Joyful Noise or Travesty of Justice for Katy Perry?

Or perhaps even (pun intended) "Dark Horse". Whatever side you take in this copyright infringement situation that seems to be trending in the direction of plaintiffs will be somewhat controversial. 

In the Ninth federal Circuit, to state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly allege two things:
  1. Ownership of a valid copyright in the subject work
  2. Defendants copied protected aspects of the subject work's expression
Malibu Textiles, Inc. vs. Label Lane International, Inc., 922 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2019)

Some would say that there is no way a Christian rapper like Marcus Gray p/k/a Flame could make this happen against an artist like Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson p/k/a Katy Perry, associated songwriters, and Capitol Records, LLC.

But following five years of pretrial litigation and seven days of proof, that is exactly what happened. "Joyful Noise" appears on the album Our World: Redeemed, which received a Grammy nomination for Best Rock or Rap Gospel Album and a Stellar Award nomination for Rap Album of the Year in 2008. The song itself earned a nomination for Dove Award Best Rap/Hip Hop Recorded Song of the Year.

Gray and company used MySpace and YouTube to demonstrate access to "Joyful Noise" and to overcome Perry and company's summary judgment motion. Circumstances indicate that Perry and her team may have searched YouTube to find a beat that would connect to listeners and produce mega sales. "Dark Horse" became one of the best-selling singles of all time after its release on the album Prism in October of 2013. Perry performed a portion of it at the Super Bowl on February 1, 2015. It was viewed over one billion times on Vevo, making it the second most watched music video in Vevo history.

Gray's legal team initially filed the suit in federal court in Saint Louis. But Perry's legal team countered with a motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction. The case was transferred to the Central District of California as to Capitol Records, and Gray added the original defendants back in following the transfer.

The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages. Once liability was established, the damages portion of the trial immediately followed. 

It was established that Capitol earned $5,732,938 in net profits from "Dark Horse" and that Perry earned $2,445,586.56 in net profits. There were five co-writers for "Dark Horse" and two for "Joyful Noise". The jury attributed 22.5% of these net profits to the infringing use of "Joyful Noise".

So Katy Perry sustained $550,256.98 in damages, and Capitol sustained $1,289,911.05.

The case could be appealed to the Ninth Circuit appellate judges.  However, due to the heavily factual emphasis of copyright infringement, a reversal of the jury verdict would be unlikely.



Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Summarizing the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees

Image
As you have been reading in plenty of places (including this blog), the Music Modernization Act of 2018 and the reforms put into place by it will continue to have a positive impact on those who create music. In recent months, discussion regarding possible termination of the ASCAP and BMI federal consent decrees has begun. This was noted in an article by Nate Rau in  The Tennessean  on March 3, 2019. So just exactly what are these consent decrees? And why should we even want to see them terminated? The answer lies in monopoly and price-fixing litigation initiated by the United States Department of Justice over 80 years ago in the Southern District court of New York. In 1941, agreed orders, also known as decrees, were presented to and approved by the court. ASCAP has the most recent modified decree on its web site. This was signed in 2001. The BMI decree was amended last in 1994. If you can find the BMI decree, please send me the link. Executives from both ASCAP and BMI have declare
Read more

Confusion About Trademark Applications

Image
In my entertainment law practice, the one subject that seems to generate the most confusion is trademarks. I am going to take the term "confusion" to a legal point in this blog post. "Likelihood of confusion" is a major hurdle to achieving a registration in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Many music industry people have false impressions about the process of filing and registering a federal trademark. Some are savvy enough to file their own applications. However, when the application is reviewed by an examining attorney at the USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia, the fearless pro se  applicant will call and request help. Many times it is too late to help. Application fees and the time spent filing the online application are wasted. So it is best to be informed about the basics of the process before beginning. A mark must  be in use in commerce before it can register. It is possible (and sometimes advisable) to file an application based on t
Read more

Luke Bryan has the 32 Bridge trademark - But not "Food + Drink"

Image
The world of trademark is not as simple as one might think. And that is what lawyers are for. When Luke Bryan winds up the CMA Music Festival Sunday night at Nissan Stadium in Nashville, he will have a single registration for the 32 BRIDGE mark that salutes his Georgia heritage. But the restaurant and bar mark won't yet be registered.  And if you're thinking that one registration covers all uses and possible uses, think again. If you're filing for a merchandise/clothing, you're not automatically protected for restaurants and bars. In fact, there are really two types of marks: "Trademark" is a universal term, but some marks are really used as service marks. There are 45 international classes, mostly used for administrative purposes by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). The big point of administration for you is that you pay an extra fee of at least $225 if you apply for more than one class of goods or services. The first
Read more