![]() is to receive 50% of Aftermath's net receipts “n masters licensed by us ․ to others for their manufacture and sale of records or for any other uses.” The parties refer to this provision as the “Masters Licensed” provision. is to receive between 12% and 20% of the adjusted retail price of all “full price records sold in the United States ․ through normal retail channels.” The agreement further provides that “otwithstanding the foregoing,” F.B.T. The “Records Sold” provision of that agreement provides that F.B.T. signed an agreement transferring Eminem's exclusive recording services to Aftermath. signed Eminem in 1995, gaining exclusive rights to his recordings. We therefore reverse the judgment and vacate the district court's order awarding Aftermath its attorneys' fees.į.B.T. We agree that the contracts are unambiguous and that the district court should have granted summary judgment to F.B.T. reasserts that the Masters Licensed provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones. did not move for judgment as a matter of law, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Aftermath. moved for summary judgment that the Masters Licensed provision unambiguously applied to permanent downloads and mastertones. and Aftermath disagree on whether the contracts' “Records Sold” provision or “Masters Licensed” provision sets the royalty rate for sales of Eminem's records in the form of permanent downloads and mastertones. Mathers, III, professionally known as the rap artist Eminem. Productions, LLC, and Em2M, LLC, under their contracts with Defendant Aftermath in connection with the recordings of Marshal B. This dispute concerns the percentage of royalties due to Plaintiffs F.B.T. Lemoine, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendants-appellees. Busch, King & Ballow, Nashville, TN, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Eisenberg, Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin PC, San Francisco, CA and Richard S. Decided: September 03, 2010īefore JEROME FARRIS, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and BARRY G. Aftermath Records, dba Aftermath Entertainment Interscope Records UMG Recording, Inc. Productions, LLC Em2M, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AFTERMATH RECORDS, dba Aftermath Entertainment Interscope Records UMG Recording, Inc. PRODUCTIONS, LLC Em2M, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ![]() United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.į.B.T.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |