IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—M.D. Tenn.: Termination of copyright grant in ‘Whatever Will Be Will Be (a.k.a. Que Sera, Sera)’ was effective., (Feb 23, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

A descendant’s termination of a deceased composer’s grant of copyright was effective because it complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements.

A composer’s granddaughter was not entitled to declaratory judgment that the composer’s daughter’s termination of copyright grants was ineffective, the U.S. District Court in Nashville has held. The termination notices complied with the statutory requirements (Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music, Inc., February 21, 2024, Crenshaw, Jr., W.).

Jay Livingston was a prolific composer who composed various popular songs including “Whatever Will Be Will Be (a.k.a. Que Sera, Sera).” After Jay Livingston’s death the rights to these compositions were determined by a California probate court to belong to Jay Livingston Music, Inc. (JLM) as the result of a complex arrangement of trusts and agreements. Travilyn Livingston, daughter of Jay Livingston, filed notices to terminate the copyright grants to JLM under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. Tammy Livingston, Travilyn’s daughter, then filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the terminations were invalid or, if they were valid, that she remained entitled to certain royalties. Travilyn Livingston and JLM moved to dismiss the complaint.

Validity of notices. Tammy Livingston argued that the termination notices were not statutorily sufficient; specifically, that they did not reasonably identify the grants being terminated, that they identified the wrong dates of first publication, and that they lacked the complete and unambiguous statement of facts required by the applicable regulation. The court reviewed the termination notices and found that they directly and explicitly identified the grants of copyright that were at issue and that they properly referred to the date of first publication under those grants, not the original date of publication of the works, as Tammy Livingston had believed they ought. This was all that was required by the applicable statute and regulation, so there was no basis to find the notices invalid. Because the notices were attached to the complaint they were properly considered on the motion to dismiss.

Entitlement to royalties. The court found that there was no live controversy as to Tammy Livingston’s remaining arguments that she was entitled to royalties under a contract with JLM and as to exploitations outside the United States, as the defendants did not dispute those claims and did not appear to have ever disputed them.

The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 3:22-cv-00532.

Attorneys: Jonathan M. Wolf (Jonathan M. Wolf, PLLC) for Tammy Livingston. Keane A. Barger (Loeb & Loeb, LLP) for Jay Livingston Music, Inc.

Companies: Jay Livingston Music, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TennesseeNews