Roger Miller Music, Inc., and Mary A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Sony/atv Publishing, Llc, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that audit letter disclosing underpayment of royalties did not qualify as plain and express repudiation because, the letter “does not address ownership of the renewal copyrights and does not clearly claim ownership over those copyrights”
• explaining that “a claim for copyright infringement can accrue more than once because each infringement is a distinct harm”
• “Nevertheless, ‘[s]o long as the parties’ intent is clear, a transfer of copyright need not include any particular language.’” (quoting Gilleland v. Schanhals, 55 F. App’x 257, 260 (6th Cir. 2003)
• “a motion under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence”
• “[U]nder Rule 59(e), parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was issued.”
• “parties cannot use a motion for reconsideration to raise new legal arguments that could have been raised before a judgment was issued.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).