Sirius XM Defeats Turtles in Florida Supreme Court
Florida common law does not require broadcasters to pay royalties to the owners of pre-1972 sound recordings, the court ruled.
October 26, 2017 at 03:09 PM
8 minute read
The skies'll be blue in Florida for oldies radio after an appellate ruling in a dispute over royalties sought by vocalists from The Turtles, who sang “Happy Together.”
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Flo & Eddie Inc., a company created by the singers, finding Florida common law does not recognize an exclusive right of public performance in pre-1972 sound recordings. That means Sirius XM Radio was not skirting state law when it broadcast Turtles songs without paying royalties to Flo & Eddie.
“Flo & Eddie essentially asks this court to recognize an unworkable common law right in pre-1972 sound recordings that is broader than any right ever previously recognized in any sound recording,” Justice Charles Canady wrote in a unanimous opinion. “Doing so would require this court to, among other things, ignore the lengthy and well-documented history of this topic — something we decline to do.”
Sirius XM previously settled with Flo & Eddie, which filed class actions in Florida, New York and California on behalf of owners of pre-1972 sound recordings. The settlement, approved by a California federal judge in May, put Sirius XM on the hook for at least $25 million in payments to the class as well as a 10-year license. But the value of the settlement would have been higher if the Florida Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Flo & Eddie.
The question came before the court from Flo & Eddie's Miami federal case. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami initially ruled for Sirius XM, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked for clarification on Florida law from the state's justices because there was no case law that directly addressed the issue.
The Florida Supreme Court examined the history of copyright law, which has long required broadcasters to license songs from the owner of a musical composition, usually the songwriter or publisher. In 1995, federal law began requiring companies like Sirius XM to obtain a license from the owner of the song recording — the performer or the record company — but only for post-1972 song recordings.
The court disagreed with Flo & Eddie's reliance on a 1943 Florida case involving one magician suing another for copying his public performance. The justices found the case concluded a dramatic composition or intellectual production that is not covered by federal copyright law loses any exclusive right of public performance the moment it's published.
“Florida common law has never previously recognized an exclusive right of public performance for sound recordings,” Canady wrote. “To recognize such a right for the first time today would be an inherently legislative task. Such a decision would have an immediate impact on consumers beyond Florida's borders and would affect numerous stakeholders who are not parties to this suit.”
Both litigants had lawyers who once sat on the Third District Court of Appeal: former Judge David Gersten, now with Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani in Miami, represented Sirius XM, and former Judge Angel Cortiñas of Gunster in Miami represented Flo & Eddie.
Gersten said he was “very pleased” with the court's opinion.
“It was well-thought-out,” Gersten said. “Justice Canady did a superb job of addressing everything. As I suspected, the district court judge, Judge Gayles, got it right. I think it really settles the issue in the state of Florida. It gets in line certainly with New York. It's just a good, common-sense opinion.”
Cortiñas did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
The skies'll be blue in Florida for oldies radio after an appellate ruling in a dispute over royalties sought by vocalists from The Turtles, who sang “Happy Together.”
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Flo & Eddie Inc., a company created by the singers, finding Florida common law does not recognize an exclusive right of public performance in pre-1972 sound recordings. That means Sirius XM Radio was not skirting state law when it broadcast Turtles songs without paying royalties to Flo & Eddie.
“Flo & Eddie essentially asks this court to recognize an unworkable common law right in pre-1972 sound recordings that is broader than any right ever previously recognized in any sound recording,” Justice Charles Canady wrote in a unanimous opinion. “Doing so would require this court to, among other things, ignore the lengthy and well-documented history of this topic — something we decline to do.”
Sirius XM previously settled with Flo & Eddie, which filed class actions in Florida,
The question came before the court from Flo & Eddie's Miami federal case. U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles in Miami initially ruled for Sirius XM, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit asked for clarification on Florida law from the state's justices because there was no case law that directly addressed the issue.
The Florida Supreme Court examined the history of copyright law, which has long required broadcasters to license songs from the owner of a musical composition, usually the songwriter or publisher. In 1995, federal law began requiring companies like Sirius XM to obtain a license from the owner of the song recording — the performer or the record company — but only for post-1972 song recordings.
The court disagreed with Flo & Eddie's reliance on a 1943 Florida case involving one magician suing another for copying his public performance. The justices found the case concluded a dramatic composition or intellectual production that is not covered by federal copyright law loses any exclusive right of public performance the moment it's published.
“Florida common law has never previously recognized an exclusive right of public performance for sound recordings,” Canady wrote. “To recognize such a right for the first time today would be an inherently legislative task. Such a decision would have an immediate impact on consumers beyond Florida's borders and would affect numerous stakeholders who are not parties to this suit.”
Both litigants had lawyers who once sat on the Third District Court of Appeal: former Judge David Gersten, now with
Gersten said he was “very pleased” with the court's opinion.
“It was well-thought-out,” Gersten said. “Justice Canady did a superb job of addressing everything. As I suspected, the district court judge, Judge Gayles, got it right. I think it really settles the issue in the state of Florida. It gets in line certainly with
Cortiñas did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami Lawyer Guilty of Indirect Criminal Contempt But Dodges Paying Legal Fees
4 minute readWinston & Strawn Snags Sidley Austin Cross-Border Transactions Partner in Miami
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Former Google Legal Exec Joins Ad Tech Unicorn as GC
- 2Fenwick and Baker & Hostetler Add DC Partners, as Venable and Brownstein Hire Policy Advisers
- 3H&R Block Accused of Negligence in Data Breach Suit
- 4Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
- 5Following Treasury Hack, Do Federal Cybersecurity Standards Need an Update?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250