A group of stand-up comedians, including Bill Engvall, Lewis Black, and the estates of the late George Carlin and Robin Williams, agreed to settle a consolidated copyright infringement lawsuit against Pandora Media for streaming their routines without a proper license for the underlying literary works.
The audio entertainment streaming service and the comedians filed a notice of settlement Tuesday in Los Angeles federal court. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the court filing, marking the end of what legal counsel described as multi-year litigation.
Pandora's lead counsel Paul Fakler said in an email that the company did not pay for the "literary works" rights — the rights to the written jokes that were at issue in the lawsuits — and it did not acquire a license for those rights going forward.
"This settlement amicably ends a multi-year hard-fought litigation and saves both sides from the significant expense and business distraction of continuing to litigate for years to come," Fakler said. An attorney representing the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The settlement comes after a court-appointed special master recommended last year that Pandora should prevail on summary judgment because, among other reasons, it had a so-called implied license to stream the routines.
"While some plaintiffs testified that they did not intend to convey rights allowing streaming services to use plaintiffs' routines, all plaintiffs undisputedly knew for years that their routines were streaming on Pandora," retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal said in her recommendation. "Nevertheless, for nearly a decade … they never objected."
The result, Segal said, is that under Ninth Circuit precedent, Pandora has an implied license. Moreover, she said, some of the comedians encouraged Pandora to stream their routines, and they received royalties from Pandora for its use of the sound recordings "without complaint."
Those royalties from the sound recordings are separate from any royalties based on the underlying written work that the comedians claimed. The distinction between sound recording rights and literary work rights proved central to the legal dispute.
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi, who had appointed Segal to review the massive amount of documents that were filed as part of the summary judgment motions, rejected the comedians' argument that the special master had been wrong to find that, under Ninth Circuit law, Pandora has an implied license to the underlying written works.
Scarsi noted, however, that he was only approving Segal's conclusion that an implied license defense may succeed, not definitively ruling on the merits of the case.
The case highlights the complex intersection of copyright law and digital streaming, particularly regarding comedy content. Unlike music, where licensing structures for both sound recordings and underlying compositions are well-established, comedy routines present unique challenges in the streaming era.
The plaintiffs' claims centered on the argument that while Pandora might have had rights to stream the audio recordings of their performances, it lacked proper licensing for the underlying literary works — the written jokes and comedic material that forms the foundation of their routines.
This distinction matters because copyright law treats sound recordings and the underlying creative works as separate intellectual property categories, each requiring its own licensing agreements. Musicians face similar issues when their songs are streamed, as both the recording and the underlying musical composition have distinct rights holders.
The involvement of high-profile comedians and the estates of comedy legends George Carlin and Robin Williams brought significant attention to the case. These performers represent some of the most recognizable names in stand-up comedy, with routines that have become part of American cultural heritage.
The settlement avoids what could have been a precedent-setting decision regarding how streaming services must handle comedy content licensing. Had the case proceeded to a final ruling, it might have established clearer guidelines for the digital streaming of comedic performances.
The implied license doctrine that figured prominently in the special master's recommendation is a legal concept that can arise when copyright holders' conduct suggests they have granted permission for use of their work, even without explicit written agreements.
In this case, the special master found that the comedians' knowledge of Pandora's streaming of their routines, combined with their acceptance of royalties and lack of objection over nearly a decade, could constitute an implied license under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The settlement's confidential terms leave questions unanswered about how similar disputes might be resolved in the future. However, Pandora's counsel made clear that the company did not pay for literary works rights as part of the settlement, suggesting the streaming service may have achieved a favorable resolution.
The case resolution comes at a time when streaming services continue to navigate complex copyright landscapes across various content types. As digital platforms expand their offerings beyond music to include comedy, podcasts, and other audio content, licensing disputes are likely to continue arising.
For the comedy industry, the settlement provides closure on a dispute that had dragged on for years but leaves broader questions about digital rights management unresolved. The outcome may influence how comedians and their representatives approach licensing agreements with streaming platforms going forward.