Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SERGIO GARCIA FERNANDEZ

professionally known as ANGELSLANG,

Plaintiff,
v.

MICHAEL PHILLIP JAGGER, COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT

professionally known as, MICK JAGGER, INFRINGEMENT
KEITH RICHARDS, collectively and
professionally known as THE ROLLING JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
STONES, UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP,
INC, BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT,
LLC, AND PROMOPUB B.V.,

Defendants.

Comes now, Plaintiff, Sergio Garcia Fernandez, professionally known as,

Angelslang, by and through its his counsel of record herein, for its complaint against

Defendants, and each of them, alleges as follow:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil action for the infringement of registered copyrights in violation of

The U.S. Copyright Act brought by the Plaintiff, Sergio Garcia Fernandez, professionally

known as, Angelslang, (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), to recover compensatory,

statutory, and punitive damages as a result of the Defendants’ unauthorized exploitation of

the copyrighted musical works of Plaintiff.

 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 8

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331, 1332, 1338 and 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq as this action is based upon federal

copyright law.

3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and 1400(a)

as a substantial part of the events giving rise to this claim occurred in this district.

Defendants regularly conduct business in the State of Louisiana and substantial acts of

infringement have occurred in this district. Defendants expect or should have reasonably

expected their acts to have consequences in this district. Defendants have directed their

activities and marketing of musical recordings to Louisiana residents and Louisiana

residents were able to purchase and download infringing musical recordings by way of

mechanisms controlled or authorized by the Defendants.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Sergio Garcia Fernandez, is a person of the full age and majority and

domiciled in the country of Spain.

5. Defendant Michael Phillip Jagger, professionally known as Mick Jagger, and a

member of the collective, “The Rolling Stones,” is a person of the full age and majority,

who, upon information and belief, is a citizen of the State of Florida.

6. Defendant Keith Richards is a person of the full age and majority, and one part

of the collective, “The Rolling Stones,” who, upon information and belief, is a citizen of

State of Connecticut.

7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Universal Music Group, Inc is an active

corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California. Plaintiff
 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 8

is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Universal Music Group, Inc does

substantial, continuous and systematic business in the State of Louisiana and in this judicial

district.

8. Upon information and belief, Defendant BMG Rights Management, LLC is an

active limited liability company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of

New York. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that BMG Rights

Management, LLC does substantial, continuous and systematic business in the State of

Louisiana and in this judicial district.

9. Defendant Promopub B.V. is a foreign corporation, organized and existing

pursuant to the laws of the country of Netherlands. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and

thereupon alleges, that Promopub B.V. does substantial, continuous and systematic

business in the State of Louisiana and in this judicial district.

FACTS

10. In or about 2006, Plaintiff authored sound recording and musical composition

entitled “So Sorry.” Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” was wholly original and is registered with the

Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, Registration Number 6.567.119. In or around

2007, Plaintiff authored the sound recording and musical composition entitled “Seed of

god (Talent in the Trash).” Plaintiff’s “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash)” was wholly

original and registered with the Sociedad General de Autores y Editores, Registration

Number 16.055.652.

11. Subsequently, the musical works, “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the

Trash)” were released as a part of Angelslang’s compilation album, “Brick Songs,” in

 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 4 of 8

2019. The “Brick Songs” compilation album was wholly original and is registered with

the Spanish Intellectual Property Registry, Registration Number 16/2020/2179.

12. The Plaintiff is the sole owner of the copyright registered for “So Sorry” and

“Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” and is the sole author of the master, sound recordings,

musical composition, and lyrics for the subject songs.

13. In or around 2013, Angelslang provided a demo compact disc (CD) containing

the musical works, “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” to an immediate

family member of Defendant Jagger. Thereafter, the immediate family member of

Defendant Jagger confirmed receipt of the demo compact disc (CD) containing the musical

works, “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” to the Plaintiff via e-mail, and

expressed that the musical works of the Plaintiff and its style was a sound The Rolling

Stones would be interested in using.

22. In 2020, Defendants released a sound recording entitled “Living in a ghost

town” that misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements of the

Plaintiff’s musical works, “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” into their

infringing work, “Living in a Ghost Town.”

23. Defendants used unauthorized copying and sampling of “So Sorry” and “Seed

of god (Talent in the Trash),” in the infringing sound recording, “Living in a Ghost Town.”

24. The Plaintiff did not authorize the defendants’ reproduction, distribution, public

performance of the sound recording, or creation of an unauthorized derivative work of

“Living in a Ghost Town.”

 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 5 of 8

25. Defendants do not have any rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, or

create derivative works of samples of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),”

in the sound recording, “Living in a Ghost Town.”

26. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have misappropriated many of

the recognizable and key protected elements of the Plaintiff’s works into their infringing

works, “Living in a Ghost Town” The infringing work, “Living in a Ghost Town,”

misappropriates key protected elements of “So Sorry,” including without limitation its

vocal melodies, the chord progressions, the drum beat patterns, the harmonica parts, the

electric bass line parts, the tempos, and other key signatures.

27. The infringing work, “Living in a Ghost Town,” also misappropriates key

protected elements of “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash).” The infringing work, “Living

in a Ghost Town,” misappropriates key protected elements of “Seed of god (Talent in the

Trash),” including without limitation its harmonic and chord progression and melody.

28. Defendants, without authority have willfully copied and sampled many

protected elements of the Plaintiff’s copyrights and further infringed upon those copyrights

by acts of reproduction, distribution, publish, display, and unauthorized creation of

derivative works.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Copyright infringement of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the

Trash),” into the sound recording, “Living in a Ghost Town” against all defendants)

29. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint as

if fully set forth herein.

 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 6 of 8

30. Plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in the sound recording, musical

composition and lyrics of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash).” Plaintiff’s

copyright of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” was registered with the

Spanish Intellectual Property Registry and Sociedad General de Autores y Editores and

bears Registration nos. 16/2020/2179, 6.567.119 and 16.055.652 respectively.

31. Upon information and belief, and without authorization or permission from

the plaintiff, in direct violation of Plaintiff’s rights, Defendants, have directly infringed the

copyrights in Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),” by among

other things: a) preparing unauthorized derivatives of Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed of

god (Talent in the Trash),”in the form of “Living in a Ghost Town;” b) reproducing

copyrighted elements of the Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the

Trash),”in “Living in a Ghost Town;” c) distributing copies of “Living in a Ghost Town,”

which contains copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent

in the Trash),”and d) publishing, displaying, selling and licensing copies of “Living in a

Ghost Town,” which contains copyrighted elements of Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed

of god (Talent in the Trash),” Defendants never paid Plaintiff, nor secured the authorization

for the use of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),”in “Living in a Ghost

Town.”

32. Moreover, without authorization or permission from Plaintiff, Defendants

sampled and copied Plaintiff’s “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),”in

purporting to author the sound recording and composition, “Living in a Ghost Town.”

Defendants have published, manufactured, distributed, sold and licensed copies of “Living

in a Ghost Town.” Defendants never paid Plaintiff, nor secured the authorization for the
 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 7 of 8

use of “So Sorry” and “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash),”in “Living in a Ghost Town.”

33. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants have misappropriated many of

the recognizable and key protected elements of the Plaintiff’s works into their infringing

works, “Living in a Ghost Town” The infringing work, “Living in a Ghost Town,”

misappropriates key protected elements of “So Sorry,” including without limitation its

vocal melodies, the chord progressions, the drum beat patterns, the harmonica parts, the

electric bass line parts, the tempos, and other key signatures.

34. The infringing work, “Living in a Ghost Town,” also misappropriates key

protected elements of “Seed of god (Talent in the Trash).” The infringing work, “Living

in a Ghost Town,” misappropriates key protected elements of “Seed of god (Talent in the

Trash),” including without limitation its harmonic and chord progression and melody.

35. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiff is

entitled to its actual damages in addition to Defendants’ profits that are attributable to the

copyrighted material; moreover, plaintiff is entitled to other compensatory, statutory and

punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

36. Defendants’ conduct was willful with full knowledge of and complete

disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ infringement, Plaintiff has

incurred attorneys’ fees and costs, in amount according to proof, which are recoverable

under 17 U.S.C. 504.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth hereinafter.

a) For actual damages according to proof at trial;

 Case 2:23-cv-00891-EEF-DPC Document 1 Filed 03/10/23 Page 8 of 8

b) For Defendants’ profits in an amount according to proof at trial or, at

its election;

c) For statutory damages per infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504.

d) For an accounting in connection with Defendants’ unauthorized use of

the infringing works;

e) For attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504;

f) For costs of suit incurred;

g) For interest, prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest according

to proof at trial;

h) For compensatory damages

i) For attorney fees

j) Any such other or further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury in the above matter.

Dated: March 9, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/DASHAWN HAYES_____________
DaShawn Hayes (LA State Bar #34,204)
The Hayes Law Firm, PLC
1100 Poydras St., Ste 1530
New Orleans, LA 70163
PH: 504-799-0374
FAX: 504-799-0375
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff

WAIVER OF SERVICE REQUESTED