Court dismisses case brought by the estate of Jacques Levy over the sale of Bob Dylan's catalogue to Universal Music Publishing

By Emmanuel Legrand

The case against Bob Dylan filed by the estate of Jacques Levy, who co-wrote 10 songs with the US songwriter, seven of which were featured in 1976's album 'Hurricane', has been been dismissed by a New York judge. 

  Jacques Levy's widow Claudia C. Levy was seeking a portion of the sale of Dylan's catalogue to Universal Music Publishing Group for a reported $300 million. In a lawsuit filed in January 2021 against Dylan, his publishing companies and UMPG, Levy was asking for $7.25m from the sale.

  The lawsuit argued that as co-writer, Levy – who died in 2004 – was entitled to a portion of the proceeds from the catalogue sale and asserted three causes of action: (1) breach of contract against the Dylan Defendants, seeking at least $1.75m as a portion of the revenue received by Dylan from the sale, plus punitive damages; (2) breach of contract against the Universal Defendants, seeking at least $1.75m; and (3) tortious interference with contract against the Universal Defendants, seeking $1.75m in alleged damages.

Clear and unambiguous arguments

  New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager dismissed all three counts. At the heart of his ruling is the 1975 agreement signed by Levy with Dylan publishing company Ram's Horn Music. The agreement defines the relationship between Levy and Ram's Horn Music as a "work-for-hire", which means that Levy relinquished claims of ownership for a few. In addition, Levy was entitled to a 35% royalty rate on certain streams of revenues. Over the years, Levy received over $1m for his contributions.

  The judge dismissed the first cause of action for breach of the 1975 agreement, stating that "the Court finds the Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face when read as a whole. For the reasons explained here, the Court determines that the plain meaning of the 1975 Agreement is that the Dylan Defendants owned all copyrights to the Compositions, as well as the absolute right to sell the Compositions and all associated rights, subject only to plaintiffs’ right to receive the compensation specified in the 1975 Agreement, which does not include any portion of the proceeds from Dylan’s sale of his own rights to the Universal Defendants."

  For the judge, the first paragraph of the Agreement "explicitly defines the relationship between the parties as an employment relationship, stating that: Publisher [Dylan’s company Ram’s Horn Music] hereby employs Employee [Jacques Levy] as its employee-for-hire and Employee accepts such employment to write the lyrics of certain original musical compositions, which lyrics shall be co-written by and with Bob Dylan (hereinafter referred to as the “Compositions”)."

Complete control and ownership of copyrights by Dylan

  The second cause of action is equally dismissed as Plaintiffs failed to prove that they "qualify as third-party beneficiaries of the Universal Agreement." On the third cause of action for tortious interference with contract, the judge wrote that while plaintiffs "allege that the Universal Defendants tortiously induced the Dylan Defendants to breach the 1975 Agreement," the cause of action is dismissed, as “a claim of tortious interference requires proof of (1) the existence of a valid contract between plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional procuring of the breach, and (4) damages.”

  For Ostrager, Plaintiffs can "of course satisfy the first two elements, as the Universal Defendants were well aware of the contract between Levy and Dylan, but they cannot satisfy the remaining two elements. The most obvious deficiency in plaintiffs’ tortious interference claim is that there was no breach of the contract (i.e.., the 1975 Agreement) for the reasons previously stated."

  In conclusion, the court wrote that the 1975 Agreement "vested in Dylan complete ownership and control of the copyrights to the Compositions and limited Levy’s rights to 35% of the specified compensation, which consisted primarily of licensing royalties and in no way can be construed to include a portion of Dylan’s sale of his own copyrights and royalty rights."

  "Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety, and any and all claims and causes of action asserted in this action against any and all Defendants are dismissed with prejudice."