during the life of the performer. 3. Naxos Has Not Competed Unfairly Since Capitol has no rights in the original recordings, it cannot charge Naxos with unfair competition. As both parties agree, unauthorized copying without more is not actionable. (Def.’s Mem. at 16; Pl.’s Opp. Mem. at 18.) See Leonard Storch Enters., Inc. v. Mergenthaler, No. 78-C-238, 1980 WL 1175, at *30 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.8, 1980) (“[N]o New York case has ever recognized a right of unfair competition based solely on the copying or photocopying of a tangible product.”), aff'd, 659 F.2d 1060 (2d Cir.1981). A plaintiff only has a viable claim where it also has exclusive, cognizable rights to the property it seeks to prevent from copying. E.g., Hebrew Publ’g Co. v. Scharfstein, 288 N.Y. 374, 376-77, 43 N.E.2d 449 (1942) (<HOLDING>); G. Ricordi & Co. v. Haendler, 194 F.2d 914,
holding that without more for defendant to copy books published by plaintiff which were not covered by copyright and then sell these copies does not state a claim for unfair competition holding that conversion and unjust enrichment claims were preempted by the copyright act since they were not qualitatively different from a copyright claim because they contained no extra element beyond those necessary to show copyright infringement holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply holding that the use of copies or derivatives of copies of copyrighted technical drawings to manufacture a machine did not constitute an act of copyright infringement holding that claim against state for failing to prevent sexual abuse was covered by statute