Stoliarov v. Marshmello Creative
Stoliarov v. Marshmello Creative
Defendants-Appellees.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Inc.; and Polygram Publishing, Inc. (collectively, “Marshmello”) on Stoliarov’s
his services for Interscope Records did not entitle him “to any ownership or
the question is whether the Drop Melody is part of the underlying musical
There is no dispute that the Drop Melody is embodied in the Remix Master.
The Remix Master is defined in the Remixer Declaration as the original master
We conclude that the Drop Melody is also a part of the “underlying musical
musical composition expressed in any given sound recording. See, e.g., 1 Nimmer
2
On Copyright § 2.10[A][2]; 18 Am. Jur. 2d Copyright and Literary Property § 39
Feb. 16, 2022). Because the Drop Melody is expressed in the Remix Master, it is
interest in the Drop Melody. Without a copyright interest in the Drop Melody,
Wolf v. Superior Ct., 114 Cal. App. 4th 1343, 1351 (2004). Stoliarov has failed to
3
experts opined only that musicians engaged to create a remix generally would not
disclaim ownership of their original material, but the experts do not assert that the
practice and custom in the music industry is to use the phrase “the underlying
being remixed. Nor has Stoliarov proffered any other extrinsic evidence showing
Stoliarov also argues that the parties must have assumed that Stoliarov had a
the Remixer Declaration to include a provision barring him from remixing “any
recording for any person, firm or corporation other than Interscope which
preventing a third party with rights to I Lived from engaging Stoliarov to produce a
4
Master (including the Drop Melody), and therefore do not undermine the
conclusion that Stoliarov disclaimed his copyright interest in the Drop Melody.1
ambiguous, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the
Defendants on Stoliarov’s infringement claim. See Wolf, 114 Cal. App. 4th at
1351.2
1
We decline to address the question of who owns the Drop Melody, because
that issue is not directly addressed by the Remixer Declaration and is not before us.
2
Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on
Stoliarov’s infringement claim, we do not address Marshmello’s argument that this
claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
3
Assuming arguendo that we must reach the question whether the district
court had personal jurisdiction over Steven McCutcheon and Rokstone Music
Limited even though we affirm the dismissal of Stoliarov’s copyright infringement
claim, we affirm the district court’s ruling on this issue. The record does not
establish that these defendants had any substantive “suit-related conduct” creating
“a substantial connection” with California. Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l,
Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
5