Complaint for Declaration of Copyright Invalidity

United States District Court, [district].

[Name of Plaintiff] on Behalf of [himself/herself] and All Others Similarly Situated, 
Plaintiff,

v.

[Name of Defendant], Defendant.

No. [case number]

[date].

Demand for Jury Trial

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment; Injunctive and Declaratory Relief; and Damages for: (1) Invalidity of Copyright Under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.); and (2) Violations of California Unfair Competition Laws (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.)

[names and addresses of Counsel for Plaintiff]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

CLASS ACTION
 
Plaintiff [name of Plaintiff] (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of [himself/herself] and all others similarly situated, by the undersigned attorneys, as and for the Class Action Complaint against defendant [name of Defendant] (“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1338 with respect to claims seeking declaratory and other relief arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.; pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq.; pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2); and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the entire case or controversy.
 
2. The Court has personal jurisdiction and venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a), in that the claims arise in this Judicial District where Defendant’s principal place of business is located and where Defendant regularly conducts business and may be found.
 
INTRODUCTION
 
3. This is an action to declare invalid the copyright that Defendant claims to own to the popular song, [name of Song] (the “Song”), to declare that Song is dedicated to public use and in the public domain; and to return millions of dollars of unlawful licensing fees collected by Defendant pursuant to its wrongful assertion of copyright ownership of the Song.
 
4. According to the United States Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”), a “musical composition consists of music, including any accompanying words, and is normally registered as a work of the performing arts.” Copyright Office Circular 56A, “Copyright Registration of Musical Compositions and Sound Recordings,” at 1 (Feb. 2012) (available at www.copyright.gov/circs/circ.56a.pdf). The author of a musical composition generally is the composer, and the lyricist (if a different person). Id.
 
5. More than [number] years after the melody to which the simple lyrics of Song is set was first published, Defendant boldly, but wrongfully and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to Song, and with that copyright the exclusive right to authorize the song’s reproduction, distribution, and public performances pursuant to federal copyright law. Defendant either has silenced those wishing to record or perform Song, or has extracted millions of dollars in unlawful licensing fees from those unwilling or unable to challenge its ownership claims.
 
6. Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to [year], shows that the copyright to Song, if there ever was a valid copyright to any part of the song, expired no later than [year] and that if Defendant owns any rights to Song, those rights are limited to the extremely narrow right to reproduce and distribute specific piano arrangements for the song published in [year]. Significantly, no court has ever adjudicated the validity or scope of the defendant’s claimed interest in Song, nor in the song’s melody or lyrics, which are themselves independent works.
 
7. Plaintiff, on behalf of [himself/herself] and all others similarly situated, seeks a declaration that Song is dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as monetary damages and restitution of all the unlawful licensing fees that Defendant improperly collected from Plaintiff and all other Class members.
 
PARTIES

8. Plaintiff is a musician and leader of the band entitled “[name of Band]” (“Band”), and a member of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”). Plaintiff is a resident of [city, state]. Band recorded Song at a live show in [city, state], on [date]. Under a claim of copyright by Defendant, on or about [date], Plaintiff d/b/a Band paid to Defendant the sum of $[amount] for a compulsory license pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 115 (commonly known as a “mechanical license”) to use Song, as alleged more fully herein.
 
9. Defendant is a [state] corporation with its principal place of business located at [address of Defendant]. Defendant regularly conducts business within this Judicial District, where it may be found.
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

[name of song] and the Popular Adoption of Song

10. Sometime prior to 1893, [name of Composer] (“Composer 1”) and [name of Composer] (“Composer 2”) (Composer 1 and Composer 2 are collectively referred to as the “Composers”) authored a written manuscript containing sheet music for [number] songs composed or arranged by Composer 1, with words written and adapted by Composer 2.
 
11. The manuscript included [name of Song], a song written by the Composers.
 
12. On or about [date], the Composers sold and assigned all their right, title, and interest in the written manuscript to [name of Assignee] (“Assignee”) in exchange for [percentage] percent of retail sales of the manuscript. The sale included the song [name of Song].
 
13. In or around [date], Assignee published the Composers’ written manuscript in a songbook titled [name of Songbook]. [Name of Songbook] (“Songbook”) included the song [name of Song].
 
14. On or about [date], Assignee filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Songbook].
 
15. On the [date], copyright application, Assignee claimed to be the copyright’s proprietor, but not the author of the copyrighted works.
 
