Guzman v. Hacienda Records, No. 15-40927 (5th Cir. Dec. 14, 2015).
Affirming judgment after a bench trial, the Fifth Circuit held that the District Court did not err in finding lack of access to the song (despite radio play and live performances) and that the songs were not strikingly similar even though the first lines were virtually identical (because there was no evidence of uniqueness or complexity). Applying the "clearly erroneous standard," the 5th Circuit declined to second guess the District Court's findings.
Showing posts with label Access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Access. Show all posts
December 15, 2015
December 16, 2014
Tejano Music Infringement Claim Fails Because No Access And Not Enough Similarity
Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc., No. 6:12-CV-42, 2014 BL 344493 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 09, 2014).
After a bench trial, the Court dismissed plaintiff's copyright infringement claim because the alleged infringers did not have access to plaintiff's work nor were the two works strikingly similar. This case is about two Tejano songs -- a hugely popular style of music in Corpus Christi from the 1970s through the 1990s, that is a a fusion of the Mexican and German influences in Texas. Although the Court found that substantial similarity existed between the songs, the Court declined to find the much higher standard of striking similarity, which is necessary for a finding of factual copying without any proof of access. The Court also found that the evidence did not support a finding that defendants had access to plaintiff's song. The Court concluded that it was purely speculative that anyone associated with defendant heard plaintiff's song on the radio on the occasions when it was actually played, or ever heard it performed live. "Because [plaintiff] has not shown a reasonable possibility that Defendants had access to his song, he cannot show that they copied it and his copyright infringement claim fails".
After a bench trial, the Court dismissed plaintiff's copyright infringement claim because the alleged infringers did not have access to plaintiff's work nor were the two works strikingly similar. This case is about two Tejano songs -- a hugely popular style of music in Corpus Christi from the 1970s through the 1990s, that is a a fusion of the Mexican and German influences in Texas. Although the Court found that substantial similarity existed between the songs, the Court declined to find the much higher standard of striking similarity, which is necessary for a finding of factual copying without any proof of access. The Court also found that the evidence did not support a finding that defendants had access to plaintiff's song. The Court concluded that it was purely speculative that anyone associated with defendant heard plaintiff's song on the radio on the occasions when it was actually played, or ever heard it performed live. "Because [plaintiff] has not shown a reasonable possibility that Defendants had access to his song, he cannot show that they copied it and his copyright infringement claim fails".
September 17, 2014
Tim McGraw Didn't Have Access To Plaintiff's Demo Tape; Summary Judgment Affirmed In Defendants' Favor
Martinez v. McGraw et al., No. 13-5796 (6th Cir. filed Sep. 15, 2014).
The 6th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants in a copyright-infringement action wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendants infringed his musical composition Anytime, Anywhere
Amanda with the musical composition Everywhere by country-artist Tim McGraw. On appeal, the 6th Circuit found that the District Court applied the correct standard -- that defendant had an opportunity to access Plaintiff's song -- and that Plaintiff could not meet that standard. "There is no dispute that Anytime was never published or distributed, never received radio play, is not available on iTunes, has not been performed by third parties, and that Martinez performed the song only in South Texas. Defendants’ only possible access would have been through the demo tape Martinez gave to Tomac." The record, though, was devoid of any evidence that the demo tape had been passed along. "Martinez’s theories of access through third-party intermediaries fall short. The district court properly determined that Martinez presented only 'attenuated chains of hypothetical transmittals' in support of his claim that Defendants heard or had a reasonable opportunity to hear Anytime. See Patry on Copyright § 9:29. The chain of access vanishes after Tomac gave the lone demo tape to Bartley in the fall of 1996, and the hypothetical transmittals fail to support
a reasonable inference that any Defendant or associate of any Defendant received a copy of Anytime, much less that Wiseman or Reid, the alleged infringers, heard or had a reasonable opportunity to hear Anytime and copied it before they co-wrote Everywhere in November 1996." Lastly, there was no error because no evidence was presented that protectible elements of the two works are substantially similar.
