It probably behooves a potential plaintiff to take a step back before suing someone and think: "How might this look to an outsider." Lest the result be something like this.
"Tresóna did more than simply pursue an aggressive
litigation strategy. It sued a public school teacher, a not-for-profit Boosters Club, and parent volunteers. Both during
litigation, and in pre-litigation communications with Carroll,
Tresóna repeatedly mischaracterized its copyright interests
in the songs at issue by claiming to be the sole entity
empowered to issue licenses. In light of Tresóna’s minimal
and belatedly produced evidence supporting its claimed
chain-of-title, these communications appear specifically
designed to frighten Carroll and the Boosters Club into
purchasing licenses from Tresóna, rather than to legitimately
enforce its limited licensing interests or those of the true
copyright owners. Indeed, Tresóna’s initial complaint alleged exclusive rights in 79 songs used by the Burbank
show choirs. And it was not until after briefing on Carroll’s
summary judgment motion was complete that Tresóna
belatedly produced any evidence of its chain of title, which
demonstrated its claimed interests were almost entirely
unsubstantiated. None of these actions furthers the purposes
of the Copyright Act. SOFA Entm’t, 709 F.3d at 1280–81.
Courts have a legitimate interest in deterring the type of
litigation conduct in which Tresóna engaged, and in
compensating those who have been harmed by such conduct. . . . As much of this litigation was avoidable from the
beginning based on settled law when Tresóna filed its
complaint, awarding attorneys’ fees to Defendants
appropriately serves the interest in deterrence."
To say that the Ninth Circuit was less than sympathetic to the plaintiff here is an understatement.