16. Songbook bears a copyright notice reading “Copyright [year], by [name of Assignee].”
 
17. As proprietor of the [year] copyright in Songbook, Assignee owned the rights to both the songbook as a compilation and the individual songs published therein, including [name of Song].
 
18. The lyrics to [name of Song] are:

[lyrics of song].
 
19. The lyrics to Song are set to the melody from the song [name of Song]. The lyrics to Song are:

[lyrics of song].
  
20. The lyrics to Song were not published in Songbook.
 
21. On or about [date], Assignee incorporated the [name of Company]. (“Assignee Co.”) under the laws of the State of [state] for a limited term of [number] years.
 
22. In [year], Assignee published a new, revised, illustrated, and enlarged version of Songbook, which contained [number] previously unpublished songs written by the Composers as well as illustrations by [name of Illustrator].
 
23. On or about [date], Assignee filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the [year] publication of Songbook.
 
24. On its [date], copyright application, Assignee again claimed to be the copyright’s proprietor, but (again) not the author of the copyrighted works.
 
25. The [year] version of Songbook bears a copyright notice reading “Copyright [year], by [name of Assignee].”
 
26. As proprietor of the [year] copyright in the revised Songbook, Assignee owned the rights to both the songbook as a compilation and the individual songs published therein, including [name of Song].
 
27. The lyrics to Song were not published in the [year] version of Songbook.
 
28. In [year], Assignee Co. published [number] songs from the [year] version of Songbook in a songbook titled [name of Songbook]. One of those songs included in [name of Songbook] was [name of Song].
 
29. On or about [date], Assignee Co. filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Songbook].
 
30. On the [year] copyright application, Assignee Co. claimed to be the copyright’s proprietor, but not the author of the copyrighted works.
 
31. The title page to [name of Songbook] states:

This collection of songs has been published in response to earnest requests from various sources. They are taken from the book, Songbook by the [names of Composers], and are the copyright property of the publishers. (Emphasis added).
 
32. [Name of Songbook] bears a copyright notice reading “Copyright [year] by [name of Assignee]”
 
33. As proprietor of the [year] copyright in [name of Songbook], Assignee Co. owned the rights to both the songbook as a compilation and the individual songs published therein, including [name of Song].
 
34. The lyrics to Song were not published in [name of Songbook].
 
35. Even though the lyrics to Song had not been fixed in a tangible medium of expression, the public began singing Song no later than [time period].
 
36. For example, in the January [year] edition of [publication], the article entitled “[name of article]” described children singing the words “[lyrics to Song],” but did not print the song’s lyrics or melody.
 
37. In or about [date], Assignee Co. republished the song [name of Song] as an individual musical composition.
 
38. On or about [date], Assignee Co. filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the song [name of Song].
 
39. The lyrics to Song do not appear in the [year] publication of [name of Song].
 
40. In [year], [name of Publisher] (“Publisher”) published the book [name of Book], arranged by Mary Stewart, which instructed readers to sing: “[lyrics].” 
 
41. On or about [date], Publisher filed an application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Book].
 
42. [name of Book] did not include the lyrics to Song.
 
43. Upon information and belief, the lyrics to Song (without the sheet music for the melody) were first published in [year] by the [name of Publisher] in [name of Book] as follows:
[lyrics to Song].
  
44. On or about [date], the [name of Publisher] filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Book].
 
45. [Name of Book] attributed authorship or identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the book. Significantly, it did not attribute authorship or identify any copyright for the Song.
 
46. On or about [date], Assignee was dissolved in accordance with its limited (not perpetual) [number]-year term of incorporation. Assignee did not extend or renew the [year] (Reg. No. [registration number]) or [year] (Reg. No. [registration number]) copyrights prior to its dissolution.
 
47. Pursuant to Section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, the renewal rights to the original and revised Songbook were vested solely in their proprietor, Assignee.
 
48. Pursuant to Section 24 of the Copyright Act of 1909, the renewal rights to [name of Songbook] and [name of song] were vested solely in their proprietor, Assignee.
 
49. The copyright to the original Songbook (Reg. No. [registration number]) was not extended by Assignee, and consequently expired on [date]. Songbook, including the song [name of song], became dedicated to public use and fell into the public domain by no later than that date.
 
50. The copyright to the revised Songbook (Reg. No. [registration number]) was not extended by Assignee, and consequently expired on [date]. The revised Songbook became dedicated to public use and fell into the public domain by no later than that date.
 
