Substantial similarity

Last updated

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. [1] [ page needed ] Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. [2] A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

Contents

To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation. [1] [3] Under the doctrine of substantial similarity, a work can be found to infringe copyright even if the wording of text has been changed or visual or audible elements are altered. [4]

Confusion arises because some courts use "substantial similarity" in two different contexts during a copyright infringement case. [5] In the first context, it refers to that level of similarity sufficient to prove that copying has occurred, once access has been demonstrated. In the second context, it is used after it has been shown that a defendant had copied to determine if what had been copied is legally actionable or amounts to misappropriation. Some courts use "striking" or "probative" instead of "substantial" to describe the level of similarity needed in the first context to avoid confusion. [1] [ page needed ] The second meaning, which Justice Jon O. Newman referred to in 1997 as the more proper use, defines "the threshold for determining that the degree of similarity suffices to demonstrate actionable infringement" exists, "after the fact of copying has been established." [6]

Striking similarity

Direct evidence of actual copying by a defendant rarely exists, so plaintiffs must often resort to indirectly proving copying. [1] [ page needed ] Typically, this is done by first showing that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work and that the degree of similarity between the two works is so striking or substantial that the similarity could only have been caused by copying, and not, for example, through "coincidence, independent creation, or a prior common source". [7] Some courts also use "probative similarity" to describe this standard. This inquiry is a question of fact determined by a jury.

Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:

  1. Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
  2. If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
  3. The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
  4. Fictitious entries placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent causes.
  5. Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity. [1] [ page needed ]

Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity, Arnstein v. Porter , the Second Circuit stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result." [8]

Misappropriation

Substantial similarity is the term used by all courts to describe, once copying has been established, the threshold where that copying wrongfully appropriates the plaintiff's protected expression. It is found when similarity between the copyrightable elements of two works rises above the de minimis exception, reaching a threshold that is "substantial" both qualitatively and quantitatively. [3] [9] While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, substantial similarity has also been found where the portion copied was small but constituted the "heart" of the work. [10] [11] In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either. [12] [13] Only when a work rises to a level of "substantial similarity" does it infringe to the point of being legally actionable. [14] As there is no clear line on how much duplication is necessary to reach "substantial similarity", the question is determined on a case-by-case evaluation. [15] A showing that features of the two works are not similar does not bar a finding of substantial similarity, if such similarity as does exist clears the de minimis threshold. [3]

The substantial similarity standard is used for all kinds of copyrighted subject matter: books, photographs, plays, music, software, etc. It may also cross disciplines, as in Rogers v. Koons , where a sculptor was found to have infringed on a photograph. [1] [ page needed ]

Substantial similarity is a question of fact that is decided by a jury. [1] [ page needed ] In situations where "reasonable minds could not differ" in the opinion that substantial similarity of expression does not exist, a court may make summary judgment for the defendant, closing a case without finding infringement. [16] Since "substantial similarity" can require careful evaluation, however, infringement cases usually lead to full inquiry with appropriate tests developed by the courts. [16]

Tests

A number of tests have been devised to determine substantial similarity. These may rely one or both of expert or lay observation and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

Noted copyright authority Melville Nimmer [17] describes two different tests for substantial similarity, "fragmented literal similarity" and "comprehensive non-literal similarity", which have been widely adopted and utilized by U.S. courts. [3] Either test may result in a finding of infringement. [18] Fragmented literal similarity occurs when fragmented copyrightable elements are copied from a protected work in a manner not allowed by fair use. It is more limited than comprehensive copying, involving briefer elements such as a stanza of a song or an image. [19] Comprehensive non-literal similarity may occur even in the absence of verbatim duplication of copyrighted elements when, in the words of J. Thomas McCarthy's McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property, one work appropriates "the fundamental structure or pattern" of another. [3] Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted in Arica v. Palmer that a court may find copyright infringement under the doctrine of "comprehensive non-literal similarity" if "the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar". [20]

