Caffey v. Cook
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
409 F. Supp. 2d 484 (2006)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Marion Caffey (plaintiff) was a writer, director, producer, and choreographer of musical stage shows. Caffey devised the concept for Three Mo’ Tenors, a Black alternative to the popular operatic group The Three Tenors. Victor Cook, Rodrick Dixon, and Thomas Young (defendants) were hired as the singers. Caffey, Cook, Dixon, and Young collaborated on the selection of songs, though Caffey had the final decision-making authority. The songs were arranged in a specific order to give the show an arc. Caffey registered a copyright in the show. The show encountered financial difficulties and ended. However, without Caffey’s permission, Cook, Dixon, and Young continued touring as Cook, Dixon & Young for seven additional performances. Six of these performances retained the Three Mo’ Tenors song selection except for one substitution. The seventh date was less than half the length of the singers’ established performance. Caffey brought a copyright-infringement action in federal district court. The court determined that gross revenues from the first six Cook, Dixon & Young performances were $330,000. The court then subtracted direct costs of $174,995.95, overhead costs of $9,616.65, and $43,616.22 in deductions from income taxes on the profits. This left $101,771.18 as Cook, Dixon, and Young’s net profits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holwell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