51. In or around [date], the sheet music (with accompanying lyrics) to Song was in a songbook titled [name of Songbook], published, compiled, and edited by [name of Publisher]. Upon information and belief, [name of Songbook] was the first time the melody and lyrics of Song were published together.
 
52. [Name of Publisher] did not claim authorship of the song entitled [name of Song] or the lyrics to Song. Although [name of Songbook] attributed authorship or identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the book, it did not attribute authorship or identify any copyright for [name of Song] or Song.
 
53. On or about [date], [name of Publisher] filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Songbook]. On or about [date], the copyright was renewed (Reg. No. [registration number]) by the [name of Publisher].
 
54. On or about [date], Assignee incorporated a new company, [name of Company], (“Assignee Co. II”) under the laws of the State of [State]. Upon information and belief, Assignee Co. II was not a successor to Assignee; rather, it was incorporated as a new corporation.
 
55. The sheet music (with accompanying lyrics) to Song was again published in [year] in the compilation [name of Compilation], compiled and edited by [names of Editors]. Upon information and belief, [name of Compilation].

56. On or about [date], [name of Publisher] filed a copyright application (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for [name of Compilation].
 
57. [name of Compilation] attributed authorship or identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the book. Significantly, it did not attribute authorship or identify any copyright for the Song.
 
58. [name of Compilation] did not provide any copyright notice for the combination of [name of Song] with the lyrics to Song, nor did it include the names of Composer 1 or Composer 2 and did not attribute any authorship or ownership to the Composers.
 
59. Upon information and belief, the Composers had not fixed the lyrics to Song in a tangible medium of expression, if ever, at any time before [name of Publisher] published [name of Compilation] in [year].
 
60. Upon information and belief, Assignee sold Assignee Co. II to [name of Assignee III] (“Assignee III”) in or around [year].
 
61. Upon information and belief, on or about August 31, 1931, Assignee III incorporated a third company, (“Assignee Co. III”) under the laws of the State of [State]. Upon information and belief, Assignee Co. III was not a successor to Assignee Co. or Assignee Co. II; rather, it was incorporated as a new corporation.
 
62. On [date], Assignee Co. II was dissolved for failure to pay taxes.
 
63. On [date], Song was used in the world’s first singing telegram.
 
64. On [date], the Broadway show [name of Show], produced by [name of Producer] began using the Song in public performances.
 
65. On [date], [name of party], a sister of Composer 1 and Composer 2, commenced an action against [name of Producer] in [district], claiming that the performance of Song in [name of Play] infringed on the Composers’ [year] and [year] copyrights to [name of Song]. [Name of party] asserted no claim in that action regarding Song, alone or in combination with [name of Song].
 
66. On [date], [name of party] commenced an action against [name of party] in the [district], claiming infringement on the Composers’ [year] and [year] copyrights to [name of song]. [Name of party] asserted no claim in that action regarding Song, alone or in combination with [name of song].
 
67. In [year] and [year], [name of party] sold and assigned to Assignee Co. III certain piano arrangements of [name of song], including publishing, public performance, and mechanical reproduction rights, copyright, and extension of copyright in exchange for a percentage of the retail sales revenue from the sheet music.
 
68. On or about [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the Song.
 
69. In that [date] Application for Copyright, Assignee Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by [name of party] and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement by piano solo.”
 
70. The lyrics to Song were not included on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [number]. The application did not contain the names of the Composers and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to Song alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
71. The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the arrangement itself.
 
72. On or about [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the Song.
 
73. In that [date] Application for Copyright, Assignee Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by [name of party] and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for four hands at one piano.”
 
74. The lyrics to Song were not included on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number]. The application did not contain the names of the Composers and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to Song alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
75. The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the arrangement itself.
 
76. On or about [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the Song.
 
77. In that [date] Application for Copyright, Assignee Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by [name of party] and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement of second piano part.”
 
78. The lyrics to Song were not included on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number]. The application did not contain the names of the Composers and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to Song alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
79. The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the arrangement itself.
 
80. On or about [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for the Song.
 
81. In that additional [date] Application for Copyright, Assignee Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by Orem and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for six hands at one piano.”
 
82. The lyrics to Song were not included on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number]. The application did not contain the names of the Composers and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to Song alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
83. The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the arrangement itself.
 
84. On [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for Song.
 
85. In that [date] Application for Copyright, Assignee Co. III claimed to be the proprietor of the copyright as a work for hire by [name of party] and claimed the copyrighted new matter as “arrangement for Unison Chorus and revised text.” The sheet music deposited with the application credited [name of party] only for the arrangement, not for any lyrics, and did not credit the Composers with writing the lyrics to Song.
 