The various other tests devised to determine substantial similarity can essentially be broken down into two categories: those that rely on the impressions of ordinary observers and those that rely on "dissection" by experts. [21] Some tests combine elements of both. [22] Ordinary observer tests rely on the subjective response that an ordinary person forms on comparing two works as to whether substantial similarity exists. These have been criticized as unreliable in that ordinary observers may not have enough familiarity with copyright concepts to recognize those elements not copyrightable, such as idea, and might also not recognize where superficial alterations fail to efface infringement. [23] By contrast, dissection tests seek infringement only in those specific copyrightable elements within a work. [21] The tester in these cases considers factors like the idea-expression divide and the scènes à faire doctrine. [21]

Total concept and feel test

The total concept and feel test relies on the subjective evaluation of observers who consider the question of whether the total concept and feel of one work is substantially similar to another. The idea of "total concept and feel" was introduced in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co (1970). [24] The test is subdivided into the "extrinsic test", wherein a complex analysis is conducted of the concepts underlying the work, and the "intrinsic test", wherein within the judgment of an ordinary person the expression of the works are compared. The differences between the two were defined in 1977 by United States federal judge James Marshall Carter in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. : [25]

[The extrinsic test] is extrinsic because it depends not on the responses of the trier of fact, but on specific criteria that can be listed and analyzed. Such criteria include the type of artwork involved, the materials used, the subject matter, and the setting for the subject. Since it is an extrinsic test, analytic dissection and expert testimony are appropriate. Moreover, this question may often be decided as a matter of law. The determination of when there is substantial similarity between the forms of expression is necessarily more subtle and complex. As Judge Hand candidly observed, "Obviously, no principle can be stated as to when an imitator has gone beyond copying the 'idea,' and has borrowed its 'expression.' Decisions must therefore inevitably be ad hoc." Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2 Cir. 1960). If there is substantial similarity in ideas, then the trier of fact must decide whether there is substantial similarity in the expressions of the ideas so as to constitute infringement. The test to be applied in determining whether there is substantial similarity in expressions shall be labeled an intrinsic one depending on the response of the ordinary reasonable person. See International Luggage Registry v. Avery Products Corp., supra, 541 F.2d at 831; Harold Lloyd Corp. v. Witwer, 65 F.2d 1, 18–19 (9 Cir. 1933). See generally Nimmer § 143.5. It is intrinsic because it does not depend on the type of external criteria and analysis that marks the extrinsic test.... Because this is an intrinsic test, analytic dissection and expert testimony are not appropriate.

This test was utilized in BSS Studio, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation in 1999 in determining that a line of Halloween masks produced by Kmart infringed in "total concept and feel" on a line of masks produced by BSS. [26] Particularly the intrinsic test has met criticism as extending copyright beyond the protection of expression into the protection of ideas. [27]

In Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp , the Ninth Circuit expanded the extrinsic test to include the analysis expression as well as ideas. [28] The Court found that analytical dissection of expression was necessary to identify expressions for comparison in the intrinsic test.

Pattern test

The pattern test created by Columbia University professor Zechariah Chafee is primarily utilized to test fiction, comparing elements of plot and character between two works to see if substantial similarity exists. [27] The more similarities exist between the two, the more likely the court will determine infringement.

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test

The primary test utilized in comparing computer programs, the "abstraction-filtration-comparison test" is also called more simply the "filtration test". [19] [29] The test, which was devised by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , compares the elements of software at increasing levels of abstraction, from machine instructions to program function, excluding those elements not copyrightable, such as those approaches dictated by efficiency or the fundamental operation of computers, to evaluate similarity. [19] [29]

Inverse ratio rule

The inverse ratio rule test is an idea proposed in Nimmer on Copyright that has been accepted by a few of the Circuit Courts, notably within the Ninth Circuit which deals with many of the cases of the entertainment industry since it covers California. The inverse ratio rule holds that the more an alleged infringer had access to a work, the lower the threshold for establishing substantial similarity. The rule was enshrined by Ninth in Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1977), in which McDonald's was found infringing on the characters created by the Kroffts as the Kroffts had shown that the firm that created the McDonald's characters had been in earlier discussions with the Kroffts, thus proving access and lowering the bar on similarity. Other Circuits have formally rejected the rule, and no case on the rule has been heard at the Supreme Court. [30]

