No Proof Of Access To Plaintiff's Songs Dooms Copyright Infringement Claim

William Smith et al. v. Abel M. Tesfaye (“The Weeknd”) et al. 2:19-cv-02507 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2020)

A Los Angeles federal court has ruled for The Weeknd against claims that his track “A Lonely Night” was copied from “I Need to Love” by a trio of British musicians. The court expressed that there was no showing by Plaintiffs that The Weeknd had access to their song or that their works were substantially similar. The Complaint alleges claims for: (1) direct copyright infringement (against all defendants); (2) contributory copyright infringement (against all defendants); (3) vicarious copyright infringement (against all defendants); (4) declaration of authorship/ownership; (5) accounting - declaratory relief; (6) constructive trust - declaratory relief; and (7) unjust enrichment. In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs’ did not have any evidence that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song and because the protectable elements in “I Need to Love” are not substantially similar to “A Lonely Night.” In an opinion issued on July 22, 2020, the Court of the Central District of California granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs were unable to sufficiently establish genuine issues of material fact regarding the elements of access and substantial similarity. The Court said that it found no evidence those involved with the creation of “A Lonely Night” had any access to the song “I Need to Love”. Also, the lyrics in the two songs are not similar. Therefore, the Court concluded there was no reasonable inference for anything more than a “bare possibility” that Defendants accessed “I Need to Love. After discovery Plaintiffs still had no evidence of any license. Without evidence of a license, Plaintiffs’ state law claims fail as a matter of law. Additionally, without evidence of a license, Plaintiffs’ state law claims lack the “extra element” required to avoid the Copyright Act’s preemption provision. The Court thus ruled in favor of summary judgement for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ state law claims. Since Plaintiffs failed to establish genuine disputed issues of material fact concerning Defendants’ access to Plaintiffs’ musical composition or that Defendants’ musical composition is substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ work in its protectable elements, the Court ruled in favor of summary judgement for the Defendants on all issues.