86. The lyrics to Song, including a second verse as the revised text, were included on the work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number]. However, the [date] Application for Copyright did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to either of the Composers and did not claim copyright in the lyrics to Song alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
87. The work registered with the Copyright Office as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection in that it consisted entirely of information that was common property and contained no original authorship, except as to the sheet music arrangement itself.
 
88. The work registered as Reg. No. [registration number] was not eligible for federal copyright protection because Assignee Co. III did not have authorization from the author to publish that work.
 
89. On [date], Assignee Co. III filed an Application for Copyright for Republished Musical Composition with new Copyright Matter (Reg. No. [registration number]) with the Copyright Office for Song. Foundation asserted claims under the [year], [year], [year], and [year] copyrights for [name of song] and did not claim any copyright to the lyrics to Song, alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
96. On [date], [name of party] commenced an action against the [name of party] in the [district], for infringement of the Composers’ purported [year], [year], and [year] copyrights to [name of song]. [Name of party] asserted claims only under the [year], [year], and [year] copyrights for [name of song] and did not claim any copyright to the lyrics to Song, alone or in combination with the melody of [name of song].
 
97. Despite the filing of four prior cases in the [district court] asserting copyrights to [name of song], there has been no judicial determination of the validity or scope of any copyright related to [name of song]
 
98. In or about [year], Assignee Co. III changed its name to [name of assignee] (“Assignee Co. IV”).
 
99. In [year], Assignee Co. III (renamed as Assignee IV) filed renewals for each of the [number] registrations it obtained in [year] and [year] (Reg. Nos. [registration numbers]), each renewal was specifically and expressly confined to the musical arrangements.
 
100. In particular, on [date], Assignee Co. III filed a renewal application for Reg. No. [registration number], as employer for hire of [name of party]. [Name of Party] did not write the lyrics to Song or the combination of those lyrics with the melody of [name of song], and neither Assignee Co. III nor Defendant has claimed otherwise.
 
101. Also on [date], Assignee Co. III filed a renewal application for Reg. No. [registration number], as employer for hire of [name of party]. [Name of party] did not write the lyrics to Song or the combination of those lyrics with the melody of [name of song], and neither Assignee Co. II nor Defendant has claimed otherwise.
 
102. Assignee IV was renamed [name of Assignee] in [year] and was acquired by Defendant in or about [year]. 
 
103. According to a [year] press release by ASCAP, Song was the most popular song of the 20th Century.
 
104. The [year] edition of the Guinness Book of World Records identified Song as the most recognized song in the English language.
 
105. Defendant currently claims it owns the exclusive copyright to Song based on the piano arrangements that Assignee Co. III published in [year].
 
106. ASCAP provides public performance licenses to bars, clubs, websites, and many other venues. ASCAP “blanket licenses” grant the licensee the right to publicly perform any or all of the over 8.5 million songs in ASCAP repertory in exchange for an annual fee. The public performance license royalties are distributed to ASCAP members based on surveys of performances of each ASCAP repertory song across different media. By registering Song with ASCAP, Defendant obtains a share of blanket license revenue that would otherwise be paid to all other ASCAP members, in proportion to their songs’ survey shares.
 
107. Plaintiff d/b/a Band recorded the Song at a live show in [city, state], to be released as part of a “live” album. Plaintiff learned that Defendant claimed exclusive copyright ownership to Song, including for purposes of issuing mechanical licenses.
 
108. Accordingly, on [date], Plaintiff paid Defendant $[amount] for a mechanical license for the reproduction and distribution of [number] albums.
 
CLASS ALLEGATIONS

109. Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) as a class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated for the purpose of asserting the claims alleged in this Complaint on a common basis.
 
110. The proposed Class is comprised of: All persons or entities (excluding Defendant’s directors, officers, employees, and affiliates) who entered into a license with Defendant, or paid Defendant, directly or indirectly through its agents, a licensing fee for the Song at any time from [date], until Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein has ceased.
 
