Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

6-2-2004

Cottrill v. Spears Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-2717

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

Recommended Citation "Cottrill v. Spears" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 630. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/630

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 03-2717

MICHAEL COTTRILL; LAWRENCE E. WNUKOWSKI,

Appellants

v.

BRITNEY SPEARS; ZOMBA RECORDING CORPORATION, ZOMBA ENTERPRISES, INC., ZOMBA SONGS, INC.; JIVE RECORDS; WRIGHT ENTERTAINMENT GROUP; BMG MUSIC PUBLISHING, INC.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-03646) District Judge: Honorable Berle M. Schiller

Before: BARRY, SMITH and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing asserted that there was an error in footnote

2 of the not precedential opinion entered on January 30, 2004. After consideration of

appellant’s petition and the record, it is hereby ORDERED that the January 30, 2004 Not Precedential Opinion is AMENDED.

The text of footnote 2 on page 3 of the January 30, 2004 Not Precedential Opinion shall

be stricken and replaced with the following language:

Plaintiffs suggest in their brief that Kahn heard an earlier version of What You See when Cottrill played it on the piano prior to the lyrics being recorded. However, as the District Court explained, Cottrill testified in his deposition that the early versions have “nothing to technically do with” the copyrighted version at issue here. We agree with the District Court’s statement that “Plaintiff Contrill admitted at his deposition that [the earlier] version was not the same as the song at issue in this action.” We, therefore, do not address the possibility of access to an earlier instrumental version.

By the Court:

/s/ D. Brooks Smith Circuit Judge

Dated: 2 June 2004