Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

As promised, I am enclosing two copies of respondents' petition for rehearing. This was submitted following the decision in Mills Music. I am forwarding it to complete the collection of briefs in the case. No reply to this petition was submitted. (We have not forwarded respondents' opposition to the petition for certiorari, or our reply brief in support of that petition; these were superceded by the briefs. However, if these documents are desired, I would be happy to furnish them).

With respect to the Senator's introduction of me, the following modification of the language at page 19, lines 11-14 would be accurate: "Mr. Kay is going to be accompanied by Michael Oberman, from the firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel in New York, which successfully presented the Mills Music case."

As I mentioned to you, a supplementary statement or two; within the next two weeks.

it is likely that we will file if we do so, you will have it

Sincerely,

MSO: pk
Enclosures

Michael S. Oberman

[blocks in formation]

MARIE SNYDER and TED SNYDER, JR.,
d/b/a TED SNYDER MUSIC PUBLISHING CO.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITEd States
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING

HAROLD R. TYLER, JR.
(Counsel of Record)

PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB

& TYLER

30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, New York 10112
(212) 541-4000

Attorneys for Respondents

FREDERICK T. DAVIS

ROBERT P. LOBUE

FREDERICK F. GREENMAN, JR.

LINDEN AND DEUTSCH

Of Counsel

No. 83-1153

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1984

MILLS MUSIC, INC.

Petitioner,

-against

MARIE SNYDER and TED SNYDER, JR.,
d/b/a TED SNYDER MUSIC PUBLISHING CO.,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR REHEARING

Respondents request that this Court grant rehearing and reconsider its decision rendered on January 8, 1985, or in the alternative remand the case to the District Court, because this Court's decision rests on an erroneous factual premise. This case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, on the assumption that there were no material factual issues. However, industry-wide construction of and practice concerning the licenses issued by the The Harry Fox Agency ("Fox") are contrary to this Court's construction of those licenses.

Respondents contended that the "terms of the grant" which are preserved by the Derivative Works Exception (17 U.S.C. §304 (c) (6) (A)) are the licenses from Fox to the recording companies, and that on termination the Snyders stepped into Mills' shoes with respect to those licenses. The Court's principal reason for rejecting that contention was its finding that if the Fox "licenses are examined separately from that earlier grant

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »