MGC argues that the scope of the sanction the SDC seeks is excessive, since Dollar has no connection to the author of the email that prompted the follow-up document request, and Hinn has no connection with the documents that the SDC requested. Id. at 23. The SDC do not address MGC’s response in their reply papers. The Judges have stated in prior proceedings that “[i]t is a basic principle of discovery that a party cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist.” Order Denying IPG Mot. to Strike at 8-9, Docket No. 2008-1 CRB CD 98-99 (Phase II) (May 2, 2014). That principle applies here; the Judges will not sanction MGC for failing to produce documents that it claims do not exist when there is no sufficient evidence to indicate they do exist. 4. Eagle Mountain International Church Once again the SDC challenges claims on behalf of EMIC, arguing that EMIC does not own the television programs for which it seeks royalties.95 Instead the SDC assert that Kenneth and Gloria Copeland own the television programs individually. SDC Mot. at 22. The SDC argue that any television programs owned by the Copelands are not compensable in these proceedings since EMIC, and not the Copelands, filed royalty claims.96 Id. In the instant proceedings the SDC offer evidence that was not available in earlier proceedings: the “Executive Employment Agreements” (EEAs) of Kenneth and Gloria
95 The SDC has made this argument unsuccessfully in two recent proceedings. See March 2015 Claims Ruling at 39; June 2014 Claims Ruling at 18-19. 96 Similarly, the SDC argue that EMIC, and not the Copelands, executed a representation agreement with IPG. See SDC Reply at 15. In the absence of a timely claim, no television programs owned by the Copelands would be compensable with or without a representation agreement.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 52
Copeland. See SDC Exs. 27-28. The SDC note that paragraph 1.4 of each of the Copelands’ EEAs states that COPELAND has created and will continue to create “works of authorship” (as that term is used and defined in the U.S. Copyright Laws). Such works of authorship include, but are not limited to, COPELAND’s sermons, books, pamphlets, lectures, articles, talks and speeches. … [I]t is agreed that all such works of authorship created or composed by COPELAND prior to, during or after the term of this Agreement are and shall be owned solely and exclusively by COPELAND, with the exception of such works whose ownership is specifically designated as belonging to EMIC. SDC Ex. 27 at 4 (Gloria Copeland EEA). The text of paragraph 1.4 of Kenneth Copeland’s EEA is identical. The SDC note, correctly, that television programs are “works of authorship” under U.S. Copyright Laws. SDC Mot. at 23. They also observe, correctly, that “[t]here is no work for hire provision in the employment agreements, and no provision that [EMIC] holds any exclusive interest in those television programs.” Id. MGC responds that the SDC has misread the EEAs or misrepresented their meaning.97 MGC Opp’n to SDC at 24. First, MGC insists that “the works of authorship for which the Copelands retain ownership … are identified in Exhibit A” to the EEAs, and the television programs at issue are not identified on that exhibit. Id. at 24-25. Second, MGC observes that the EEAs state that the Copelands retain copyright ownership “with the exception of such works whose ownership is specifically designated as belonging to EMIC,” and argue that the opening recitals to the EEAs and the copyright notices included in the television programs “specifically designate” EMIC as the copyright owner. Id. at 26 (citing SDC Mot. Exs. 27 and 28 at opening recitals ¶ 1.4). Finally, MGC cites testimony of Jan Harbour, EMIC’s Chief Financial Officer, Kenneth Copeland, and Gloria Copeland as evidence of EMIC’s ownership of the programs. Id. at 27 (citing IPG Ex. D (transcript of perpetuated testimony of Jan Harbour in Docket No. 2008- 1 CRB CD 98-99 (Phase II)) (Harbour Testimony), SDC Mot. Ex. 31 (joint declaration of Harbour, Copeland, and Copeland)). In reply, the SDC deny that they have misrepresented the EEAs and generally controvert MGC’s arguments. In addition, the SDC seek to present new arguments to disallow MGC’s claims on behalf of EMIC. Because these arguments were untimely, the Judges will not consider them.98
97 MGC’s allegations of misrepresentation by the SDC are unsupported and generally unhelpful to the Judges. 98 The SDC assert that Kenneth Copeland, individually, filed copyright a copyright registration claiming authorship and ownership of a three-volume set of DVDs comprised of one-hour sermons conducted by Kenneth Copeland in 2012. SDC Reply at 17-18. The SDC also assert that one of the DVDs was used to create three episodes of one of the broadcast television programs claimed by EMIC in these proceedings. Id. at 19. The SDC argue that the copyright registration contradicts assertions made in the joint declaration of Harbour, Copeland and Copeland. Id. at 20. Once again, the SDC seek to introduce arguments and evidence for the first time in their reply papers. The function of a reply is to afford the movant an opportunity to counter the arguments set forth in an adversary’s response to its motion. It is not an opportunity for the movant to raise new arguments that it could have raised in its motion but reserved until a time when its adversary cannot respond. The Judges will not allow a movant to sandbag its adversary.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 53
As described above, MGC has presented documentary and testimonial evidence that EMIC is entitled to claim retransmission royalties for the Copeland television programs. The Judges give credence to this evidence. The SDC’s effort to rebut this evidence by means of the EEAs is unpersuasive. The SDC posit that the language of the EEAs vests copyright ownership in all works of authorship, including the television programs, in the Copelands individually, while MGC offers a more limited interpretation of the contract language. Both parties, however, fail to address the crucial question of who the author is, or authors are, of the programs. The author or authors of a work are the original copyright owners of the work, unless the work is considered a “work made for hire.” 17 U.S.C. § 201(a). The EEAs can only vest a copyright interest in the Copelands to the extent that they are the authors of the programs. No language in the EEAs conveys any other person’s or entity’s copyright interest to the Copelands. Television programs, like other audiovisual works, typically are produced through the collective creative efforts of multiple individuals. Writers, directors, cinematographers and editors all may make creative contributions that could, potentially, constitute “authorship.” See, e.g., J. Schwab, Audiovisual Works and the Work for Hire Doctrine in the Internet Age, 35 Colum. J.L. & Arts 141, 146 (2011). Even if the Copelands’ creative contributions made them “authors,” that does not mean that they were the sole authors. Consequently, even assuming (without deciding) that the SDC’s interpretation of the EEAs is correct, and the Copelands are copyright owners of the television programs, that does not make them the sole owners of the television programs. The record concerning creative input into the Copeland television programs is fairly barren. In a “Declaration of Copyright Ownership,” 99 Jan Harbour and the Copelands state that the programs “are produced by [EMIC] employees, [and EMIC] pays for all production and airing” of the programs.100 SDC Mot. Ex. 31. The declarants also state that each program bears a copyright notice that identifies “Kenneth Copeland Ministries”—an assumed name for EMIC—as the copyright owners.101 Id. On this record the Judges are unable to conclude that Kenneth and Gloria Copeland are sole owners of copyright in the Kenneth Copeland television programs. The evidence reflects that EMIC employees were involved in the creation of the programs. See SDC Mot. Ex. 31. Their creative contributions could have given rise to copyrightable authorship that, under the work made for hire doctrine, vested in EMIC. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 (definition of “work made for hire”), 201(b). In short, the SDC’s evidence of Kenneth and Gloria Copeland’s possible ownership interest in the programs does not preclude EMIC’s ownership interest in the same programs as a joint author. MGC’s claims on behalf of EMIC stand.
99 MGC also offers the Harbour Testimony to support its position. As it merely repeats the same points made in the declaration, the Judges need not consider it. 100 The declaration also states that EMIC is the copyright owner and that the Copelands have “no personal ownership interest” in any of the programs. Id. These statements are legal conclusions that none of the declarants are qualified to make, and the Judges will not consider them. 101 Unlike a timely copyright registration, a copyright notice is not prima facie evidence of the validity and ownership of copyright; rather it serves to defeat a defense of innocent infringement in mitigation of damages in an infringement action. 17 U.S.C. §§ 401(d), 410(c).
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 54
5. IWV Media Claims The SDC’s arguments for disallowing MGC’s claims for IWV Media stem from statements by Ms. Maureen Millen, IWV Media’s owner, in a declaration prepared by IPG for the consolidated 2004-2009 Cable and 1999-2009 Satellite proceeding. SDC Mot. Ex. 32 (Millen Decl.). According to the SDC, the Judges should disallow IWV’s claims because (1), IWV Media ceased production of programming in 2005, id. ¶ 4, (2) Ms. Millen was unable to locate any contemporaneous records or agreements, id. ¶ 6, and (3) the programs were transmitted on cable networks, not broadcast television stations, id. ¶ 8, and are thus non- compensable. SDC Mot. at 27. MGC responds that the SDC’s first argument is irrelevant—what matters is whether any of IWV Media’s programs were broadcast in 2010-2013 and retransmitted by cable systems, not whether it produced programs during that time period. MGC Opp’n to SDC at 29. MGC argues that the SDC’s remaining arguments are a misinterpretation of her declaration. Ms. Millen’s statement that she was unable to locate any contemporaneous records or agreements was part of her description of the formation of her agreement with IPG before any of the claims in these proceedings were filed, and her subsequent dealings with IPG. Id. Ms. Millen’s statement that IWV Media’s programs aired on certain cable channels was qualified by the word “predominantly,” indicating that they may have aired on broadcast television as well. Id. Moreover, MGC asserts that the networks that Ms. Millen refers to are groups of broadcast television stations, not cable networks. Id. at 30. In reply the SDC, yet again, seek to present a new argument that they could (and should) have included in their motion. The SDC assert, based on records from the Texas Secretary of State, that IWV Media’s corporate charter had been revoked prior to IPG’s filing of claims on its behalf for 2010-2013. For the reasons discussed supra, the Judges will not consider this untimely argument.102 The Judges address MGC’s authority to represent IWV Media supra, section III.A.5.h. The Judges find that MGC has presented sufficient evidence to support IPG’s authority to file claims on IWV Media’s behalf and for MGC to represent IWV Media in these proceedings. The Judges find Ms. Millen’s statement that IWV Media discontinued production of programming in 2005 irrelevant. The relevant question is whether any compensable retransmissions of IWV Media programming occurred during the period covered by these proceedings. That question will be addressed at a later stage. The SDC’s arguments concerning Ms. Millen’s statements concerning the networks that carried IWV’s programming are relevant to the question whether any compensable retransmissions of IWV Media programming occurred during the period covered by these proceedings. Again, that question will be addressed at a later stage. Accordingly, the Judges will not dismiss MGC’s claims on behalf of IWV Media.
102 See supra note 98.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 55
B. MGC’s Challenges 1. Failure to use Full Legal Name MGC asks the Judges to dismiss 43 claims filed by eight of the SDC’s constituent claimants103 on grounds that those claimants failed to use their correct “full legal name” on their royalty claims as required by regulation. MGC Mot. to Strike Claims of the SDC at 1-4 (MGC Mot. re SDC). The Judges’ regulations concerning claims require a claimant to provide its “full legal name” (in the case of a single claim) or “[a] list including the full legal name” of each joint claimant (in the case of a joint claim). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 360.3(b)(1)(i) (2016) (single cable claim), 360.3(b)(2)(i) (2016) (joint cable claim); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 360.12(b)(1)(i) (2016) (single satellite claim), 360.12(b)(2)(i) (2016) (joint satellite claim).104 MGC takes pains to point out that the SDC sought to dismiss claims represented by IPG using the same argument in a prior proceeding. See, e.g., MGC Mot. re SDC at 2-3. The SDC respond that the Judges rejected the “full legal name” argument in prior proceedings and should reject it for the same reason in the instant proceeding. SDC Opp’n at 3. They characterize most of the discrepancies that MGC identifies as “[t]rivial and [i]nconsequential,” id. at 2, and seek to explain and provide context for the other discrepancies. Id. at 4-5. The SDC contend that, ultimately, the names used on each of the claims were “sufficient to express the parties’ intent and to give notice to other claimants of the identification of the entity claiming royalties.” Id. at 4 (quoting March 2015 Claims Ruling at 40). In reply, MGC argues that the March 2015 Claims Ruling that the SDC cite as authority is “evidently distinguishable,” and that “the challenged SDC claims do not ‘permit identification of all copyright owners who are entitled to distribution,’ as is required.” MGC Reply to SDC at 5-6. The Judges find that most of the discrepancies identified by MGC are, indeed, “trivial and inconsequential.” In 19 instances (relating to four claimants) “Inc.” has been omitted from the claimant’s corporate name, and in four instances (relating to one claimant) “(International), Inc.” has been omitted. MGC Mot. re SDC at Ex. A. In each of these instances the name entered on the claim form is sufficient “to permit identification of all copyright owners who are entitled to a distribution.” March 2015 Claims Ruling at 40 (internal quotations omitted). MGC’s argument for dismissing these claims rests on precisely the type of “ridiculous formality” that the Judges held was not required in the March 2015 Claims Ruling. Id. (quoting Sullivan v. Plumbers Pension Fund, 78 F.3d 322, 324 (7th Cir. 1996) (internal quotations omitted)). The Judges reject MGC’s challenge to these 19 claims. MGC seeks to dismiss eight claims relating to American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., because the word “Meeting” has been omitted from the filed claims. See MGC Mot. re SDC at Ex. A. The SDC point out that American Religious Town Hall Meeting, Inc., uses a
103 MGC seeks dismissal of Town Hall Meeting, Inc., Crystal Cathedral Ministries, Inc., It Is Written, Inc., Oral Roberts Evangelistic, Inc., Fellowship of The Woodlands Church, Inc. d/b/a Woodlands Church, Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., Living Church of God, Inc., and Cornerstone Television Network, Inc. on this basis. 104 The regulations governing claims filing were revised, consolidated and renumbered earlier this year. The relevant provisions are now contained in 37 C.F.R. §§ 360.4(b)(1)(i) (single claim) and 360.4(b)(2)(i) (joint claim) for both cable and satellite claims.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 56
shortened version of its corporate name (without “Meeting”) in the copyright notice included with its programming. See SDC Opp’n at 3-4, Ex. 1. The Judges find that the use on a claim form of the same shortened version of a copyright owner’s name that is used on the copyright owner’s works is sufficient to identify the copyright owner that is entitled to a distribution of royalties for that work. The Judges reject MGC’s challenge to these eight claims. MGC seeks to dismiss eight claims by Fellowship of The Woodlands Church, Inc. d/b/a Woodlands Church that identified “Kerry Shook Ministries” as the copyright owner. See MGC Mot. re SDC at 3, Ex. A. Kerry Shook is the founder and CEO of Fellowship of The Woodlands Church, Inc., d/b/a Woodlands Church. SDC Opp’n at Ex. 3 (Shook Decl.) ¶ 2. Kerry Shook Ministries is the name by which that entity regularly identifies itself to the public and its congregation. Id. ¶ 4; see MGC Mot. re SDC at Ex. F (email from Randy Reeves, Executive Pastor of Woodlands Church, stating that “Kerry Shook Ministries is a ministry of Fellowship of The Woodlands Church, Inc., d/b/a Woodlands Church. Any data related to ‘Kerry Shook,’ ‘Kerry Shook Ministries,’ ‘Fellowship of the Woodlands,’ or ‘Woodlands Church’ are one in the same.”). In the March 2015 Claims Ruling the Judges rejected the SDC’s challenge to claims filed in the name of “Creflo Dollar Ministries.” The SDC had argued that “Creflo Dollar Ministries” was a misidentification of the copyright owner of television programs produced by entities associated with Creflo Dollar. Noting that Creflo Dollar “is a registered officer of any number of Georgia corporations, all apparently related to his ministries” the Judges held that “[i]dentifying the Creflo Dollar enterprises as “Creflo Dollar Ministries” is sufficient to express the parties’ intent and to give notice to other claimants of the identification of the entity claiming the royalties.” The Judges reject MGC’s challenge to the eight claims of Kerry Shook Ministries for the same reason.105 Filing the claims in the name by which the copyright owner is commonly known is sufficient to give notice of the entity claiming royalties. Finally, MGC seeks to dismiss four claims filed in the name of Cornerstone Television Network, Inc,. licensee of WPCB, on grounds that the correct name of the copyright owner is Cornerstone Broadcasting, Inc. MGC relies on a “Side Agreement” between Cornerstone and the SDC that identifies the entity name as Cornerstone Broadcasting, Inc. See MGC Mot. re SDC at Ex. G. In response, the SDC offer a declaration of Thomas Scott, Chief Financial Officer of Cornerstone Television, Inc., licensee of WPCB-TV, stating that the entity name stated in the Side Agreement was an error and that the name of the copyright owner is, in fact, Cornerstone Television, Inc., licensee of WPCB-TV. SDC Reply at Ex. 4 (Scott Decl.) ¶ 4. The Judges give credence to the Scott Declaration and find that the copyright owner of the claimed programming is Cornerstone Television, Inc., licensee of WPCB-TV. A discrepancy remains, however, since the claims filed with the Judges are in the name of Cornerstone Television Network, Inc., licensee of WPCB-TV. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, it is clear that the licensee of WPCB-TV owns copyright in, and claims royalties for, the Cornerstone
105 The Judges also reject MGC’s unsupported attempt to distinguish the March 2015 Claims Ruling based on the “duly-registered fictitious business name[s]” employed by the claimants in that earlier case. See MGC Reply to SDC at 5. A close reading of the ruling demonstrates that the Judges’ decision with regard to Creflo Dollar Ministries was not based on a fictitious name registration; rather, it was based on Rev. Dollar’s well-known public affiliation with the network of corporations that carry out the business of his ministry.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 57
Television programming. The Judges are satisfied that Cornerstone’s claim was sufficient to give notice of the entity claiming royalties and, therefore, rejects MGC’s challenge to the Cornerstone claims. 2. Failure to File Claims (Christian Television Corporation) MGC argues that all programs attributed to Christian Television Corporation should be dismissed because that entity did not file any 2010-2012 claims. MGC Mot. re SDC at 4. MGC avers that certain subsidiaries of Christian Television Corporation filed claims, but that none of the claimed programs are owned by any of those subsidiaries. Id. at 4-5. An SDC document that lists the SDC’s claimants and programs associates 12 programs with “Christian Television Corporation” as claimant. See MGC Mot. re SDC at Ex H, pp. 7-8. Both cable and satellite claims were filed for WCLF TV, Christian Television Corporation, Inc. for each of 2010 through 2012 (along with affiliated entities in certain years).106 See SDC Reply at Ex. 5. The addition of WCLF TV’s call sign and “Inc.” to the entity’s name does not render the claim for Christian Television Corporation invalid. Christian Television Corporation’s claim is sufficient to give notice of the entity claiming royalties. The Judges reject MGC’s challenge to the Christian Television Corporation claims for 2010-2012. VI. Order The Judges ORDER the allowance and disallowance of claims as detailed in this Order, including Appendices A and B. The Judges further ORDER the participants in the Consolidated Proceeding No. 14- CRB-0010-CD (2010-13) to adhere to the revised case schedule attached as Appendix C. This case schedule applies only to the cable distribution proceeding and supersedes dates set in any prior scheduling order. Participants shall take care to ensure that their Written Direct Statements (and, if applicable, Amended Written Direct Statements) reflect fully the rulings on allowance and disallowance of claims detailed in this Order. SO ORDERED.
______Suzanne M. Barnett Chief Copyright Royalty Judge DATED: October 23, 2017.
106 Those entities were “WHTN TV, Christian Television Network, Inc.,” “WVLR TV, Volunteer Christian Television, Inc.,” “WHBR TV, Christian Television of Pensacola,” and “WRXY TV, West Coast Christian Television, Inc.”
