Ronnie Van Zant, Inc. v. Artimus Pyle

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · October 10, 2018 · No. 17-2849-cv

Summary

The Second Circuit reversed a permanent injunction barring release of a film about the Lynyrd Skynyrd plane crash, holding that the underlying consent decree's terms were inconsistent or insufficiently precise to support the injunction. The decree permitted individual band members to exploit their life stories and portray experiences with the band, but prohibited works purporting to be a "history of the band." Because the film depicted the plane crash—both a band history event and a personal experience of drummer Artimus Pyle—the decree's conflicting provisions could not clearly prohibit the film. The court emphasized that injunctions restraining expressive works require careful scrutiny, especially when applied to non-signatories acting in concert with a party.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Jon O. Newman; Peter W. Hall; Susan L. Carney
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
October 10, 2018
Docket number
17-2849-cv
Procedural posture
Appeal from a permanent injunction and judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, District Judge), enjoining the release of a movie for alleged violation of a consent decree settling a suit between private parties.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Cleopatra Records, Inc. and Cleopatra Films v. Ronnie Van Zant, Inc., Gary R. Rossington, Johnny Van Zant, Barbara Houston, Alicia Rapp, and Corinna Gaines Biemiller
Disposition
reversed

Topics

civil procedureinjunctionsappellate procedurestandard of reviewcontract interpretationfirst amendmentfree speechconstitutional law

Practice areas

Entertainment and Media LawContractsCivil Procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the release of a movie will violate the provisions of a consent order that settled a lawsuit between private parties.
  2. Whether the terms of the consent order are sufficiently specific to support an injunction.

Holdings

  1. The terms of the Consent Order are inconsistent, or at least insufficiently precise, to support an injunction.
  2. The script reveals that the movie would not exceed the authority that the consent decree explicitly gives to Artimus Pyle and therefore to Cleopatra.

Key quotations

We conclude that the terms of the Consent Order are inconsistent, or at least insufficiently precise, to support an injunction, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the District Court and vacate the injunction. (at 10)
Provisions of a consent decree that both prohibit a movie about such a history and also permit a movie about such an experience are sufficiently inconsistent, or at least insufficiently specific, to support an injunction. (at 12-13)
I believe the script for the movie in question reveals that the movie would not exceed the authority that the consent decree explicitly gives to Artimus Pyle and therefore to Cleopatra. (at 1 (concurrence))

Factual background

Lynyrd Skynyrd was a rock band founded in the 1960s. In 1977, a plane crash killed singer Ronnie Van Zant and others. Survivor Artimus Pyle later agreed to a consent decree settling a lawsuit over the band's name. In 2016, Cleopatra Records began producing a film about the plane crash, starring Pyle. Plaintiffs, representing the deceased members' estates, sought to enjoin the film's release, alleging violation of the consent decree.

Procedural history

The case originated from a 1988 suit (Grondin v. Rossington) that ended with a Consent Order. In 2017, plaintiffs sued Cleopatra for violating the Consent Order by producing a film with Artimus Pyle. The district court granted a permanent injunction. This appeal followed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…