andmaste wrote: Sun 26 Oct 2025, 6:11 pm
By the way... I've read the document, but I have difficulties to understand it completely.
What is Plaintiff asking for? What does she want? Money? Public apologies?
I asked ChatGPT to summarise:
What the Plaintiff Wanted
Willis sued Tennant, Lowe, and Warner Music Group for copyright infringement.
She claimed that:
- She owns the copyright to the Village People song “Go West” (assigned to her in 2013)
- The Pet Shop Boys’ version of “Go West” and its inclusion in the concert film Pet Shop Boys Dreamworld: The Greatest Hits Live were unauthorised
- She had denied Warner Music Group permission to use the song in that film, yet the movie was still shown in 2024 – including in California – and later broadcast on PBS and planned for Blu-ray release
In essence, she wanted the court to hold Tennant and Lowe liable for infringing her copyright by performing and allowing the use of “Go West” in the film and related media, and to obtain legal remedies for that alleged infringement.
She also asked the court for permission to serve the defendants through alternative methods, since she had trouble formally serving them in the UK.
Court’s Decision (22 October 2025)
Judge Todd W. Robinson granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Willis’s motion for alternative service, on three main grounds:
1. Lack of personal jurisdiction:
- Tennant and Lowe live in the UK
- Their Copenhagen concert and the film distribution were not “expressly aimed” at California
- The court found no sufficient connection (“purposeful direction”) between them and the state to justify jurisdiction
2. Failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)):
- The complaint didn’t plausibly allege that Tennant or Lowe themselves reproduced, distributed, or publicly performed the infringing film
- The film’s creation and release were handled by other companies
- Merely saying they “engaged in acts” of infringement was too conclusory
3. Insufficient service of process:
- Willis never properly served the UK-based defendants under the Hague Convention
- Serving their California lawyer was invalid
- Her request for court-approved “alternative service” was denied because using the Hague Convention wasn’t unduly burdensome, so the court saw no reason to bypass it