Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Torts

Sporn v. MCA Records

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 1980 · Torts
TortsUnfair competitionStatute of Limitationsunfair competitionmisappropriationmaster phonograph recordingthree-year statute of limitationsaccrual

Facts

The action challenged defendants' ownership rights to the master phonograph recording of two 1950s rock-and-roll songs. Bell Records, the predecessor of defendant Arista Records, released one of the songs, "Get A Job," on an oldie renewal record in 1965. Plaintiff did not commence this suit until June 1976. Plaintiff argued that a new tort occurred each time defendants licensed and reproduced the master recording.

Issue

Whether an unfair competition claim based on alleged misappropriation of a master recording accrues anew each time defendants later license or reproduce the recording, or instead accrued once when the alleged misappropriation first occurred in 1965. Also, whether the court should enter declaratory relief for defendants if plaintiff is not entitled to relief.

Rule

Where the alleged tort is the misappropriation of a recording and that wrong occurred at a fixed point and was permanent thereafter, only one wrong is committed and the limitations period runs from the original act. In a declaratory judgment action, if plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment, the court should enter a declaration in favor of the opposing party rather than merely dismiss the claim.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In 2014, Lakeview Soundworks in Chicago released a remastered compilation using a master recording that singer Dana Mercer claims was taken from her without permission. Lakeview has continued to license the track to streaming services every year since then. Dana sued in New York in 2020 for unfair competition, arguing each annual license created a new tort.

Under the majority rule, when did Dana's unfair competition claim accrue?

Explanation. The majority treated misappropriation of a recording as a single wrong when it occurs at a fixed point and is permanent thereafter. Later licensing and reproduction do not create new causes of action. So the claim accrued at the initial act in 2014, not with each subsequent license. (Derived from Sporn v. MCA Records (n.d.).)