IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Artist’s copyright infringement and most royalty claims against Sony may not proceed, (Sep 28, 2026)

By Nadine E. Roddy, J.D.

A limited exception for the musician was made for claims arising from royalty statements due on or after September 30, 2023.

A musician who produced an album by contracting with a producer who alone contracted with a recording company failed to plausibly allege copyright infringement and breach of contract by the recording company. The musician (artist), who was a California resident and the member of a band known as “Anything Box,” brought a copyright and breach-of-contract suit against Sony Music Entertainment (Sony), a recording company headquartered in New York and successor in interest to CBS Records (CBS). The court noted that for the copyright infringement claims, those claims depended on the validity of the artist’s Section 203 termination notice (17 U.S.C. § 203). However, the court found that the operative termination notice made no reference to the original 1989 artist-producer agreement (Strilio v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 1:25-cv-04006-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2026)).

According to the complaint, in 1989, the artist had entered into a recording rights and distribution agreement with a record producer (producer), which provided that the producer “shall own, in perpetuity, throughout the universe, all right, title and interest in and to all of the results and proceeds of [the artist’s] services,” including the sound recordings made from those services. In exchange, the producer agreed to administer a publishing company for the artist’s songs, with the artist to receive his full songwriter share and half of the publishing revenue. In the same year, the producer entered into a furnishing agreement with CBS, agreeing to “furnish the services of [the artist] p/k/a ‘Anything Box’” as a recording artist to CBS. The artist was not a party to the agreement; instead, he executed a separate Artist’s Assent and Guaranty by which he assented to the execution of the producer-CBS agreement and agreed to be bound by its applicable provisions.

Paragraph 20.01 of the producer-CBS agreement provided that the producer hereby “sell[s], transfer[s] and assign[s] to CBS irrevocably all right, title and interest in and to the Master Recordings,” including any copyrights, “perpetually and throughout the world.” Paragraph 11 required CBS to compute royalties as of each June 30 and December 31 and, on the following September 30 or March 31, to send the producer a statement and pay any royalties due after deducting unrecouped advances. Any objections to a royalty statement (or lack thereof) were required to be made within two years of the date a statement was sent or deemed sent. Recovery of the unpaid royalties was the sole remedy for any breach of the accounting provisions.

Anything Box’s first album, Peace, was recorded in partnership with the producer and released under the producer-CBS agreement in 1990. However, there ensued a series of disagreements, contractual amendments, and contractual terminations as the parties’ relationships soured. CBS sent the artist exactly one royalty statement in or around 1992 and then went silent, even though Peace remained in commercial release.

Before the court was Sony’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Copyright infringement claims. The court noted that the artist’s copyright infringement claims hinged entirely on the validity of his Section 203 termination notice. Sony argued that the producer-CBS agreement was signed by the producer, not the artist, and that any grant of a copyright interest in the recordings was necessarily made by the producer. The court agreed, noting that the artist’s termination notice identified the 1989 producer-CBS agreement as the grant it sought to terminate, which the producer alone had executed. In issuing his Assent and Guaranty, the artist merely assented to grants of rights already held by another and guaranteed the producer’s performance.

The problem for the artist was that the operative termination notice made no reference to the original 1989 artist-producer agreement. It identified only the rights conveyed by the 1989 producer-CBS agreement. A notice of termination must identify the grant to which it applies and cannot be recast after the fact as terminating a different grant. Thus, the operative termination notice was not valid, and the artist’s current copyright claims were barred.

Breach-of-contract claims. The artist asserted that Sony’s failure to render royalty statements for 33 years constituted a breach of contract. Assuming arguendo that the artist’s alleged demands for payment qualified as valid objections, the only timely demand would be his purported April 11, 2025, demand for a royalty statement. That demand would apply to statements due no earlier than April 11, 2023, meaning that the first statement deemed sent after that date would be the statement due September 30, 2023. As for his earlier demands, such as those allegedly made in 1997, 2009, 2018, 2019, and 2020, any claims were plainly untimely under the terms of the producer-CBS agreement.

Further, as currently pleaded, the complaint did not plausibly allege a breach of contract in the post-September 2023 window. However, because an amended and more specific claim might do so, the court would dismiss this portion of the breach-of-contract claim without prejudice.

The court then determined that the artist was ineligible for mechanical royalties because the compositions at issue were governed by an agreement to which neither the artist nor CBS/Sony were parties. As well, the artist’s claim regarding CBS’s failure to pay an advance for a second album, allegedly in breach of the producer-CBS agreement, was time-barred under New York law. Moreover, the artist had released the claim in a termination agreement.

For these reasons, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, with the exception of any claims arising from royalty statements due on or after September 30, 2023. Leave to amend as to these claims was expressly granted.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-04006-LAP.

Judge: Preska, L.

Attorneys: Claudio Marcelo Strilio, pro se. Richard Stephen Mandel (Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, PC) for Sony Music Entertainment.

Companies: Sony Music Entertainment

MainStory: TopStory Copyright NewYorkNews GCNNews