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 58
Appendix A Disposition of Challenged MGC Claims in the Program Suppliers Category
Cable Royalty Years CLAIMANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Acme Communications Inc. cka Mojo Brands Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Media LLC Adams Golf E E E E Not Anheuser‐Busch Companies, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Claimed Atlantic Film Partners cka Baker Street Media Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Holdings Aviva International LLC (cka DAS B B B B Entertainment) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Big Events Company Withdrawn Withdrawn Withdrawn Withdrawn BKS Entertainment (cka Role Entertainment) Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Breakthrough Films Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed BVTV, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed C/F International Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Cappy Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Carol Reynolds Productions Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Central City Productions, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Cheaters International aka Bobby Goldstein Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Productions Chesler Perlmutter Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Cinemaginaire Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. C C C C Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Cogeco Radio‐Television E E E E Computer Personalities Systems Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Conus Communications Company L.P. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Daniel Hernandez Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed David Finch Distribution Ltd. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Not Farm Journal Electronic Media Allowed Allowed Claimed Claimed Fédération Internationale de Football Association B, D B, D B, D B, D
Filmline International 1999 Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Films By Jove, Inc. E E E E Firing Line (dba for National Review, Inc.) D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) Fishing University, LLC Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Five Star Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 59
Cable Royalty Years CLAIMANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 Florentine Films/Hott Productions, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Funimation Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Global Response LLC Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Grandolph Juravic Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Great Plains National Instructional Library (cka Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Smarterville, Inc.) GTSP Records Allowed F(1), F(2) F(1), F(2) F(1), F(2) Home Enterprises Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Image Entertainment B B B B Image Entertainment, Inc. B B B B InCA Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Integrity Global Marketing Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed IWV Media Group, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed JCS Entertainment II Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed K2 Media Group Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Kid Friendly Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed King Motion Picture Corporation D, E D, E D, E D, E Knight Enterprises F(2) F(2) F(2) F(2) Lawrence Welk Syndication E E E E Link Television Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Magus Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Magus Entertainment / Gorky Studios Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Mansfield Television Distribution Co. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Mark Anthony Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Meredith Corporation Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Midwest Center for Stress & Anxiety Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Not Not MoneyTV.net, Inc. G(2) Claimed Claimed Claimed National Academy of Television Arts and Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Sciences Nelson Davis Productions D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) Network Programs International Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed New Visions Syndication Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Ontario Educational Communications Authority Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Peter Rodgers Organization Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Phil Slater Associates Withdrawn Withdrawn Withdrawn Withdrawn PMT, Ltd. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Productions Pixcom, Inc. C, E C, E C, E C, E Promark Television, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Psychic Readers Network Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 60
Cable Royalty Years CLAIMANT 2010 2011 2012 2013 Quartet International, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Questar, Inc. C C C C Raycom Sports Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Red Apple Entertainment Corporation (cka Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Frantic Films) Ron Hazelton Productions, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Satsuki Ina (aka Hesono O Productions) Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Seen On TV LLC Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Simply Fishing, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. E E E E Not St. Jude Children's Hospital Allowed Allowed Allowed Claimed TEAM Communications D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) D, G(1) TearDrop Golf Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed The City Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Not Not Thump Records, Inc. Allowed Claimed Claimed Claimed Timberwolf Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Not Tremendous Entertainment Allowed Allowed Allowed Claimed TV Guide Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed TV Matters cka Film Matters Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Twin Cities Public TV Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed United Negro College Fund Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed D, E, F(2), D, E, F(2), D, E, F(2), D, E, F(2), Venevision International G(1) G(1) G(1) G(1) Video Tours, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Watercourse Road Productions LLC Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed West 175 Enterprises Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed Whidbey Island Films, Inc. E E E E Willie Wilson Productions, Inc. Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed World Events Productions Allowed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Key:
Allowed: MGC may represent the claimant in these proceedings (subject to the Judges’ rulings on any program titles claimed by the claimant—see, e.g., sections III.A.2.c and III.A.8.b supra) Not Claimed: MGC has asserted no claim of behalf of the claimant for the specific claim year Withdrawn: MGC has withdrawn its claim to represent the claimant in these proceedings B: Dismissed—The claimant expressly terminated IPG or MGC, or disavowed representation by either of them C: Dismissed—The claimant has substituted another representative
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 61
D: Dismissed—The Judges rejected IPG’s claim of authority to represent the claimant in a prior proceeding, and MGC has produced no new evidence to support its claim of authority E: Dismissed—MGC has failed to produce documentary evidence of its authority to represent the claimant F(1): Dismissed—The claimant (or IPG, on the claimant’s behalf) failed to file a royalty claim F(2): Dismissed—The claimant is not listed on SLP’s or MGC’s petitions to participate in these proceedings G(1): Dismissed—MGC produced no evidence that the programs claimed by the claimant were owned or controlled by the claimant in the 2010-2013 period
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 62
Appendix B
SPECIFIC MGC-REPRESENTED PROGRAMS FOR WHICH MGC HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CLAIMANT'S COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT The 63rd Primetime Emmy Awards Academy of Television Arts and Sciences The 64th Primetime Emmy Awards Academy of Television Arts and Sciences The 65th Primetime Emmy Awards Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Atlantic Film Partners cka Baker Street Media Profiles Holdings Atlantic Film Partners cka Baker Street Media Three Blind Mice Holdings Atlantic Film Partners cka Baker Street Media Wilderness Holdings Barry Manilow: Live by Request Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment) Bee Gees -- One Night Only Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment) Bee Gees: Life and Music on Keppel Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment) Road Brian Wilson: Imagination Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment) Earth, Wind and Fire: Shining Stars Aviva International LLC (cka DAS Entertainment) A la mexicana ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Taxi Libre ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca ¡Ay Caramba! Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca ¿Te la sabes cántala? Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca 50 super goles La liga clausura 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca A Cada Quien su Santo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca A la mexicana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca A la mexicana rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Academia 2011 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Adrenalina Deportiva Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al caer la noche Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al extremo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al Extremo "Fin de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al Extremo Edición Especial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al Extremo Extra Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al Extremo Extra Fin de Semana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al extremo fin de semana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al extremo fin de semana rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al extremo rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Al Mexicana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Alfombra Naranja Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Amanecer Carioca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Amores de la patada Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Analisis de liguilla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 63
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Animal nocturno Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Antesala deportiva Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Antesala Deportiva rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Antesala Futbolistíca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Antesala rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Anuario Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asesinos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asesinos Seriales Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asesinos Seriales ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asgaard Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asgaard Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asgaard nueva temporada Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asignación especial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Asignación especial rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ay caramba Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ay Caramba rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ay Caramba Taxi Libre ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ay Carmba Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Azteca music Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Azul tequila Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Azul tequila rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Bellezas indomable Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Bellezas indomable rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Bienvenido 2008 Tv especial Especial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Boda Real Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Boda Real Kate Middleton Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Box Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Box Azteca Ford Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Box Azteca México de un solo galpe Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Bucaneros Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Buenas Noches America con Fernando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Arau Cambio de Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cambio de Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cambio de Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca CAMBIO DE VIDA Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cambio de vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cambio de Vida ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca CAMBIO DE VIDA ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cambio de vida rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Camino a la fama Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Camino a la fama rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 64
