“It is now too late for them to even attempt to create valid copyright registrations for purposes of maintaining this action even assuming that the material misrepresentations could be resolved by something other than a new basic registration for Hustlin‘ and cancellation of the three invalid registrations,” states Barry Rothberg at Greenberg Traurig in a memorandum. On Monday, the two sides filed briefs on an issue that has the potential of raising hackles in future copyright disputes.Īccording to the defendants, the bombshell warrants dismissal of the lawsuit. District Judge Kathleen Williams ordered supplemental briefing about the meaning of this. The latter two applications were defective because of the earlier registration as well as incorrect dates of creation listed on the applications. 28, 2006, “ Hustlin‘” phonorecords were already being distributed to numerous radio and nightclub disc jockeys and as such, the work wasn’t really unpublished. According to her letter, the earliest one was defective because by Feb. After review, Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante threw a wrench into the ongoing dispute between Ross and LMFAO with word that her office should have refused to issue each of these registrations.

In October, the judge sent a series of questions to the U.S. entity seeking registration for a published musical work. The second came on June 28, 2006, from a Warner Bros. 28, 2006, from an entertainment attorney for the production team seeking registration for an unpublished musical work.

On the road to trial, a Florida federal judge has made some important rulings including that a three-word phrase - at least for merchandising purposes - isn’t original enough to be copyrightable.Īs for LMFAO’s song itself, that question could go to a jury, but hold on: The litigation has now stepped onto a new land mine.ĭuring the course of proceedings, it was discovered that there were actually three copyright registrations on Ross’ “ Hustlin‘.” The first application came on Feb.

Rick ross hustlin bmw