
Pandora has won a significant development in its years-long legal battle with comedians who argue the streamer must pay the equivalent of publishing royalties for spoken-word content. According to a new report, the comedian’s claims have been thoroughly rejected, stating that Pandora doesn’t need to pay additional royalties.
The report, filed by Suzanne H. Segal, a former federal magistrate judge appointed in this case, concludes that the comedians gave Pandora an “implied license” to stream their spoken-word material, including jokes and routines, without protest for years. The court-appointed special master further emphasizes that several of these comics actively encouraged Pandora’s streaming activities.
Segal notes that “all plaintiffs undisputedly knew for years that their routines were streaming on Pandora,” adding that they never objected to this arrangement. This stance is a stark contrast to the claims presented by the comedians, who are seeking compensation in the form of publishing royalties.
The report highlights several instances where comedians explicitly stated they intended to “convey” all necessary rights for their record companies to sell these sets to streamers, which would have covered any additional spoken-word licenses. The document also emphasizes that Pandora detrimentally relied on the prolonged silence from the plaintiffs, believing they agreed to streaming their routines only to face this litigation long after the content started being streamed.
In response to the report, lawyers for the comedians have already challenged its findings, stating Segal’s report misapplies legal precedents and has ignored key evidence. The attorneys argue that even if it is deemed an implied license, such a conclusion would create an unworkable approach in the context of this case.
The outcome of this case will set a crucial precedent for how comedians are compensated by streaming services moving forward.
Source: www.billboard.com