The Dispute, At Its Core, Was A Contract Dispute, Not Triggering Copyright Act Fee-Shifting.
Sonny and Cher were icons in the music industry. Under a 1978 marriage settlement agreement, they agreed to split music royalties as community property, among other assets. After Sonny’s death years later, Cher sued Sonny’s second wife Mary Bono (in an estate capacity) for withholding royalties improperly. Mary Bono argued that no royalties where owed, but Central District of California Judge John A. Kronstadt disagreed, finding that the marriage settlement agreement was clear and that termination provisions under the Copyright Act did not alter the conclusion based on the dissolution agreement’s language. That means that over $400,000 in withheld royalties had to be distributed to Cher. Mary Bono has appealed the decision against Sonny’s estate.
But that did not end the matter because Cher incurred $1,023,605.50 in attorney’s fees to reach her royalty victory. She moved for attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act, a request which was denied. District Judge Kronstadt decided that there was an absence of federal copyright jurisdiction over the case because, at its core, the dispute was a contractual one under the dissolution agreement. Copyright termination law was not centrally involved. One news source has reported that Cher is appealing the fee denial. Looks like the Ninth Circuit will have some rulings to review in this celebrity dispute.
BLOG OBSERVATION: Contributor Mike’s sister Dara has two brother and sister cats named Sonny and Cher. They will be following this case with much interest Mike believes.