The inverse ratio rule has been frequently used in several entertainment-based lawsuits when it is difficult to prove substantial similarity, which had made it a point of concern since the burden of access is much easier to satisfy and can make nearly any similarity easy to show. Two recent cases signaled changes in the Ninth's attitude towards the inverse ratio rule: the suit of Marvin Gaye's estate over "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke, and the suit brought by a trust for the band Spirit over Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven". In the first case, a jury found for Gaye's estate on the similarity of "Got to Give It Up", both with substantial similarity and on the inverse ratio rule. While the three-panel Ninth Circuit agreed, on an en banc hearing, the full Ninth Circuit concurred with all but the inverse ratio rule. [31] In the "Stairway to Heaven" case, the trust accused Led Zeppelin of copying Spirit's "Taurus". A jury found there was no substantial similarity, and the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, with specific instructions asking on ruling on the inverse ratio rule. On the en banc appeal in 2020, the Ninth Circuit specifically took the time to overturn its stance on the inverse ratio rule "Because the inverse ratio rule, which is not part of the copyright statute, defies logic, and creates uncertainty for the courts and the parties, we take this opportunity to abrogate the rule in the Ninth Circuit and overrule our prior cases to the contrary." [32] [33] The Supreme Court denied to hear the challenge to the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit's new stance to ignore the inverse ratio rule as case law in future copyright cases within the jurisdiction. [34]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Patry, William. "§9". Patry on Copyright. Vol. 3 (September 2009 ed.). Thomson West.
  2. ↑ Abrams, Howard B. 2 Law of Copyright §14:5
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 McCarthy, J. Thomas; Roger E. Schecter; David J. Franklyn (2004). McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property (3 ed.). BNA Books. pp. 576–577. ISBN   1-57018-401-1.
  4. ↑ Osterberg, Eric C. (2003). Substantial similarity in copyright law. Practising Law Institute. p. §1:1, 1–2. ISBN   1-4024-0341-0. With respect to the copying of individual elements, a defendant need not copy the entirety of the plaintiff's copyrighted work to infringe, and he need not copy verbatim.
  5. ↑ Latman, Alan (June 1990). ""Probative Similarity" as proof of copying: toward dispelling some myths in copyright infringement". Columbia Law Review . Columbia Law Review Association, Inc. 90 (5): 1187–1214. doi:10.2307/1122876. JSTOR   1122876.
  6. ↑ Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. (126 F.3d 70 (2nd Cir., 1997).
  7. ↑ Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dirkschneider, 543 F. Supp. 466, 482 n.10, 214 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 417 (D. Neb. 1981).
  8. ↑ Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2nd Circuit 1946)
  9. ↑ Biederman, Donald E.; Edward P. Pierson; Martin E. Silfen; Janna Glasser (2007). Law and business of the entertainment industries (5 ed.). Greenwood Publishing Group. p.  688. ISBN   978-0-275-99205-7.
  10. ↑ Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises , 471 U.S. 539, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1985)
  11. ↑ Stim 2007 , p. 220
  12. ↑ Blessing, David S. (2004-04-01). "Who speaks Latin anymore? Translating de minimis use for application to music copyright infringement and sampling". William and Mary Law Review. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  13. ↑ Levy, Neil A. (Fall–Winter 1998). "Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Plagiarism and copyright" (PDF). CINAHL Information Systems. 17 (3/4). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-19.
  14. ↑ Osterberg, §1:1, 1-1.
  15. ↑ Merryman, Elsen & Urice 2002 , p. 457
  16. 1 2 Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir., 1984).
  17. ↑ "Georgetown Law Library: Copyright Law Research Guide". Georgetown University Law Library. May 2007. Retrieved 2009-04-07. Nimmer on Copyright is a 10-volume treatise that is considered the leading secondary source on American copyright law.
  18. ↑ Bateman v. Mnemonics, 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir., 1995.) " Archived December 4, 2004, at the Wayback Machine
  19. 1 2 3 Albert et al. 1999 , p. 233
  20. ↑ Arica v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 106 (2d Cir., 1992).
  21. 1 2 3 Keller & Cunard 2001 , §11–31
  22. ↑ Keller & Cunard 2001 , §11–34
  23. ↑ American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (1990). ASCAP Copyright Law Symposium. Columbia University Press. p.  215. ISBN   0-231-11060-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ↑ Lehman, Bruce A. (1995-10-01). Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. DIANE Publishing. p. 104. ISBN   978-0-7881-2415-0 . Retrieved 2012-06-23.
  25. ↑ Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 970 F.2d 106 (9th Cir., 1977).
  26. ↑ Keller & Cunard 2001 , §11–33, 34. Cf. BSS Studio, Inc. v. Kmart Corporation, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1509 (N.D. Ill. 1999)
  27. 1 2 Albert et al. 1999 , p. 232
  28. ↑ University of Puget Sound Law Review, Vol. 16, Issue 1 (Fall 1992), pp. 319-372 Bierman, Ellen M. 16 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 319 (1992-1993)
  29. 1 2 Stim 2007 , p. 211
  30. ↑ Sobel, Lionel (1994). "The Law of Ideas, Revisited". UCLA Entertainment Law Review. 1 (1): 9–96. doi: 10.5070/LR811026302 .
  31. ↑ Gardner, Eriq (July 11, 2018). "Appeals Court Won't Rehear "Blurred Lines" Case". The Hollywood Reporter . Retrieved March 9, 2020.
  32. ↑ https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/03/09/16-56057.pdf [ bare URL PDF ]
  33. ↑ Maddaus, Gene (March 9, 2020). "Led Zeppelin Scores Big Win in 'Stairway to Heaven' Copyright Case". Variety . Retrieved March 9, 2020.
  34. ↑ Aswad, Jem (October 5, 2020). "Led Zeppelin Win 'Stairway to Heaven' Copyright Battle as Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case". Variety . Retrieved October 5, 2020.

