You are here

James Damiano vs Bob Dylan

Imported Message: Posted by Kayhy ( ) from NJ.

James has been censored by the court and the American media James Damiano Vs. Bob Dylan (AKA Robert Zimmerman) For copyright infringement A paramount signature of what has become of the United States Judicial System James has been censored by the court and the American media "Eleven Years" (Working Title) Creative and Tactical Overview 4.4.02 Late 1979 James Damiano met Mike Harris of CBS Records. Mikie introduced James to the legendary John Hammond Sr., who was responsible for the careers of Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Billy Holiday, Pete Seeger, and many other icons in the music industry. James eventually auditioned for Mr. Hammond with an acoustic guitar and a harmonica. As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS used songs and lyrics for international recording artist, Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan credits his name to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy. Ironically the title of that song is "Dignity" In the eleven years that followed we relive Damiano's seductive times with top music industry artists and agents. This is a story of music industry corruption and immense intrigue, of a common mans daunting struggle against big business and a legal system that not only failed to work for justice and fair play, but also allowed itself to be manipulated for unprecedented vengeance. In an unbelievable, but true story, we share to the extent of reap Damiano's success as he artistically intrigues the most influential and respected producers in the music industry with rockin tracks of Rock and Roll. For eleven years we relive the energy, of the musicians, artists and producers involved in the recordings of some of the hottest rock and roll ever to be produced. We rejoice with the success of the sound of the music with the excitement that warrants sleepless nights only to come to suffer with him at their malicious indifference and arrogant abuse. Finally we rise with him to fight back in a court system covertly manipulated by powerfully sinister forces. Will he triumph in the end? To find out we're driven right to the edge in a climax that makes "Rocky" and "The Sting" look like a walk in the park. PROJECT COMPONENTS and TALENT There are two major components to "The Dylan Project": a music CD and a feature film: 1. There is little question about the importance of a commercially viable sound track in a story about the music industry. While integral to the movie, this track is being designed to "stand alone" as a compelling musical work. Accordingly, the producers have contracted Ben Elliot, Grammy Award winning music producer/engineer for Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, etc., as a "hands on" manager of all the project's musical elements. The music will be manufactured to commercial standards for international CD and/or audiocassette release. 2. The producers have contracted a digital HDTV producer/director, to manage and assemble the team of professionals to write and execute the screenplay for the movie component. This award-winning team of industry luminaries will include colleagues with decades of deep experience in both the music and dramatic genre. The digital HD master, which results from their work, will allow for: a. 24fps-to-35mm film transfer for traditional theatrical projection b. A digital clone master for HD theatrical projection c. Down-sampling to pristine NTSC and PAL television formats and flawless DVD/home video products. AUDIENCE This story is about deceit and theft at the highest corporate level. It involves Bob Dylan, an artist with extensive global appeal among a wide demographic range. The stars who will be offered the lead and supporting roles will be selected not only for their onscreen talent, but also for the depth of their international following. In all aspects, from the music CD to the movie, this project is targeted at significant domestic audience, while maintaining all those artistic and tactical elements necessary for success as an international release. TECHNOLOGY A movie in this genre is visually stunning when shot, edited and released in digital High Definition (HDTV). The producers have contracted production and post-production facilities that are pioneers in these 21st Century production tools. FUNDING AMOUNT AND TIMING For this phase of "The Dylan Project" the producers are requesting $90,000 to produce the music through to commercial master, as well as to conduct feature film development through screenplay, budget, schedule, and talent attachment phases of preproduction. The timing requirements to fund this project are immediate. The music CD must be produced within the Ben Elliot's window of opportunity: a period from the present to the first of June when his duties will require him to begin work on the Rolling Stones 40th Anniversary project. The screenplay, budgeting and scheduling for the feature film must begin commensurate with the music CD production if the necessary fall/winter shoot is to be completed so the movie can be released in the summer of 2003 as planned. COURT APPROVAL The Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle has ruled: Indeed as Defendants themselves profess, plaintiff may exercise his first amendment right to speak about his claims with whomever he so desires, he is only prohibited from exploiting the discovery materials obtained during the course of this litigation for publicity, profit or collateral gain. Finally, the limited nature of the 1996 protective orders does not preclude Damiano from publishing his own version of reality to whomever he chooses, so long as the materials and testimony that came to Damiano under the discovery process in this case are not themselves disclosed CORPORATE STRUCTURE and CONTACT INFORMATION The producers have formed a sole-purpose limited liability company, "11th Year Productions, LLC," to conduct all business and manage all productions associated with the project. Parties interested in participating in this project should contact the producers at "Eleven Years" is a theatrical feature, written about songwriter James Damiano's inspirations to go from an aspiring songwriter, to auditioning for the most influential record producer in the business, to submitting a life's worth of work to Bob Dylan through the solicitation of Dylan's management, resulting in having his material used on recorded Bob Dylan albums, uncredited and uncompensated. This fact established by Federal District Court Judge The Honorable Judge Jerome B. Simandle who wrote "This court will accept as true, Plaintiff's allegation that Sony represented to him that he would be credited and compensated for his work if Dylan used it." Motive is established in a 1988 Associated Press article by Katheryn Baker who interviewed Bob Dylan. MS Baker writes "The other reason for the other is i


