3rd Cir. Affirms Judgment For Usher In "Bad Girl" Copyright Dispute

Marino v. Usher, No. 15-2270 (3rd Cir. Dec. 8, 2016).

Songwriter-plaintiff appealed the lower court's grant of summary judgment to Usher (and the other defendants) in a copyright action involving the song "Bad Girl."  The 3rd Circuit affirmed the finding that the claim must fail because the song was jointly written by plaintiff and certain of the defendants (Guice and Barton).  "The district court correctly held that co-authors of a joint work are each entitled to undivided ownership and that the joint owner of a copyright cannot sue his co-owner for infringement.  The court reasoned that, without direct infringement, there can be no vicarious infringement, hence the derivative song, Bad Girl, did not infringe on Marino’s
rights. The district court also concluded that Guice and Barton conveyed a valid nonexclusive
license for the song to the other defendants."

Additionally, the Court held that the state-law claims were pre-empted, that the plaintiff had granted an implied license, that his sound recording claims failed because there was no copyright registration for the sound recording, and that defendant's were properly granted costs/fees (in a 90% reduced amount based upon plaintiff's financial circumstances).  Lastly, the Court affirmed the financial sanction entered against Plaintiff's lawyer for improperly communicating with an unrepresented defendant in violation of the Pennsylvania rules of professional conduct.

Chorus In Bieber & Usher Song Similar Enough To Chorus In Plaintiff's Song To State Copyright Claim

Copeland v. Bieber, No. 14-1427 (4th Cir. June 18, 2015)

The Fourt Circuit vacated the trial Court's dimissal of Plaintiff's claim against Justin Bieber and other defendants alleging that three recorded songs infringe upon plaintiff's copyright in an earlier song of the same name.  Applying the "intrinsic similarity" test -- whether the songs at issue, assessed from the perspective of the intended audience (the general public), and taking into account their "total concept and feel" -- the appellate court found on de novo review, after listening to both songs start to finish, that plaintiff stated a claim.  First, the court found that the three songs (a demo, album version, and remix) were "the same" (not just substantially similar) under the unscientific intrisic standard.  Second, the court compared the three songs to plaintiff's song.  The appellate court disagreed with the lower court's finding that there was a different overall "aesthetic appeal," finding too much of a focus on the mood and tone of the song rather than the similarities between the most imporant "element" of the songs, their choruses.  The songs are different genres, but that is not enough (the Court gave the example of the Beatles' songbook being turned into an unlicensed reggae or heavy metal version).  Further, the songs were in may respects dissimilar; numerically, the points of dissimilarity may have exceeded the points of similarity.  "But what that analysis fails to account for...is the relative importances of these differences as compared to what the songs reasonably could be heard to have in common: their choruses....courts routinely permit a finding of substantial similarity where the works share some espeically significant sequence of notes or lyrics."  Continguing, "we think it is clear that when it comes to popular music, a song's chorus may be the kind of key sequence that can give rise to intrinsic similarity, even when works differ in other respects."  In other words, "the hook" is key.  And whether a member of the general public could experience these songs primarily through their choruses and thus find them substantially similar is a close enough question that it cannot be disposed of as a matter of law and should instead by decided by a jury.

[Author's note: missed this case earlier in the year].

Copyright Claim Dismissed Against Usher Because No Substantial Similarity

Edwards et al. v Usher Raymond IV et al., No. 1:13-cv-07985-DLC (S.D.N.Y. filed 05/23/14) [Doc. 36].

Plaintiffs alleged that a song recorded and published by defendants, including Usher, willfully copied the plaintiffs' original musical composition.  On defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for copyright infringement because the two songs were not substantially similar as a matter of law.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed the sole copyright infringement claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim for breach of contract.

First, the Court found that the phrase "caught up," which is the title of both songs, is not eligible for copyright protection because it is a common phrase.  Second, the Court found that lyrics from the two songs expressing the ideas in question were not substantially similar.  Third, the Court ignored bare legal conclusions in the complaint that the songs are substantially similar.  Lastly, the Court also took a "holistic" approach, and determined that the two songs' music and lyrics, considered as a whole, confirmed a lack of substantial similarity.

Attorney Sanctioned In Usher Copyright Action

Marino v. Usher et al., Index No. 6811-cv-11 (E.D. Pa. memorandum dated May 21, 2014).

The court dismissed most of the plaintiff song-writer's copyright infringement claims against Usher and other defendants, and sanctioned plaintiff's counsel for behaving "in a flagrantly unprofessional and offensive manner."  The sanctionable conduct: the attorney "(1) inveigled an inculpatory affidavit from unrepresented Defendant William Guice; and (2) after falsely assuring Guice that he was only a witness, entered a default against him."

Bieber and Usher Sued For Copyright Infringement; "Somebody To Love"

Copeland v. Bieber et al., No. 2:13-cv-00246 (E.D. Va. filed May 2, 2013).