Related Research Articles

The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.

A scène à faire is a scene in a book or film which is almost obligatory for a book or film in that genre. In the U.S. it also refers to a principle in copyright law in which certain elements of a creative work are held to be not protected when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

<i>Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.</i>

Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 706 was a federal case in which artist Saul Steinberg sued various parties involved with producing and promoting the 1984 movie Moscow on the Hudson, claiming that a promotional poster for the movie infringed his copyright in a magazine cover, View of the World from 9th Avenue, he had created for The New Yorker.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

Analytic dissection is a concept in U.S. copyright law analysis of computer software. Analytic dissection is a tool for determining whether a work accused of copyright infringement is substantially similar to a copyright-protected work.

<i>Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc.</i> 1988 legal case

Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. 862 F.2d 204, 9 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1322 was a court case between two video game manufacturers, where Data East claimed that their copyright in Karate Champ was infringed by World Karate Championship, a game created by Epyx. Data East released Karate Champ in arcades in 1984, and the game became a best-seller and pioneered the fighting game genre. The next year, Epyx published World Karate Championship for home computers, which sold 1.5 million copies. Data East sued Epyx, alleging that the game infringed on their copyright and trademark.

The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) is a method of identifying substantial similarity for the purposes of applying copyright law. In particular, the AFC test is used to determine whether non-literal elements of a computer program have been copied by comparing the protectable elements of two programs. The AFC test was developed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 in its opinion for Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.

Structure, sequence and organization (SSO) is a term used in the United States to define a basis for comparing one software work to another in order to determine if copying has occurred that infringes on copyright, even when the second work is not a literal copy of the first. The term was introduced in the case of Whelan v. Jaslow in 1986. The method of comparing the SSO of two software products has since evolved in attempts to avoid the extremes of over-protection and under-protection, both of which are considered to discourage innovation. More recently, the concept has been used in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.

<i>Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.</i>

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, was a Ninth Circuit case involving the copyright of greeting cards that introduced the "total concept and feel" standard for determining substantial similarity. Courts used this test in later cases such as Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976).

<i>Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonalds Corp.</i> 1977 copyright infringement lawsuit

Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. (1977) was a case in which puppeteers and television producers Sid and Marty Krofft alleged that the copyright in their H.R. Pufnstuf children's television program had been infringed by a series of McDonald's "McDonaldland" advertisements. The finding introduced the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic tests to determine substantial similarity.

<i>See v. Durang</i>

See v. Durang (1983) was a case where the author of a play claimed that another playwright had based a second play on a draft script that the plaintiff had written, infringing on its copyright. The court refused to consider the process by which the second play had been created, but chose to simply compare the end results. The court found no infringement, coining the axiom, "Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying."

