MY NOTES: Business Organizations | Constitutional Law I | Copyright Law | Evidence | Wills and Trusts

Ocasek v. Hegglund, 116 F.R.D. 154 (1987) p.576


exclusive rights under copyright


ASCAP spies observed public performance in a dance hall. Plaintiff is ASCAP's client. ASCAP is policing the copyrights. Action was brought for infringement of copyrighted musical compositions and motion was brought to compel attendance at depositions and countermotion was filed for a protective order prohibiting taking of depositions.


Whether ASCAP had standing to bring suit, and whether the copyright owner has to submit to the inconvenience of personal depositions.


ASCAP may not act with the authority of the copyright owners to enforce their rights. Must have exclusive rights in order to be a party in a lawsuit.


The District Court, Brimmer, Chief Judge, held that owners of allegedly infringed copyrighted musical compositions were entitled to protective order to prohibit taking of their depositions. Motion for protective order granted.


In order to make out case for infringement of copyright in musical compositions, in addition to submitting documentation of their copyrights, plaintiffs need only prove that their works were performed without authorization, and the degree of similarity to the original is irrelevant if work is held out to be performance of copyrighted work.


ASCAP finds someone playing the P's music without a license. ASCAP then files in the name of the copyright owner. Attorney for defense says he has a right to take deposition of P. But Fed RUle 26 says that if the requested discovery is burdensome or oppreseive the court can grant a protective order.
- usually when you go into Federal Court that the actual judges will not be writing rulings on discovery issues. This will be taken care of by a magistrate (not the judge).

Created on: Tuesday, October 19, 1999 at 19:15:36 (PDT)

Copyright © Thompson Resources, 1999, all rights reserved.