SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(US)(ca6) 221

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Joe Hand Promotions Inc. – Appellant
Versus
James Griffith Jr. – Respondent



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC., │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │ > No. 21-6088 │ v. │ │ JAMES H. GRIFFITH, JR., dba CJ’s Sports Bar; LISA │ LESLEY, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville. No. 3:20-cv-00382—Travis Randall McDonough, District Judge.

Argued: August 10, 2022

Decided and Filed: September 21, 2022

Before: CLAY, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Jamie King, JAMIE KING, P.C., Kingwood, Texas, for Appellant. John T.D. Bathke, PHILLIPS & BATHKE, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Brian L. Yoakum, EVANS PETREE, PC, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. John T.D. Bathke, PHILLIPS & BATHKE, P.C., Chicago, Illinois, Jonathan LA Phillips, PHILLIPS & BATHKE, P.C., Peoria Heights, Illinois, for Appellees.

_________________

OPINION _________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“JHP”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants James H. Griffith and Lisa Lesley (collectively, “Defendants”) in this copyright infringement suit brought under the Copyright Act, No. 21-6088 Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith Page 2

17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501. See Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Griffith, No. 20-cv-382, 2021 WL 4899466, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2021). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and REMAND with instructions to grant Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to copyright standing and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On August 26, 2017, a world famous boxer, Floyd Mayweather, and a famous mixed martial arts fighter, Conor McGregor, entered the ring to face one another in what has become one of the most legendary fights of all time (“the Fight”). See John Eligon & Victor Mather, Mayweather v. McGregor: Highlights From Every Round, N.Y. Times, Aug. 26, 2017. Showtime, Inc. produced the Fight, and it allowed individual viewers to livestream the Fight from Showtime’s website. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., 2021 WL 4899466, at *1. Showtime charged individuals $99.99 for these personal use licenses (i.e., to watch the Fight on a personal device in a non-commercial setting). Showtime also partnered with event promoters to issue commercial streaming licenses to public establishments (i.e., bars, movie theaters, and restaurants). On June 20, 2017, Showtime contracted with Mayweather Promotions, LLC (“Mayweather”) to “arrange for, present and promote” the Fight on August 26, 2017. (Distribution Agreement, R. 40-4, Page ID #348.) In this contract (the “Distribution Agreement”), Showtime “grant[ed] to [Mayweather] exclusively, the right to exhibit and distribute, and authorize the exhibition and dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top