On Point - A New Take On Legal News

Eagles Case Poses Karaoke Conundrum

In a collision between confusing copyright laws and karaoke, three members of The Eagles have sued the maker of “karaoke in a microphone” for using three of their songs without a license to display the songs' lyrics.

Synchronization licenses, usually obtained for a flat fee, are required for the use of music in sync with a visual image. The case filed by Don Henley, Glenn Frey and Joe Walsh raises the question of whether a karaoke recording is an “audiovisual work” that fits into the sync license category.

The Copyright Act of 1976 defines “audiovisual works” as those consisting of

a series of related images which are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers, or electronic equipment, together with accompanying sounds.

But no published case has defined “intrinsically intended” in the karaoke context -– a vague phrase which, if anything, seems to refer to movies and TV shows that use a particular piece of music in conjunction with a visual image.

The three Eagles allege that Leadsinger, Inc. asked for their permission to use the band's songs “Life in the Fast Lane,” “Hotel California” and “Sad Cafe.” The musicians declined, but Leadsinger allegedly “proceeded to distribute” karaoke versions of the songs.

“Defendant's infringing acts were willful, deliberate, and committed with prior notice and knowledge of Plaintiffs' copyright,” the complaint says. An attorney for the plaintiffs confirmed that they refused to grant Leadsinger a sync license.

Instead of using the compact disc and graphic (CD+G) format of traditional karaoke machines, Leadsinger imbeds songs and lyrics on a microchip inside a microphone. When the microphone is connected to a television, the music plays through the TV's audio system while the lyrics come up on the screen.

Companies have created karaoke versions of songs without the copyright holder's permission under the “compulsory license” exception to copyright that applies to “phonorecords.” Compulsory licensees pay the copyright owner a statutory royalty fee.

In the only precedent on karaoke licensing, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 1996 that CD+G's “constitute 'audiovisual works,' since they 'consist of a series of related images' -- the lyrics -- 'together with accompanying sounds' -- the music.” ABKCO Music v. Stellar Records, 96 F.3d 60.

The court did not consider whether the lyrics are “intrinsically intended” to be shown with accompanying sounds. But a California judge followed ABKCO last year in dismissing a declaratory relief action brought by Leadsinger against a music publisher.

“As the visual images and lyrics are connected with the music, it is clear that Plaintiff's device is an audiovisual work,” U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips ruled.

Leadsinger has appealed to the 9th Circuit, which should at least take a close look at the karaoke copyright conundrum.

By Matthew Heller
9/4/06