<i>Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.</i>

Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp. is an intellectual property law case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the previous ruling of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Brown Bag Software sued Symantec Corporation and John L. Friend, an individual software developer for Softworks Development, for copyright infringement and several state law claims regarding the similarity of Symantec Corporation's and Brown Bag Software's computer outlining programs.

<i>Mandeville-Anthony v. Walt Disney Co.</i>

Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company, 11-56441, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Court evaluated whether defendants Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Walt Disney Pictures infringed on Jake Mandeville-Anthony's copyrighted works. Plaintiff Mandeville-Anthony's claim for copyright infringement was first dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because the court found that the parties’ works were not substantially similar. Mandeville-Anthony made copyright infringement claims with regards to his works Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie, that he believed Disney copied in order to make their own films, Cars and Cars 2, both of which were very successful, and the animated television show Cars Toons: Mater's Tall Tales. He also made breach of contract claims stating that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Copyright protection is available to the creators of a range of works including literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works. Recognition of fictional characters as works eligible for copyright protection has come about with the understanding that characters can be separated from the original works they were embodied in and acquire a new life by featuring in subsequent works.

DC Comics v. Mark Towle was a copyright case heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in September 2015. The case concerned defendant Mark Towle, who built and sold replicas of the Batmobile in his garage named 'Garage Gotham'. DC Comics initially filed a lawsuit, in May 2011, in the federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Mark's manufacture and sale of replicas. The plaintiffs, DC Comics, claimed the infringement of their copyright as the replicas sold by Mark were similar to the ones that appeared in 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film Batman. The issue discussed by the court was "whether a character in a comic book, television program or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection". The ninth circuit followed the precedents and came up with a three-part test to determine the protection given to such characters.

VMG Salsoul v Ciccone 824 F.3d 871 is a court case that has played an important role in redefining the legal status of sampling in music under American copyright law. The case involved a claim of copyright infringement brought forth against the pop star Madonna, for sampling the horns from an early 1980s song "Ooh I Love It " by the Salsoul Orchestra in her international hit song "Vogue". Such sampling was done without a license, or compensation to VMG Salsoul, LLC who was the copyright holder of Love Break and therefore moved the court claiming infringement and damages. The Ninth Circuit was to rule upon a contentious issue in the music industry at large, i.e. whether the de minimis defense is applicable against a claim of copyright infringement in the case of sound recording, with special regard to the practice of sampling.

Pharrell Williams et al. v Bridgeport Music et al., No. 15-56880 is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case concerning copyright infringement of sound recording. In August 2013, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Joseph Harris filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the members of Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that the song "Blurred Lines" did not infringe the copyright of defendants in "Got to Give It Up" and "Sexy Ways" respectively.

Marcus Gray et al. v. Katy Perry et al. was a copyright infringement lawsuit against Katy Perry, Jordan Houston, Lukasz Gottwald, Karl Martin Sandberg, Henry Russell Walter ("Cirkut"), Capitol Records and others, in which the plaintiffs Marcus Gray ("Flame"), Emanuel Lambert and Chike Ojukwu alleged that Perry's song "Dark Horse" infringed their exclusive rights in their song "Joyful Noise" pursuant to 17 U.S.C § 106. The focus of the similarity was a short descending pattern known in music as an "ostinato". In both songs, a short ostinato is used repeatedly to form part of the beat of each song and both ostinatos share similar descending shapes. Gray et al. claimed that the instrumental beat of the ostinato in "Joyful Noise" was protectable original expression and that Perry et al. had access to and copied the ostinato when composing "Dark Horse." On March 16, 2020, Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately found that Gray et al. had failed to satisfy the extrinsic test for substantial similarity, overturning a previous jury verdict which had sided with the plaintiffs. Snyder's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

<i>Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp.</i> 1982 legal case

Atari, Inc. v. North American Philips Consumer Electronics Corp., 672 F.2d 607, is one of the first legal cases applying copyright law to video games, barring sales of the game K.C. Munchkin! for its similarities to Pac-Man. Atari had licensed the commercially successful arcade game Pac-Man from Namco and Midway, to produce a version for their Atari 2600 console. Around the same time, Philips created Munchkin as a similar maze-chase game, leading Atari to sue them for copyright infringement.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.