111. Although Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Class or the identities of all members of the Class, upon information and belief that information can be readily obtained from the books and records of Defendant. Plaintiff believes that the Class includes thousands of persons or entities who are widely geographically disbursed. Thus, the proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
 
112. The claims of all members of the Class involve common questions of law and fact including:
a.	whether Song is in the public domain and dedicated to public use;
b.	whether Defendant is the exclusive owner of the copyright to Song and is thus entitled to all of the rights conferred in 17 U.S.C. § 102;
c.	whether Defendant has the right to collect fees for the use of Song;
d.	whether Defendant has violated the law by demanding and collecting fees for the use of Song despite not having a valid copyright to the song; and
e.	whether Defendant is required to return unlawfully obtained payments to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and, if so, what amount is to be returned.
113. With respect to Claim III, the common questions of law and fact predominate over any potential individual issues.
 
114. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of all other members of the Class and Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of any other member of the Class, in that plaintiff and the other members of the Class were subjected to the same unlawful conduct.
 
115. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and has retained competent legal counsel experienced in class action and complex litigation.
 
116. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and, together with its attorneys, is able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and its members.
 
117. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair, just, and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted herein. Joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable and, for financial and other reasons, it would be impractical for individual members of the Class to pursue separate claims.
 
118. Moreover, the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of varying and inconsistent adjudications, and would unduly burden the courts.
 
119. Plaintiff anticipates no difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action.
 
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2201
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

120. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 119 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
121. Plaintiff brings this claim individually on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
122. Plaintiff seeks adjudication of an actual controversy arising under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., in connection with Defendant’s purported copyright claim to Song. Plaintiff seeks the Court’s declaration that the Copyright Act does not bestow upon Defendant the rights it has asserted and enforced against Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.
 
123. Defendant asserts that it is entitled to royalties pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 115 for the creation and distribution of phonorecords and digital downloads of the composition Song, under threat of a claim of copyright infringement.
 
124. Plaintiff’s claim presents a justiciable controversy because Plaintiff’s agreement to pay Defendant and its actual payment to Defendant for use of the Song in her album, was the involuntary result of Defendant’s assertion of a copyright and the risk that Plaintiff would be exposed to substantial statutory penalties under the Copyright Act had she failed to enter such an agreement and pay Defendant standard mechanical license royalties it demanded, but then paid for the mechanical license anyway.
 
125. Plaintiff seeks the Court’s determination as to whether Defendant is entitled to assert ownership of the copyright to Song against Plaintiff pursuant to the Copyright Act as Defendant claims, or whether Defendant is wielding a false claim of ownership to inhibit Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment (and the public’s use and enjoyment) of intellectual property which is rightfully in the public domain.
 
126. If and to the extent that Defendant relies upon the [year], [year], [year] or [year] copyrights for the melody for [name of song], those copyrights expired or were forfeited as alleged herein.
 
127. As alleged above, the [year], and [year] copyrights to the original and revised versions of Songbook, which contained the song [name of song], were not renewed by Assignee and accordingly expired in [year] and [year], respectively.
 
128. As alleged above, the [year] copyright to [name of compilation], which contained [name of song], and the [year] copyright to [name of song] were not renewed by Assignee before its expiration in [year] and accordingly expired in [year] and [year], respectively.
 
129. The [years] copyrights to [name of song] were forfeited by the republication of [name of song] in [year] without proper notice of its original [year] copyright.
 
130. The copyright to [name of song] expired in [year] because the [year] copyright to Songbook was not properly renewed.
 
131. The piano arrangements for Song published by Assignee in [year] (Reg. Nos. [registration numbers]) were not eligible for federal copyright protection because those works did not contain original works of authorship, except to the extent of the piano arrangements themselves.
 
132. The [year] and [year] copyrights pertained only to the piano arrangements, not to the melody or lyrics of the Song.
 
133. The registration certificates for [name of compilation] in [year], [name of compilation] in [year], and [name of compilation] in [year], which did not attribute authorship of the lyrics to Song to anyone, are prima facie evidence that the lyrics were not authored by the Composers.
 
134. If declaratory relief is not granted, Defendant will continue wrongfully to assert the exclusive copyright to Song at least until [year], when the current term of the copyright expires under existing copyright law.
 
135. Plaintiff therefore requests a declaration that:
(a)	Defendant does not own the copyright to, or possess the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, or publicly perform Song;
(b)	Defendant does not own the exclusive right to demand or grant a license for use of Song; and
(c)	Song is in the public domain and is dedicated to the public use.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF UPON ENTRY OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C § 2202
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

136. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 135 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
137. Plaintiff brings this claim individually on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
138. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 empowers this Court to grant, “necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree ... after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment.”
 
139. Plaintiff and the other proposed Class members have been harmed, and Defendant has been unjustly enriched, by Defendant’s takings.
 