The 6th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants in a copyright-infringement action wherein Plaintiff alleged that Defendants infringed his musical composition Anytime, Anywhere
Amanda with the musical composition Everywhere by country-artist Tim McGraw. On appeal, the 6th Circuit found that the District Court applied the correct standard -- that defendant had an opportunity to access Plaintiff's song -- and that Plaintiff could not meet that standard. "There is no dispute that Anytime was never published or distributed, never received radio play, is not available on iTunes, has not been performed by third parties, and that Martinez performed the song only in South Texas. Defendants’ only possible access would have been through the demo tape Martinez gave to Tomac." The record, though, was devoid of any evidence that the demo tape had been passed along. "Martinez’s theories of access through third-party intermediaries fall short. The district court properly determined that Martinez presented only 'attenuated chains of hypothetical transmittals' in support of his claim that Defendants heard or had a reasonable opportunity to hear Anytime. See Patry on Copyright § 9:29. The chain of access vanishes after Tomac gave the lone demo tape to Bartley in the fall of 1996, and the hypothetical transmittals fail to support
a reasonable inference that any Defendant or associate of any Defendant received a copy of Anytime, much less that Wiseman or Reid, the alleged infringers, heard or had a reasonable opportunity to hear Anytime and copied it before they co-wrote Everywhere in November 1996." Lastly, there was no error because no evidence was presented that protectible elements of the two works are substantially similar.
June 23, 2014
Infringement Action Against Lady Gaga Dismissed; No Substantial Similarity
Francescatti v. Germanotta; No. 11-cv-520 (N.D. Ill. June 17, 2014).
The Court granted defendant Lady Gaga's motion to dimiss the copyright infringement case over Gaga's song "Judas", even though the Court found that defendants had access to plaintiff's song "Juda," because no reasonable trier of fact could find that the songs are substantially similar. With respect to access, the Court found that based on the nature and timing of a collaboration between Gaga and other defendants, a reasonable juror could find that there exists a nexus -- via a channel of communication -- between the parties and that therefore the defendants had an opportunity to hear the plaintiff's songs. Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on that ground. However, the Court found no substantial similarity. First, the Court undertook an extensive analysis of whether expert testimony was necessary, or permissible, to determine similarity under the ordinary observer test. The Court found that expert testimony was warranted because the songs are sufficiently complex, especially given the use of computer technology. Second, the Court undertook the extrinsic-intrinsic test and held that the songs are substantially similar. The songs do not share enough unique features to give rise to a breach of the duty not to copy another's work.
The Court granted defendant Lady Gaga's motion to dimiss the copyright infringement case over Gaga's song "Judas", even though the Court found that defendants had access to plaintiff's song "Juda," because no reasonable trier of fact could find that the songs are substantially similar. With respect to access, the Court found that based on the nature and timing of a collaboration between Gaga and other defendants, a reasonable juror could find that there exists a nexus -- via a channel of communication -- between the parties and that therefore the defendants had an opportunity to hear the plaintiff's songs. Accordingly, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on that ground. However, the Court found no substantial similarity. First, the Court undertook an extensive analysis of whether expert testimony was necessary, or permissible, to determine similarity under the ordinary observer test. The Court found that expert testimony was warranted because the songs are sufficiently complex, especially given the use of computer technology. Second, the Court undertook the extrinsic-intrinsic test and held that the songs are substantially similar. The songs do not share enough unique features to give rise to a breach of the duty not to copy another's work.
February 24, 2014
Blacked Eyed Peas Not Liable For Infringement In Absence Of Access And Lack Of Similarity
Pringle v. Adams, No. 12-55998 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014).
The 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants -- the Black Eyed Peas and related parties -- in a copyright infringement case. The Court found: "The evidence in support of Plaintiff, however, raises only the barest possibility that Defendants had access to [the song], and Plaintiff does not argue that there is a 'striking similarity' between [the song] and Defendants’ allegedly infringing work." The 9th Circuit also affirmed sanctions against plaintiff for violating a court order regarding service of process on one of the defendants.
The 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants -- the Black Eyed Peas and related parties -- in a copyright infringement case. The Court found: "The evidence in support of Plaintiff, however, raises only the barest possibility that Defendants had access to [the song], and Plaintiff does not argue that there is a 'striking similarity' between [the song] and Defendants’ allegedly infringing work." The 9th Circuit also affirmed sanctions against plaintiff for violating a court order regarding service of process on one of the defendants.
February 10, 2011
Summary Judgment Motions Denied In Alleged Hip Hop Infringement
Lessem v. Taylor et al., No. 07 Civ 10601(LLS), 2011 WL 344104 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2011).
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment that defendants' song "How We Do" infringes their copyrighted song "Elevator". (Defendants' song appears on the album "The Documentary" by hip-hop artist The Game.)
The Court analyzed defendants' access to the Plaintiff's work (specifically, through a third-party intermediary), the probative similarity of the two works (based on expert reports), the alleged improper appropriation, and whether or not defendants independently created their song. The Court determined that factual issues precluded summary judgment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