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Campeón Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Casting parte 2 La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Casting parte 3 La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca casting parte 4 La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Casting parte1 La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Catalina y Sebastían Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Catalina y Sebastían rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cielo Rojo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cielo Rojo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cine Espectacular del Sabado Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cobertura especial Beatificación Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Con un nudo en la garganta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Con un nudo en la garganta rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Conexión Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Confesiones del más allá Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Corazón en Condominio Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Corazón Grupero Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cosas de la Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Crónicas de un campeón "Santos" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cruz azul de final a final Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cuando Seas Mía Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cuéntame tu Historia con Martha Susana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cybercuates Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca De Campana en Campana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca De cara a la apertura 2011 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Del archivo de Pati Chapoy Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Demente Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deporte Caliente Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deportips Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deportv Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deportv America Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deportv América Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deportv America rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Desfile Conmemorativo 150 años de la Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca batalla de Puebla Destino Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Detrás de Segunda Oportunidad Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Dificil de Creer Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Difícil de creer Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Difícil de creer ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Difícil de creer fin de semana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Dificil de creer rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 65
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Difícil de creer rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Drenaje Profundo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Echale Primo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El asesino Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El asesino rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El campeón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Coffee Break Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca EL Cofi Breik Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El gran desafío Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Grito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Grito (15 de Septiembre) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El milagro de los santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El milagro de los Santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Milagro de los Santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El milagro de los Santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El milagro de los Santos ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Milagro de los Santos ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El milagro de los Santos rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El Pelado de la Noche Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El que no cae resbala Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El que no cae resbala Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El que no cae resbala "Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca dominical" El que no cae resbala "Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca dominical" rep El que no cae resbala Edición Dominical Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El que no cae resbala Edición Dominical Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca rep El que no cae resbala rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca El show de Niurka 2009 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ella es Niurka Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ellos vs Ellas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Emperatiz Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca En contexto Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Entre nos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Entre tres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Entre tres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Entrevista con Sarmiento Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Escándalos de cosas de la vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Escándalos de cosas de la vida rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Escandalos Gruperos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Escándalos y tragedias del deporte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 66
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Especial detrás de cámaras El gran Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca desfío Especial Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial - Julio Preciado Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial 10 años en la Oscuridad Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial 12 Campanadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial 12 Canpanadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial 14 de febrero - Amores de Alto Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Riesgo Contigo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Academia Kids Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Al Extremo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Al Extremo 2009 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Al Extremo 2013 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Al Extremo Inocencia Ultrajada Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Alejandra Guzmán Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Alejandro Fernádez Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Alfombra roja El gran desafío Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Alto Riesgo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial América Campeón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Análisis de la Liguilla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Análisis La Liguilla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Anuario Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Archivos Secretos Jenni Rivera Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca 1 Especial Archivos Secretos Jenni Rivera Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca 2 Especial Asesinos Seriales parte 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Asesinos Seriales parte 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Azteca Music 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Azteca Music 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Azteca Music 3 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Azteca Music 4 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Benedicto XVI… Fin de un Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca viaje Especial Box Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Box Azteca 2010 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial calendario Niurka 2009 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Camino a Sudafrica Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Campeón 2010 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Cantándoles al amor Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Caso Monterrey Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Caso Paulette parte 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 67
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Especial Caso Paulette parte 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Catastrofe Japón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Celia Lora Homicidio Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Imprudencial Especial Chile el gran rescate Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Convenciones Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Cosas de la Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial crónica del campeón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Dallas, Yarda 50 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial del Altar a los juzgados Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca reconcialiación AB Quintanilla y Cruz Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Martínez herencia de Telenovela Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca dinastía trágica Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca sobreviviendo así mismo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca destape de un secreto Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Deportv Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Deportv America Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Día de las Madres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial día del padre Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Día del padre Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Difícil de creer Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Difícil de Creer desde África Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Difícil de creer rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El Camino del Campeón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El Campeón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El campeón Apertura 2013 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El campeón Torneo de Apertura Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial el fenómeno de la academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El juego de la fuerza Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El juego de las Estrellas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El juego del peligro Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial El nuevo papa renovación de fe Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial el show de Niurka Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Escandalos y Tragedias del Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Deporte Especial Espinoza Paz Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Eurocopa Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Expediente Bin LaDEN Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Extranormal Día de Muertos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Famosas al desnudo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Fashion Grupero Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Festival Azteca Music Día de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 68
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Muertos Especial Goles Internacionales Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Grupero Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Grupero ¡Que escándalo! Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Grupero ¡Que escándalo! ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial HE Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Héroes y villanos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Historias de Terror de los Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Famosos Especial Inés Sáenz, en la línea de golpeo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Invitados academia 2011 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Jenni Rivera en Historias Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Engarzadas parte 1 Especial Jenni Rivera, El Adiós a una Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Diva Especial Joan Sebastian Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Joyas Gruperas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Juan Gabriel Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Juan Manuel Márquez Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Juan Pablo II Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Julio César Chávez JR Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial la Academia 2011 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Academia Kids Año Nuevo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Academia Kids Navideño Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Academia La Gala Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Academia última generación Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Academia: Sorpresa de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Navidad Especial La Isla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial La Isla "El reality" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Las doce campanadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Las Revelaciones Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Laura Bozzo, sin miedo a la Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca verdad Especial Laura Bozzo, sin miedo a la Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca verdad rep Especial Laura de todos Guardería ABC Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Lo más difícil de creer 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca parte 1 Especial Lo más difícil de creer 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca parte 2 Especial Lo más escalofriante de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal de impacto Especial lo mejor de Futbol Tecate Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 69
