Udio just scored a major discovery victory in the case against it filed by UMG Recordings. Judge Hellerstein granted Udio’s motion to compel UMG Recordings’ deposit copies of their sound recordings that underlie their copyright infringement claims against Udio. But, what’s even worse for the music labels, is that the order also grants Udio’s motion to compel UMG to turn over their artist-label agreements relevant to their ownership of the copyrights for the sound recordings.
After Udio’s win, Suno wants the same thing from UMG Recordings in the separate lawsuit it filed against Suno. Below is Suno’s letter related to its outstanding discovery request:
One vexing issue related to this type of agreement is whether the work-made-for-hire doctrine even applies to sound recordings. If the work-made-for-hire doctrine does not apply to sound recordings as one of the permissible categories of eligible specially commissioned works in the definition under Section 101, then the agreements between artists and music labels would likely include a provision reverting back to simply a transfer of copyright from artist to label. But the consequence of failing to qualify as WMFH is enormous: the artists would own termination rights and can terminate the contracts at the specified statutory time: for deals made on or after January 1, 1978, the period of termination starts 35 years after the assignment was made or 40 years after the grant if it includes the right publication (which typically would be the case).
Here’s a good law review note on where the law stands: Brendan Sullivan, Case-by-Case: Most Sound Recording Copyright Assignments Should Be Terminable, 31 UCLA Entm’t L. Rev. 75 (2024).
This can’t be music to the record labels’ ears.
