John Maltbie

Pandora Media’s recent settlement of copyright infringement litigation brought by Robin Williams’ estate and several prominent comedians marks an important moment in the evolving law of streaming, spoken-word recordings, and digital licensing. While the settlement terms remain confidential, the case highlights ongoing uncertainty over who holds enforceable rights in recorded comedy performances and what permissions platforms must obtain. Background: A Dispute Over Comedy Recordings and Royalties The lawsuits were filed in 2022 by Williams’ estate, Lewis Black, George Lopez, Ron White, and others, alleging Pandora streamed their comedy performances without proper authorization. Plaintiffs sought roughly US$60 million in unpaid royalties, arguing Pandora engaged in unauthorized reproduction and public performance under the US Copyright Act. The cases were consolidated in California’s Central District. Pandora’s Defence: Record Label Licenses Are Sufficient Pandora argued it needed licenses only from record labels or recording owners, not from comedians personally. The platform framed the dispute as one of ownership allocation: while comedians supply creative labor, contractual arrangements often vest sound recording rights in labels. Pandora also characterized the claims as inconsistent with established streaming industry norms for spoken-word content. The Antitrust Counterclaims (and Why They Failed) Pandora counterclaimed that Lewis Black and Spoken Giants LLC operated a licensing cartel. US District Judge Mark C. Scarsi dismissed these antitrust claims twice, finding Pandora failed to plead sufficient facts supporting monopoly or conspiracy. The rulings underscore that competitive allegations require more than generalized assertions. Implied License and Equitable Estoppel: A Turning Point By 2024, the case centered on summary judgment. Special master Suzanne H. Segal recommended judgment for Pandora based on implied license and equitable estoppel, citing plaintiffs’ alleged awareness of Pandora’s streaming and delayed objections. Judge Scarsi noted implied license remains “underdefined” outside traditional work-for-hire contexts, but signaled it may extend more broadly in digital media disputes. The Settlement: A Quiet Ending, Loud Implications Following a court-ordered settlement conference, the parties resolved the case. SiriusXM/Pandora stated the outcome “affirms the legality” of its licensing approach and emphasized it did not obtain literary rights licenses or make related payments. Though confidential, the settlement illustrates the litigation risks creators face when delay, industry practice, and implied consent defenses come into play. Takeaway The Pandora settlement reinforces the need for clear chain-of-title documentation and prompt rights enforcement. As streaming expands into comedy and spoken-word content, the central question persists: when does a performer’s contribution become a separately licensable copyright interest?

7

1 Comment

Could virtual reality transform the courtroom experience? As VR technology advances and hardware costs drop, its role in trials appears inevitable. Goldberg Segalla partner Frank Ramos explores this in his latest Law.com article, saying VR in courtrooms is not a matter of “if,” but “when.” Read more: https://bit.ly/3WZrY1X

4

A Hodgson Russ IP Litigation Alert: Protecting the Swoosh | Sneaker Giant’s Settlement Restricts Customization https://bit.ly/4me4UaJ In July 2024, Nike sued Dominic Ciambrone, also known as “The Shoe Surgeon,” in federal court in Manhattan for trademark infringement and related claims. Just shy of a year later, in June 2025, the parties reached a settlement, resolving the year-long, $60 million lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. The Shoe Surgeon, or The Surgeon for short, is a Los Angeles-based sneaker customizer that transformed a passion for shoes into a globally recognized brand. Once described as “a humble, self-taught cobbler,” The Shoe Surgeon creates “one-of-one” custom designs that cannot be found on the clearance rack at a local sporting goods store. He takes a recognizable Nike silhouette, such as the iconic Air Force 1, and integrates distinctive patterns or fabrics from luxury brands like Gucci or Louis Vuitton. Authored by: Jodyann Galvin, Fallon Martin, & Aidan Barczak

16

The gloves are off! Yesterday, Disney, Universal, and other major studios filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against AI image generator Midjourney for allegedly enabling the unauthorized replication of protected characters and visual styles. https://lnkd.in/dn4vxdW7 While the legal action targets the developer, this should sound alarm bells for every user of generative AI platforms. Why it matters: AI tools like Midjourney, DALL·E, and others empower creativity at scale, but also amplify legal risks. If the tool you’re using generates work that closely imitates copyrighted IP (characters, logos, styles), you could be infringing too, even if you’re not the one training the model. If you’re using AI for business, marketing, product design, or publishing: - Understand the license terms of the tool you’re using. - Avoid prompts that mimic well-known brands or characters. - Assume that commercial use = higher legal scrutiny. Keep in mind: “The AI did it” won’t fly. As the legal landscape evolves, it’s critical for professionals to combine innovation with compliance. Creative freedom and legal risk don’t have to go hand in hand; but they will, if we’re not careful. #AI #LegalTech

33

2 Comments

A pivotal moment for #AI liability: Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York Court refused to dismiss Lanham Act claims, holding that misattributed GenAI “hallucinations” using publishers’ trademarks may constitute trademark infringement and false designation of origin. The Court also found that the nominative fair use doctrine does not apply. This may be the first decision to hold that misattributed hallucinations may create Lanham Act liability, signaling that #GenAI outputs implicating brand identity or source attribution are not immune from traditional trademark scrutiny. TC IP partner Matt Braunel breaks it down: https://lnkd.in/gQjgy-mC