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Especial lo mejor del año de tiempo de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca goles Parte 1 Especial lo mejor del deporte 2013 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Lo que no se vío de el Gran Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca desafío de estrellas Especial lo que no vio del show de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Niurka Especial lo que no vio del show de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Niurka rep Especial Los mejores goles 2009 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial los mejores goles 2010 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial los mejores momentos de La Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca academia Kids Especial Los secretos de la casa de la Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Academia Especial Luis Coronel Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Mana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Mañanitas a la Viegen Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Mañanitas a la virgen Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial mejores momentos del futbol en Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca el mundo Especial México Decide 2012 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial muévete de noche Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Musical Espinoza Paz Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial musical La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Navidad Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Navidad La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Recalentado" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Noticias Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Pasaporte Deportivo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Pastorela Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Posada Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Posada Ventaneando rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Profecías Mayas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Revive la pasión de Cristo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Ricky Martin Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial rumbo a la academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Bicentenario Especial Rumbo a la Ligullia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Rumbo al Mundial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Segunda Oportunidad Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Selene la reina del texmex Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Shakira Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Show de Niurka Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 70
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Especial Tigres del Norte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Tijuana entre el cielo y el Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca infierno Especial Tiroteos, el recuento: sangre y Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca dolor Especial Trayectoria Grupera Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Trayectoria Grupera ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Ventaneando 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Ventaneando 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Ventaneando 3 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Ventaneando 4 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Vicente Fernández Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Vidas al límite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Virgen de Guadalupe Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Viva el Cruz Azul Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Viva Santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Yo Amo a México Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial yo amo México Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Estado de la Unión Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal de impacto Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal de Impacto "Fin de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal de impacto Edición especial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Día de Muertos Extranormal de impactro Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal Especial Halloween Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Extranormal rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Famosas al Desnudo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Famosos en jaque Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Famosos en jaque rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Fans al Acecho Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Fashion Grupero Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Festival Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Festival Azteca Music Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Fiesta Azteca a 200 años del bicentenario Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Frente a frente Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Frente a frente rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Futbol fama Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Futbol fama rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Generación 2011 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Gran Especial Bicentenario Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hasta Mañana es Lunes Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hechos AM Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 71
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Hechos AM Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hechos Nacional Noche Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hechos Nacional Tarde Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historia detrás del mito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historia Detrás del mito ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historia detrás del mito rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias de la vida real Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias detrás del mito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias Engarzadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias engarzadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias Engarzadas "Fin de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Historias engarzadas rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hit M3 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hit M3 ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hombre Tenias que Ser Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hoy te toca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hoy te toca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hoy te toca rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Hoy te toca rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Íconos Deportivos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Infarto Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca infarto rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Juguetón Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia 10 años Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia al límite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia al límite rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La academia Bicentenario Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La academia Bicentenario "La Casa" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia Kids Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Academia última generación de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca México Concierto La Bitácora La Isla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La boda real el resumen Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La historia detrás del mito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Historia detrás del Mito "Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial" La Historia Detrás del Mito "Fin de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Semana" La Historia Detrás del Mito ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La historia detrás del mito rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La hora de la verdad Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Isla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 72
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT La Isla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Isla "El reality" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Loba Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La loba Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La otra cara del alma Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Teniente Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Verdad de mi Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Verdad de mi Vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La verdad de mi vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es ina canción rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Vida es una canción Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es una canción Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Vida es una Canción Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es una canción Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es una canción Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es una canción ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La Vida es una canción ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca La vida es una canción rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Las Bravo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Laura de todos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Laura de todos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo más escalofriante de Extranormal Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo más escalofriante Extranormal de Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Impacto Lo más Insolito del 2012 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo Mejo Al Extremo Parte 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo Mejo Al Extremo Parte 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo mejor de Al Extremo Parte 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo mejor de Al Extremo Parte 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo mejor de antesala deportiva Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo Mejor de Extranormal Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo mejor de la liga de Clausura 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo mejor de Laura de todos Primera Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca temporada Lo mejor de Venga la alegría Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que Callamos las mujeres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que callamos las mujeres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo Que Callamos las Mujeres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que callamos las mujeres Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que Callamos las mujeres "Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial" Lo que callamos las mujeres Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 73
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Lo que callamos las mujeres Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Lo que Callamos las Mujeres Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Especial Lo que callamos las mujeres Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca especial rep Lo que callamos las mujeres rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que el año se llevo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que el año se llevó Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que la gente cuenta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que la Gente Cuenta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que la Gente Cuenta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que la Gente Cuenta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Lo que la gente cuenta rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 100 golazos de la Liga Azteca Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 + Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 + "Fin de semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 Más Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 más Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 Más "Fines de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 más fin de semana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25 más rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los 25+ Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los archivos del 2011 Parte 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los archivos del 2011 Parte 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los ganadores de la gente Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los grandes momentos de la Liga Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los Héroes de la Liga 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los Mejores Momentos de Venga la Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Alegría Los Protagonistas del mundial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Los Rey Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Mañanitas a la Virgen Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Mañanitas a La Virgen María Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Maratón Lo que la gente cuenta Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Maratón Va que va Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Maratón vidas al límite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Maravillas de México Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Más Allá del Deporte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Mientras haya vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Mientras haya vida rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Montecristo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Muejr Comprada Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 74
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Mujer Comprada Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ni una vez más Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ni Una Vez Más Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca No te lo pierdas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Azteca America Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Azteca America 1er edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Azteca America rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Azteca America West Coast Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Azteca America West Coast Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca ( R ) Noticiero Nacional Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Nacional Azteca america Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Nacional Azteca America Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Nacional Azteca america ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticiero Nacional Azteca Edición Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Nocturna Noticiero nacional rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Noticieros Hechos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Pasión Deportiva Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Pastorela Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Pinche Pancho Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Platicando con Alazraki Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Platicando con Alazraki rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Por fin el fin Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Por fin el fin rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Por ti Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Por ti rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Posada Ventaneando Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Premios y Escándalos del deporte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Previo Inauguración Estadio Santos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Laguna Previo La Academia última generación Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Prohibido Amar Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Puro loco Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Puro loco rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Que buena onda Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Que buena onda Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Que buena onda rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Que buena onda rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Quiero Ser Grupero Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Quiero ser Grupero 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Reporte 13 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Resumen Mientras haya vida Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 75
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Revive la pasión de Cristo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Rompe Márquez… rumbo a su pelea Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Parte 1 Rompe Márquez… rumbo a su pelea Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Parte 2 Rompe Márquez… rumbo a su pelea Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Parte 3 Rostros 2008 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Rumbo a la final de la liguilla Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Sábados A la mexicana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Sangre de Campeones Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Se vale soñar Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Se Vale Soñar Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Se vale soñar ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Se vale soñar rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Secretos del Alma Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Segunda Oportunidad Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Señora Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Señora rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Sexo fuerte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Shalalá Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Si te la sabes cantala Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Siempre Tuya Acapulco Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Siempre Tuya Acapulco "Resumen" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Simplemente Yahir Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Super libro Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tatiana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Taxi libre Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Taxi libre rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Te cache Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Te caché Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Te caché rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tiempo de Goles Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Toma de posesión de Barack Obama Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Toma posesión presidencial Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Top Ten Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Top ten Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tragedia de los Famosos Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tragedias del deporte Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tras las rejas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Tratetoria al Éxito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Trayectoria al Éxito Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Trayectoría Grupera Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 76
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Va que Va Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Va que va Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Va que Va "Fin de semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Va que Va "Fines de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Va que va rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vamonos al Baile Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vámonos al Baile Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Venga el Domingo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Venga el Domingo 1 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Venga el Domingo 2 Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Venga la Alegría Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando America Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando América Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando America ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando América ( R ) Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando america Bienvenido el Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Cucucy Ventaneando America rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ventaneando Que viva la liga Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca vidas al Limite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas al límite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas al Limite "Fin de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas al Límite "Fin de Semana" Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas al límite Fin de semana Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas al Limite rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas la límite Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vidas Robadas Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vive Brasil Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vivir a Destiempo Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Vivir así Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ya cayó Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ya cayó rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ya cayó renovado Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Ya cayó rep Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Yo me Quierio Casar ¿Y tú? Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Yo me Quierio Casar ¿Y tú? Azteca International Corp. obo TV Azteca Paul McCartney: Live at the Cavern Big Events Company Celebration of Life: Rising Above Breast BKS Entertainment (cka Role Entertainment) Cancer Lingo C/F International Circles of Deceipt: Dark Secrets Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Circles of Deceit: Dark Secret Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Eureka 4D Cinemavault Releasing, Inc.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 77
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Fight Night Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Newsmakers Special Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Now That's Entertainment Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Shattered Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. The Legend of Sea Wolf Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Time for Drunken Horses Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. What I Like About You Cinemavault Releasing, Inc. Cirque ?loize: Excentricus Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil Fire Within Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil: Alegria Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil: Fire Within Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil: Quidam Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil: Varekai Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil's Quidam Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Cirque du Soleil's Solstrom Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Saltimbanco -- Cirque du Soleil Cirque du Soleil Images Inc. Agent of Influence Cogeco Radio-Television Blessed Stranger: After Flight 111 Cogeco Radio-Television Children of My Heart Cogeco Radio-Television Iron Road Cogeco Radio-Television Love and Murder Cogeco Radio-Television Video Computer Computer Personalities Systems Inc. Video Computer Store 13 Computer Personalities Systems Inc. Sport Fishing Daniel Hernandez Productions Sport Fishing on the Fly Daniel Hernandez Productions Sportfishing Daniel Hernandez Productions Sportfishing on the Fly Daniel Hernandez Productions AG Day and FFA Farm Journal Electronic Media Ag USA Farm Journal Electronic Media 2010 FIFA World Cup Magazine Fédération Internationale de Football Association Copa Mundial 2006 Fédération Internationale de Football Association Copa Mundial 2006: El Sorteo Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA U-20 World Cup Pre-View Show Fédération Internationale de Football Association Preview 2007: FIFA Women's World Fédération Internationale de Football Association Cup on CBC World Cup Soccer: Highlights Fédération Internationale de Football Association The Breakthrough Filmline International 1999 Inc. The Peacekeeper Filmline International 1999 Inc. Mikhail Baryshnikov: Stories From My Films By Jove, Inc. Childhood John Tesh GTSP Records John Tesh: Christmas Worship GTSP Records
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 78
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Haven Holiday Special: An American Home Enterprises Christmas Lionheart Image Entertainment 4Pk Tae Bo Live Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Integrity Global Marketing Alexis 4 Pay Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Vogel Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Vogel 4 Pay 39.95 Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Vogel 4 Pay 49.95 Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Vogel Cosmetics Integrity Global Marketing Alexis Vogel System V.1 Integrity Global Marketing Integrity Global Integrity Global Marketing Integrity Marketing Integrity Global Marketing New Tae Bo Integrity Global Marketing Pay-Per-View Tae Bo Integrity Global Marketing T2 Live Integrity Global Marketing T2 Tae Bo Live Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo $39.95 Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo 2 Get Ripped Billy Blanks Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo 2 Live Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo Get Ripped Billy Blanks Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo Live Integrity Global Marketing Tae Bo Work Out Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo 2 Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo 2 Get Ripped Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo 5 Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo Get Ripped Integrity Global Marketing Tae-Bo Live Omaha Integrity Global Marketing Great Canadian Food Knight Enterprises Lawrence Welk Extravaganza Lawrence Welk Syndication Lawrence Welk's Special Lawrence Welk Syndication Caribou Kitchen Link Television Entertainment Skylark Link Television Entertainment Teddy Bears Rescue Link Television Entertainment Teddy Bears' Scare Link Television Entertainment Adventurers Magus Entertainment Miss Teen Pageant Mark Anthony Entertainment Three Trees Mark Anthony Entertainment Better Homes and Gardens Meredith Corporation Midwest Midwest Center for Stress & Anxiety
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 79
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Emerging Report MoneyTV.net, Inc. Making It Nelson Davis Productions Making It: Minority Success Stories Nelson Davis Productions Acme School of Stuff Ontario Educational Communications Authority Ancient Civilizations Ontario Educational Communications Authority Organic Chemistry Ontario Educational Communications Authority Organic Chemistry 1 Ontario Educational Communications Authority Organic Chemistry 2 Ontario Educational Communications Authority Origins Ontario Educational Communications Authority Our Fragile World Ontario Educational Communications Authority A Touch of Murder Peter Rodgers Organization Adventures of Black Beauty Peter Rodgers Organization Bill Cosby Show Peter Rodgers Organization Circle of Fear Peter Rodgers Organization Cisco Kid Peter Rodgers Organization Dark Future Peter Rodgers Organization Deadly Weapon Peter Rodgers Organization Face of the Enemy Peter Rodgers Organization Hotshot Peter Rodgers Organization Mariachi USA Festival Peter Rodgers Organization Night Shift Peter Rodgers Organization Operation: Take No Prisoners Peter Rodgers Organization Phenomenon Peter Rodgers Organization Phenomenon II Peter Rodgers Organization Phenomenon: The Lost Archives Peter Rodgers Organization Rifleman Peter Rodgers Organization Russian Roulette Peter Rodgers Organization Steele's Law Peter Rodgers Organization Tarzan: The Epic Adventures Peter Rodgers Organization The Racketeer Peter Rodgers Organization Tunnels Peter Rodgers Organization You're Driving Me Crazy Peter Rodgers Organization Becoming Queen and Fleetwood Mac: Peter Rodgers Organization Unbroken Chain Damned Dirty Business: The Story of the Phil Slater Associates Lusitania Las Aventuras de Tom Sawyer PMT, Ltd. Little Women PMT, Ltd. Nature of the Holy Land PMT, Ltd. Swiss Family Robinson PMT, Ltd. Testify PMT, Ltd. Testify! PMT, Ltd. Testify! A Gospel Celebration PMT, Ltd.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 80
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Centenaire de Desjardins Productions Pixcom, Inc. Compl?tement marteau Productions Pixcom, Inc. Gregorian Chant: Songs of the Spirit Productions Pixcom, Inc. Hunters in the Sky Quartet International, Inc. Native American Questar, Inc. More Than a Game Raycom Sports More Than a Game: A Basketball Story Raycom Sports More Than a Game: A Family First Raycom Sports Special Our Holiday Memories Raycom Sports Red Apple Entertainment Corporation (cka Frantic Escuadr?n Counterforce Films) Red Apple Entertainment Corporation (cka Frantic Singles Court Films) Housecalls Ron Hazelton Productions, Inc. House Calls Ron Hazelton Productions, Inc. As Seen on TV PC 8 Seen On TV LLC A Delicate Battle Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Actor's Notes Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Angels of Mercy Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Artifacts Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Asylum of Spoons Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Canvas of Conflict Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Canvas of War Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Cela Franca Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Foot Notes Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Frame By Frame Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Frank Augustyn Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Freedom Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Get A Life Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Homes By Design Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. In Search of a Soul Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Jewel on The Hill Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Live From the National Arts Centre Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. More Than Meets the Eye Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Opera Under The Stars Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Painting Pictures Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Paradise Seekers Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Surviving The Fear Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. The Dancers' Story Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. The Group of Seven Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Time To Dance Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 81
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Whole Notes Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Wild By Nature Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Wild By Nature Shorts Sound Venture Productions Ottawa Ltd. Mid South St. Jude Telethon St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude Children's Research Telethon St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude Telethon St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude Telethon Continues St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude: A Story of Hope St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude: A Time to Live St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Children's Hospital St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Home Giveaway St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Hospital St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Research Hospital St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Special St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's Story of Hope St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's: A Story of Hope St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's: City of Hope St. Jude Children's Hospital St. Jude's: Time to Live St. Jude Children's Hospital Story of Hope St. Jude Children's Hospital Time to Live St. Jude Children's Hospital 800 Leguas en el Amazonas TEAM Communications 800 Leguas por el Amazonas TEAM Communications Address Unknown TEAM Communications Amore! TEAM Communications Bad Blood TEAM Communications Barnaby and Me TEAM Communications Big Valley TEAM Communications Birds of Prey TEAM Communications Call of the Wild TEAM Communications Captive TEAM Communications Chance of a Lifetime TEAM Communications Dave Broadfoot: Old Dog, New Tricks TEAM Communications Deadfall TEAM Communications Doc TEAM Communications Double Exposure TEAM Communications Earthquake in New York TEAM Communications Final Jeopardy TEAM Communications First Love TEAM Communications Fool's Gold TEAM Communications Forever TEAM Communications Geronimo/My Son, My Son TEAM Communications Ghost Ship TEAM Communications
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 82
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT Gorgo TEAM Communications Hamptons TEAM Communications Heartbreak Hotel TEAM Communications Heavy Metal TEAM Communications Hit and Run TEAM Communications Home for Christmas TEAM Communications Honor Among Thieves TEAM Communications Hunk TEAM Communications Hurt Penguins TEAM Communications Jim's Gift TEAM Communications Jocks TEAM Communications Joe Palooka TEAM Communications Kidnapped TEAM Communications L.A. Bounty TEAM Communications L'Ensorcellement de Ben Wagner TEAM Communications Legendary Lighthouses TEAM Communications Love Note/My Son, My Son TEAM Communications Lush Life TEAM Communications Magic Kid TEAM Communications Marching Out of Time TEAM Communications Mirage TEAM Communications My Tutor TEAM Communications Mysteries of the Mind TEAM Communications Necessity TEAM Communications Obsession TEAM Communications Odd Man Out TEAM Communications One Good Turn TEAM Communications One in a Million TEAM Communications Perfect Woman TEAM Communications Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal TEAM Communications Puzzle TEAM Communications Rats TEAM Communications Raw Deal TEAM Communications Rogues TEAM Communications Rush Week TEAM Communications Salsa TEAM Communications Scorpion TEAM Communications Sessions TEAM Communications Sextette TEAM Communications Stacy's Knights TEAM Communications Survival TEAM Communications Svengali TEAM Communications
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 83
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT T-Men TEAM Communications That Was Then TEAM Communications That Was Then... This Is Now TEAM Communications The Alamo TEAM Communications The Arrival TEAM Communications The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman TEAM Communications The Avenging TEAM Communications The Awakening TEAM Communications The Big Valley TEAM Communications The Blue Lightning TEAM Communications The Burning Bed TEAM Communications The Calendar Girl Murders TEAM Communications The Ghost of Greville Lodge TEAM Communications The Gingerbread Man TEAM Communications The Hillside Stranglers TEAM Communications The Lost City TEAM Communications The Man in the Moon TEAM Communications The Messenger TEAM Communications The Osterman Weekend TEAM Communications The Power Within TEAM Communications The Sister-In-Law TEAM Communications The Specialist TEAM Communications The Test TEAM Communications The Witness TEAM Communications Tiger Heart TEAM Communications Tomboy TEAM Communications Tomorrow Never Comes TEAM Communications Top Cop TEAM Communications Total Recall 2070 TEAM Communications Tough Love TEAM Communications Toughlove TEAM Communications Trapper County War TEAM Communications True Blue TEAM Communications Two of a Kind TEAM Communications Van Nuys Blvd. TEAM Communications Vengeance TEAM Communications Where the Red Fern Grows, Part II TEAM Communications Willa: An American Snow White TEAM Communications MCI Heritage Classic Golf Report TearDrop Golf Teardrop Golf TearDrop Golf Teardrop Putt of the Week TearDrop Golf The City The City Productions
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 84
PROGRAM TITLE CLAIMANT After the Harvest The City Productions Doomstown The City Productions La Florida The City Productions The Life The City Productions The Man Who Lost Himself The City Productions The Sheldon Kennedy Story The City Productions The Terrorist Next Door The City Productions Outdoors Show Timberwolf Productions Musical Escapes Tremendous Entertainment Once Upon a Tree Tremendous Entertainment TV Guide's 50 Best Shows of All Time TV Guide TV Guide TV Guide TV Guide: Greatest Moments 2003 TV Guide TV Guide: Greatest Moments 2004 TV Guide 9 Steps to Financial Freedom Twin Cities Public TV American Photography: A Century of Twin Cities Public TV Images Courage to Be Rich Twin Cities Public TV Hoop Dreams Twin Cities Public TV Jane Goodall: Reason for Hope Twin Cities Public TV Liberty! The American Revolution Twin Cities Public TV More Courage to be Rich Twin Cities Public TV Newton's Apple Twin Cities Public TV Right on the Money Twin Cities Public TV Road to Wealth Twin Cities Public TV Suze Orman's Financial Freedom Twin Cities Public TV Seminar Salute to UNCF Sportsball United Negro College Fund UNCF Celebrity Golf and Tennis United Negro College Fund Tournament Los Buenos Dias de HTV Venevision International Mother's Day Video Tours, Inc. Best of Kerr West 175 Enterprises Chefs of Cucina Amore West 175 Enterprises Cucina Amore West 175 Enterprises Cucina Amore Pledge Marathon West 175 Enterprises Great Food West 175 Enterprises Masterchef USA West 175 Enterprises World of Wildlife West 175 Enterprises
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 85
Appendix C
Revised Cable Distribution Case Schedule Consolidated Proceeding No. 14-CRB-0010-CD (2010-13)
Case Event Date Allocation Phase Hearing Commences February 5, 2018 Determination re allocation issues NTE June 30, 2018 Distribution Phase Ruling on Claims Issues October 23, 2017 Deadline for Written Direct Statements re Distribution Methodologies (WDS-D); Commence Discovery re WDS-D December 22 2017 End discovery re WDS-D February 22, 2018 Deadline for AWDS-D March 9, 2018 Joint settlement conference period April 2-23, 2018 Joint Settlement Conference Report April 27, 2018 If Distribution Issues Not Settled Deadline for Written Rebuttal Statements re Distribution Methodologies (WRS-D)107 July 2, 2018 Hearing Commences August 13, 2018 Determination re distribution issues NTE March 26, 2019
107 The Judges may, in their discretion, order rebuttal discovery on motion of a party or parties and for good cause shown.
md/kw Royalty Distribution Claims Ruling Cable and Satellite 2010-13 – Page 86