Worrell v. Thang, Inc.

In dispute over ownership of sound recordings by group Parliament-Funkadelic, Sixth Circuit holds that band member’s ownership claim did not accrue until 2020, when band leader, George Clinton, denied validity of 1976 copyright assignment agreement, clearing way for band member’s estate to claim share of copyrights in recordings created under that agreement.

The Estate of George Bernard Worrell, Jr., a legendary funk musician and one of the founding members of the funk group Parliament-Funkadelic (P-Funk), brought suit against fellow founding member George Clinton and his music company, Thang Inc., seeking a declaration that Worrell was a co-owner of a number of the band’s sound recordings. Under a 1976 agreement between Worrell, on the one hand, and Clinton and his company, on the other, Worrell purportedly assigned to Thang his ownership in any sound recordings made during the term of the agreement in exchange for the payment of royalties. Defendants failed to pay Worrell the royalties he claimed he was owed, leading him to file multiple lawsuits seeking to enforce the 1976 agreement. Throughout all those litigations, defendants conducted themselves as if the 1976 agreement was a valid agreement between the parties and as if Worrell had assigned his ownership rights in P-Funk’s sound recordings.

When Worrell’s widow filed a suit in 2019 on behalf of the estate in New York state court seeking royalties under the agreement, however, defendants argued, for the first time, that the 1976 agreement was invalid because it had never been signed. The New York court agreed in a 2020 decision, which became res judicata, that the 1976 agreement was not a valid contract. Worrell’s widow then filed a federal suit alleging that Worrell was a co-owner of the sound recordings under federal copyright law, to which defendants countered that the suit was time-barred under the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Worrell’s widow appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit first explained that, under the Copyright Act, claims of ownership accrue only once—at the time when one party makes a “plain and express repudiation” of another party’s copyright ownership claim. Thus, in order to adjudicate Worrell’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit had to determine when defendants repudiated Worrell’s co-ownership claim to P-Funk’s sound recordings.

The Sixth Circuit concluded that, on the record before it, a reasonable juror could find that Worell’s co-ownership claim was not repudiated until 2020, when defendants argued—and the New York state court agreed—that the 1976 agreement was invalid. The Sixth Circuit relied on its 2020 decision in Everly v. Everly supporting the proposition that repudiation is a fact-intensive inquiry focused on determining when a plaintiff became “alerted to the potential violation of his [ownership] rights.”

The record evidence showed that until 2020, Worrell or his widow had no basis to believe defendants disagreed that Worell was a co-author of P-Funk’s sound recordings, because Worell believed—and defendants conducted themselves as if—he had transferred away his ownership rights under the 1976 agreement. Therefore, it was only in 2020 that Worrell for the first time had a basis to believe that the dispute with defendants was over ownership of copyright, not breach of contract. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in finding that Worrell’s ownership claim accrued prior to 2020 and that it was therefore time-barred. The Sixth Circuit did, however, hold that Worrell’s ownership claim was potentially timely only as to sound recordings created during the term of the 1976 agreement. Worrell should reasonably have known that defendants rejected his ownership claim as to other recordings for which defendants repeatedly failed to pay Worrell royalties or give him credit, the court explained.

As a final matter, the Sixth Circuit addressed defendants’ argument that Worrell could not show that he was a co-author of P-Funk’s sound recordings. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, explaining that while the standards for joint authorship are nebulous and contested, the facts raised, at minimum, a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Worrell was a co-author. Specifically, there was record evidence—including Clinton’s own statements—showing not only that Worrell contributed extensively to P-Funk’s sound recordings but also that Worrell was granted authority and credit consistent with that of a co-author. Accordingly, Worrell’s estate had shown a dispute of material fact as to whether he was, in fact, a co-author of the subject recordings. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary prepared by Tal Dickstein and Edward Delman