Imported Message: Posted by Herb ( ) from NJ. Link:

JAMES DAMIANO, Plaintiff, v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and BOB DYLAN, Defendants. Civil Action No. 95-4795 (JBS) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 975 F. Supp. 623; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12601 August 20, 1997, Decided August 20, 1997, Original Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: [**1] Reported at: 975 F. Supp. 623 at 633. DISPOSITION: Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration DENIED. JUDGES: JEROME B. SIMANDLE, United States District Judge. OPINIONBY: JEROME B. SIMANDLE OPINION: [*633] OPINION UPON RECONSIDERATION SIMANDLE, District Judge: Plaintiff James Damiano filed this copyright infringement action accompanied by several federal and state claims all arising out of the alleged theft of plaintiff's lyrics and music by Sony recording artist Bob Dylan. Presently pending is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's December 16, 1996, [**2] Opinion and Order granting summary judgment to defendants on all counts of plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion will be denied. I. Background The central claim of plaintiff's complaint is that Bob Dylan infringed six separate works which plaintiff had composed and copyrighted. (Compl. at 3-6). As discussed in this court's Opinion of December 16, 1996, five of the purported works were actually compilations of lyrics by plaintiff which were created for the first time in the complaint. (Op. at 2-3). The sixth piece in plaintiff's complaint was an instrumental composition referred to as "Steel Guitars." In opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, rather than pursuing the five "works," plaintiff formulated his argument to address fourteen different lyric fragments, eight of which were not even in the complaint. The court nevertheless addressed each of the fourteen lyric claims and dismissed all of them on the grounds that they were either non-copyrightable or had not been copyrighted prior to the lawsuit. Six lyric fragments which were presented in plaintiff's complaint were not among the fourteen addressed by plaintiff in the summary [**3] judgment papers and at oral argument. Those six claims were dismissed because plaintiff failed to come forth with any evidence or argument in response to defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to those particular lyrics. (Op. at 6). The court also granted summary judgment as to plaintiff's music infringement claim and his accompanying state and federal claims. Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its decision with respect to the dismissal of his music infringement claim, several of his lyric claims, and his state law claims. The court will address each argument below. II. Discussion A. Standard for Reconsideration Local Civil Rule 7.1(g) of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, contains the standard to be applied to motions [*634] for reconsideration. n2 L. Civ. R. 7.1(g) requires that the moving party set forth concisely "the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the court has overlooked." Oritani v. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md., 744 F. Supp. 1311, 1314 (D.N.J. 1990). The Rule "does not contemplate a Court looking to matters which were not originally presented." Florham Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron [**4] U.S.A., Inc. 680 F. Supp. 159, 162 (D.N.J. 1988). Rather, motions for reargument succeed only where a "dispositive factual matter or controlling decision of law" was presented to the Court but not considered. Pelham v. United States, 661 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.N.J. 1987). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n2 Effective April 1, 1997, General Rule 12I, which previously governed motions for reargument, was renumbered Rule 7.1(g). The language of General Rule 12I was not altered in Rule 7.1(g). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, a party "must show more that a disagreement with the court's decision." Panna v. Firstrust Sav. Bank, 760 F. Supp. 432, 435 (D.N.J. 1991). A mere "recapitulation of the cases and argument considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden." Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705 709 (D.N.J. 1989). Further, there is a strong policy against entertaining reconsideration motions based on evidence that was readily available at the time that [**5] the original motion was heard; and so the court may, in its discretion, refuse to consider such evidence. Florham Park Chevron, 680 F. Supp. at 162-63. "Because reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy, requests pursuant to these rules are to be granted 'sparingly.'" NL Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996) (citing Maldonado v. Lucca, 636 F. Supp. 621, 630 (D.N.J. 1986). B. Plaintiff's Music Infringement Claim Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that his instrumental composition, "Steel Guitars" was infringed by Dylan's song "Dignity." As discussed in the court's Opinion, there are actually two different versions of the song plaintiff calls "Steel Guitars." (Op. at 13-14). The first, which was produced during discovery and was marked as Exhibit 71 of defendants' moving papers, was analyzed by both parties' experts and compared to "Dignity." Defendants argued in their motion papers and at oral argument that the Exhibit 71 version had never been registered with the Copyright Office. For that reason, the court dismissed plaintiff's musical infringement claim with respect to the Exhibit 71 version [**6] of "Steel Guitars" because plaintiff failed to meet the prima facie element of proving ownership of a valid copyright. See Whelan Assoc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1231 (3d Cir. 1986); Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. Salkeld, 511 F.2d 904, 907 (3d Cir. 1975); Jarvis v. A & M Records, 827 F. Supp. 282, 288 (D.N.J. 1993). The second version of "Steel Guitars" was registered with the Copyright Office in 1988, and although it was not originally identified by plaintiff as an infringed work, the court analyzed the copyrighted version and found that there was no substantial similarity between it and "Dignity." Therefore, summary judgment was granted on plaintiff's musical infringement claim as plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement. Plaintiff now argues that the court erred in failing to consider the Exhibit 71 version, which he claims was finally registered with the Copyright Office on December 5, 1996 -- after the summary judgment motion was briefed by both sides, after oral argument on the motion, and nearly fifteen months after plaintiff's complaint was filed. Plaintiff insists he is entitled to amend the