New York District Court denies motion for retrial in Wolfgang's Vault's case

By Emmanuel Legrand

A US District Court Judge denied a motion to reorder a damages trial in the copyright infringement case against William Sagan and Wolfgang's Vault, an online marketplace for music memorabilia, which was sued by music publishers for failing to have the proper licenses in place for the streaming of classic live concerts. Publishers argued that some 197 works were infringed by the Vault. The judge granted a motion for attorney's fees but substantially reduced the award by 60%.

  The music publishers — among them ABCKO, EMI Blackwood, Jobete, peermusic, Spirit, among others — were asking for a new trial as they felt that the March 12 ruling, a day before the US went into lockdown, had been precipitated by the jury, as it came after only an hour of deliberation, and awarded plaintiffs damages in the form of $1,000 per infringed work, a far cry from the maximum $150,000 per work allowed by the law. Publishers argued that the jury made a determination without asking to review any of the evidences, and in a hurry to get home.

  Judge Edgardo Ramos wrote in his 25-page opinion that the awards were "within the statutory range permitted by the Copyright Act" and that the Plaintiff's reliance on the relatively low damages award to ask for a re-trial was "misplaced." He also noted that since the trial started on March 2, Plaintiffs had ample time to make their case.

Not persuasive enough

  He contended that plaintiffs "do not persuasively draw any connection between the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the specific damages awarded. As Defendants point out, the jury could have just as easily settled on a higher award in the same amount of deliberation time."

  Judge Ramos also declined to review the $2 million legal fee that was awarded to the plaintiffs, whose lawyers were asking for $6m. "The Court acknowledges that the reduction imposed here is substantial," wrote Ramos. "However, the Court believes that the reduction is warranted given that the net amount of fees awarded — $ 2,420,226.00 — is still large. Such a hefty fee award surely constitutes adequate deterrence for would-be infringers, but is intended to remain true to the principle that such awards should not result in financial ruination for Defendants."