140. Plaintiff seeks relief for herself and the other members of the proposed Class upon the entry of declaratory judgment upon Claim I, as follows:

(a)	an injunction to prevent Defendant from making further representations of ownership of the copyright to Song;
 
(b)	restitution to Plaintiff and the other Class members of license fees paid to Defendant, directly or indirectly through its agents, in connection with the purported licenses it granted to Plaintiff and the other Class members;
 
(c)	an accounting for all monetary benefits obtained by Defendant, directly or indirectly through its agents, from Plaintiff and the other Class members in connection with its claim to ownership of the copyright to Song; and
 
(d)	such other further and proper relief as this Court sees fit.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
UNFAIR BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

141. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 119 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
142. Plaintiff brings this claim individually on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 
143. As alleged herein, Plaintiff and the other Class members have paid licensing fees to Defendant and have therefore suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s conduct.
 
144. California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. (“UCL”), prohibits any unlawful or unfair business act or practice.
 
145. UCL § 17200 further prohibits any fraudulent business act or practice.
 
146. Defendant’s actions, claims, nondisclosures, and misleading statements, as alleged in this Complaint, were unfair, false, misleading, and likely to deceive the consuming public within the meaning of UCL §§ 17200, 17500.
 
147. Defendant’s conduct in exerting control over exclusive copyright ownership to Song to extract licensing fees is deceptive and misleading because Defendant does not own the rights to Song.
 
148. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have, in fact, been deceived as a result of their reasonable reliance upon Defendant’s materially false and misleading statements and omissions, as alleged above.
 
149. As a result of Defendant’s unfair and fraudulent acts and practices as alleged above, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered substantial monetary injuries.
 
150. Plaintiff and the other Class members reserve the right to allege other violations of law which constitute other unfair or deceptive business acts or practices. Such conduct is ongoing and continues to this date.
 
151. As a result of its deception, Defendant has been able to reap unjust revenue and profit.
 
152. Upon information and belief, Defendant has collected and continues to collect at least $[amount] per year in licensing fees for Song. Therefore, the amount in controversy exceeds $[amount] in the aggregate.
 
153. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendant will continue to engage in the above-described conduct. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.
 
154. Plaintiff, individually on its own behalf and on behalf of the other members of the Class, seeks restitution and disgorgement of all money obtained from plaintiff and the other members of the Class, collected as a result of unfair competition, and all other relief this Court deems appropriate, consistent with UCL§ 17203.
 
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
COMMON COUNT FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

155. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 135 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
156. Within the last four years Defendant became indebted to all Plaintiff and all class members for money had and received by Defendant for the use and benefit of Plaintiff and class members. The money in equity and good conscience belongs to Plaintiff and class members.
 
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
RECISSION FOR FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION,
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

157. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 135 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
158. Defendant’s purported licenses were worthless and ineffective, and do not constitute a valid consideration.
 
159. The complete lack of consideration obviates any need for notice to Defendant.
 
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
FALSE ADVERTISING, CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 ET SEQ.
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
(Against Defendant)

160. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 135 set forth above as though they were fully set forth herein.
 
161. On information and belief, Defendant intended to induce the public to enter into an obligation related to its alleged property, namely the composition Song.
 
162. Defendant publicly disseminated advertising which contained statements which were untrue and misleading and which concerned the composition Song, for which they improperly sought and received licensing fees. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that these statements were untrue and misleading.
 
163. Plaintiff and class members have suffered injury in fact and have lost money as a result of such unfair competition.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

160. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury to the extent that the allegations herein are triable by jury under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38-39.

PRAYER RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the other members of the Class, prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

A.	certifying the Class as requested herein;

B.	declaring that the Song is not protected by federal copyright law, is dedicated to public use, and is in the public domain;

C.	permanently enjoining Defendant from asserting any copyright to the Song;

D.	permanently enjoining Defendant from charging or collecting any licensing or other fees for use of the Song;

E.	imposing a constructive trust upon the money Defendant unlawfully collected from Plaintiff, the other members of the Class, and ASCAP for use of the Song;

F.	ordering Defendant to return to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class all the licensing or other fees it has collected from them, directly or indirectly through its agents, for use of the Song, together with interest thereon;

G.	awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class restitution for Defendant’s prior acts and practices;

H.	awarding Plaintiff and the Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

I.	granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Signature:
Dated: [date]
Attorneys for Plaintiff