14

A hyperlink alone won’t bind users to your terms. Our latest Fashion Counsel alert explains how to capture clear, unambiguous assent at the point of action and avoid costly disputes. https://lnkd.in/efnVM-cZ

30

New on the UC Law Review Blog: Brookelynn Stone examines Cavalleri v. Hermès International, a case challenging Hermès’ sales practices as an unlawful tying arrangement in violation of the Sherman Act. She analyzes the plaintiffs’ allegations and the district court’s reasoning for dismissal and evaluates the potential implications of a Ninth Circuit reversal for antitrust treatment of luxury markets, while also considering what additional facts could have strengthened the plaintiffs’ claims to better support their antitrust theories beyond mere speculation. https://lnkd.in/g2NtA8ct

14

1 Comment

As athletes build their brands beyond the game, intellectual property defines the playbook. At the American Bar Association's 2025 Fall IP Conference in Las Vegas, Caldera Partner Janet Moreira joined Michelle Tourtillot, Dwayne Amos, and Katie Steiner for the panel “From the Field to the Feed: IP Essentials in the Age of Athlete Influencers.” Their discussion explored how trademarks, NIL rights, and content creation are transforming the athlete–influencer economy—and how forward-thinking counsel is shaping what comes next for sports and IP law. #ABAIP #CalderaLaw #HereForWhatComesNext #SportsLaw #IPLaw

8

HKA has fortified its intellectual property (IP) and patent damages practice with the hire of Chicago-based David Tenenbaum as principal. Meanwhile, seasoned expert witness and forensic accountant Ramon "Ray" de Legorburu has been elevated to head of the investigations practice in the Americas. https://lnkd.in/e9c62z_a

12

Stay ahead of the game with the newest edition of the Three Point Shot newsletter, exclusively from Proskauer’s Sports Law Group. Edited by partner Rob Freeman, this issue explores: • High-profile NIL litigation involving the Harlem Globetrotters and legacy publicity-rights contracts • Sixth Circuit precedent grounding drone-assisted deer recovery under Michigan law • Michigan appellate guidance narrowing injury claims under the Equine Activity Liability Act Read now: https://lnkd.in/eURK8y2y Contributors: Meredith Lipson, Wyatt Bui and Evan Rodgers. #Proskauer #SportsLaw #TheSportsLawFirm

16

I recently had the chance to co-author a piece with John Carl "JC" Zwisler and Adv. Samiksha Johri of Graves Law Group, LLC on the Jetflicks case — the largest criminal copyright trial in U.S. history. This case is a turning point: the DOJ is signaling that large-scale digital piracy isn’t just a civil issue anymore. It’s criminal. Read the full story below.

7

What happens when a global toy brand uses a major hit song—without permission? Seth Berman, Director of Abrams Fensterman, LLP's Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law Practice, breaks down our team's major copyright win on behalf of BMG Rights Management over MGA Entertainment's unauthorized use of the Black Eyed Peas' "My Humps" in a national ad campaign promoting a dancing unicorn toy—without securing licensing rights from BMG. Through strategic collaboration of our IP and commercial litigation departments, this case was a powerful example of how we protect the value behind creative works. ▶️ Watch Seth’s breakdown below. Learn more about Seth and our IP practice: https://lnkd.in/ebayn6NY #CopyrightLaw #EntertainmentLaw #AbramsFensterman 

29

1 Comment

Recently, our Chair of the IP Department, Kelly Cunningham, offered his perspective on Qunice’s complaint against Deckers, which alleges the company has leveraged trade dress infringement laws to edge sheepskin footwear competitors out of the market. In a recent Bloomberg Law report by Annelise Levy, the piece underscores how significant the stakes become when intellectual property strategy intersects with market power. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gahJGX5w #IntellectualProperty #TradeDress #IPLaw #IPStrategy

10

Nintendo’s reported Switch 2 production cuts spotlight IP strategy in gaming hardware. Trademark Angles Even with weaker demand, Nintendo’s “Switch” mark remains bulletproof—rooted in decades of licensing, merchandising, and global enforcement. Production adjustments don’t dilute brand equity; they protect it by signaling supply chain discipline amid IP-licensed component shortages (think memory chips tied to patented tech). Patent Risks The real exposure lies in hardware patents: iterative designs risk invalidation challenges if competitors claim obviousness over Switch 1. Nintendo must defend utility patents on hybrid portability while racing to file fresh ones for any software-gated features—critical as Android handhelds erode their moat. Strategic Takeaway IP isn’t just defense here—it’s offense. Licensing exclusivity on Joy-Con tech or first-party titles could offset hardware misses, buying time for a bolder successor. Gaming’s IP wars favor the agile. Thoughts from IP/tech pros? #GamingIP #Nintendo #Patents #Trademarks #TechLaw

13

In our latest Fashion & Beauty Blog post, Ian Gillies and Eric Blosser compare a recent copyright decision from Germany’s Federal Court of Justice with the U.S. Courts. The German decision held that Birkenstock’s sandal designs was ineligible for copyright protection because of its functional design and lack of sufficient creativity to be considered a work of applied art. “Fashion designers may face similar challenges when seeking copyright protection for clothing designs in the United States,” write Ian and Eric. Read the full post here: https://lnkd.in/gPmqcmRz #KnobbeMartens #IPLaw #Fashion 

9