Justin Beiber and Usher were sued by authors of the song "Somebody to Love" for alleged copyright infringement.  The notable aspect of the Complaint is the level of detail the Plaintiffs include in alleging the extent of copying and comparing the two works (at paragraph 47).

Trademark Issue in Usher Copyright Suit?

Straughter v. Raymond, No. 08 cv 2170-CAS-CWX (C.D.Cal. filed Apr. 1st, 2008) is a copyright infringement action brought pro se by the author of a composition against the performer Usher arising out of Usher's sound recording "Burn" appearing on the album "Confessions". It appears that plaintiff's composition was previously performed with authorization by an earlier artist, and that Usher sampled that recording. It is not clear whether the label and/or publisher for the earlier recording of the composition are parties to the suit.

What grabbed OTCS attention to this case was plaintiff's third claim under the Lanham Act:

33. Mr. Straughter is a highly successful and well known Grammy-winning artist, composer, producer and performer. He has established a reputation at the top of his field and achieved world wide renown, expending substantial amounts of time and money to maintain the goodwill he has established.

34. Defendants and their representatives have distributed and provided goods and services in interstate commerce in connection with Plaintiff’s goodwill, notoriety and ownership interest in the copyright and Defendants have realized substantial income from the provision and sale of such goods and services.

35. Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s sound recording and/or his copyrighted song in the performance of “Burn” is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception by misleading consumers and the trade into believing that Plaintiff licensed or otherwise authorized the use of their performance, or that the “Burn” composition and Confessions Album associated with or otherwise endorsed by Plaintiff. Defendants conduct is in willful and deliberate violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a) (1) (A) and highly damaging to Plaintiff’s reputation and specific financial entitlements.

36. Defendants have profited and continue to profit from their unlawful conduct and will, unless restrained, further impair Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, and Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately calculated or compensated solely by money damages.

Reading this count reminded us of the recent holding in Contractual Obligations Productions LLC v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 04 cv 2867, 4/7/08 NYLJ "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. decided Mar. 25, 2008) which cited Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) for the proposition that the Lanham Act does not apply to claims arising out of failure to credit or attribute the origin of a creative work.

Trademark Issue in Usher Copyright Suit?

Straughter v. Raymond, No. 08 cv 2170-CAS-CWX (C.D.Cal. filed Apr. 1st, 2008) is a copyright infringement action brought pro se by the author of a composition against the performer Usher arising out of Usher's sound recording "Burn" appearing on the album "Confessions". It appears that plaintiff's composition was previously performed with authorization by an earlier artist, and that Usher sampled that recording. It is not clear whether the label and/or publisher for the earlier recording of the composition are parties to the suit.

What grabbed OTCS attention to this case was plaintiff's third claim under the Lanham Act:

33. Mr. Straughter is a highly successful and well known Grammy-winning artist, composer, producer and performer. He has established a reputation at the top of his field and achieved world wide renown, expending substantial amounts of time and money to maintain the goodwill he has established.

34. Defendants and their representatives have distributed and provided goods and services in interstate commerce in connection with Plaintiff’s goodwill, notoriety and ownership interest in the copyright and Defendants have realized substantial income from the provision and sale of such goods and services.

35. Defendant’s use of Plaintiff’s sound recording and/or his copyrighted song in the performance of “Burn” is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception by misleading consumers and the trade into believing that Plaintiff licensed or otherwise authorized the use of their performance, or that the “Burn” composition and Confessions Album associated with or otherwise endorsed by Plaintiff. Defendants conduct is in willful and deliberate violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a) (1) (A) and highly damaging to Plaintiff’s reputation and specific financial entitlements.

36. Defendants have profited and continue to profit from their unlawful conduct and will, unless restrained, further impair Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, and Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately calculated or compensated solely by money damages.

Reading this count reminded us of the recent holding in Contractual Obligations Productions LLC v. AMC Networks, Inc., No. 04 cv 2867, 4/7/08 NYLJ "Decision of Interest" (S.D.N.Y. decided Mar. 25, 2008) which cited Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) for the proposition that the Lanham Act does not apply to claims arising out of failure to credit or attribute the origin of a creative work.

Cadillac Grills

When Ludacris and Usher join forces, you know you're in about as much trouble as being caught in the middle of the former Jay-Z/Nas dispute. Mr. Bridges (pka Lud. appearing on Def Jam label) and Mr. Raymond IV (pka Usher appearing on La Face label) sued TVT Records, amongst others, in the Southern District of New York for "unlawful use" of plaintiffs' musical contributions to the recordings IN DA CLUB and LOVERS AND FRIENDS (i.e., copyright infringement).

What's going on here? OTCS suspects this could have been avoided by a mere sampling agreement early in the recording process. What's the word on the street?

[Christopher Bridges p.k.a. Ludacris; Usher Raymond IV p.k.a. Usher; Disturbing Tha Peace Entertainment Inc.; Fast Pace Inc. v. Teevee Toons Inc.; TVT Records LLC; BME Enterprises LLC; BME Recordings LLC; Jonathan Smith. 11/15/2007; 07 CV-10369]