Kanye West’s label, Universal, scored a legal victory last week in securing partial dismissal of a lawsuit concerning Kanye’s 2007 hit song “Good Life.”
Dayna Staggs, a singer and songwriter, filed a copyright infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland claiming that “Good Life” was identical in sound and melody to the chorus of Staggs’ song, “Volume of the Good Life.” On August 14, the Court granted, in part, Universal’s request to dismiss the case.
The Court’s ruling related to Staggs’ claim that “Good Life” violated his copyright in the musical composition and lyrics of “Volume of the Good Life.”
The Court stated that “an ordinary listener . . . would quickly determine that the melodies of the songs are not similar. In fact, the Court was unable to hear any portions of the songs that contained similar melodies.”
As to the lyrics, Staggs claimed that Kanye’s lyrics “Now throw ya’ hands up in the sky” are identical to Staggs’ lyrics “Hold your head up high.” The Court ruled that these allegedly identical phrases, and other similar words or phrases, such as “good life” are simply not copyrightable.
The Court cited Section 202.1(a) of the Copyright Office regulations which states:
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
While the Court dismissed the case as to the musical work claim, the Court left open the question of whether Staggs holds a copyright in the sound recording and whether Kanye’s song violated that right, presumably by sampling Staggs’ song. The Court gave Universal 30 days to challenge Staggs’ sound recording copyright claim.
As an aside, note that the “Good Life” samples from Michael Jackson’s “P.Y.T.”
Check it out. The sample used throughout “Good Life” appears at 3:15 of “P.Y.T.”:
I understand that the “P.Y.T” sample was cleared for “Good Life.”
* * * * *
Posted in Copyright Infringement
This article givens a false sense of information as to the court rulings. After careful review of the case files which are of public domain. Staggs claim of copyright infringement was GRANTED as far as his music in his song ” Volume of the Good Life” However dismissed as to the Lyric’s only in the lyrical composition West’s song.
Not in the sound recording; The case hasn’t been fully dissmissed as of yet, as far as the sound recording. ASCAP pays for (song) royaltys and BMI as well and SEASAC.
So all of the people including PYT owners; can get lyrical monies only; And Staggs get his Music Composition monies only.
Nothing more until the other part is decided which apparently is September 14, 2009.
So Universal only has slight partial victory and partial loss as well a split decision GRANTED in PART and DENIED
in PART.
Thanks for your post Pebo John.
Here’s a link to the District Court’s August 14, 2009, Memorandum Opinion on Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ copyright claim.
The Court clearly denies Staggs’ claims with respect to the music and lyrics. Here’s an excerpt from page 5 of the decision:
So, the Court granted Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ claim that Universal had infringed Staggs’ right to the music and lyrics of “Volume of the Good Life.”
The Court did not grant Universal’s motion to dismiss with respect to Staggs’ claim of infringement as to the sound recording. The Court, however, gave Universal 30 days to file a second motion to dismiss with respect to the sound recording claim. Last week, Universal filed a request for extension of time to file the second motion.
In short, the court GRANTED (IN PART), Universal’s motion to dismiss with respect to Staggs’ claim concerning the music and lyrics; and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (IN PART), Universal’s motion to dismiss with respect to Staggs’ claim concerning the sound recording. Here’s a copy of the Order which makes this ruling unmistakably clear.
I believe your statement that “Staggs claim of copyright infringement was GRANTED as far as his music in the song” may be a reference to the Court’s statement indicating that Staggs has a valid copyright in the music. The fact that Staggs has a valid copyright does not mean that the copyright was infringed.
Thanks again for your comment, and I welcome any further insight you have on this case.
Yeah I hear ya did you not read this sectionof the memorandum of opinion: A plaintiff asserting a claim for copyright infringement of a certain work must prove, as a jurisdictional prerequisite, that the work has a valid copyright registration. Mays & Associates, Inc. V. Euler, 370 F.Supp.2d 362, 366 (“It is axiomatic that copyright registration is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing an action for infringement under the Copyright Act”). The
recording of a song has two possible copyrights associated with it: (1) the copyright in the music
composition/words and music; and (2) the particular sound recording of the song.
Turning first to the Song, in addition to establishing that a valid copyright exists, Staggs
must show that Universal “had access to the copyrighted work and that [Universal’s] work is
‘substantially similar’” to Staggs’ Song. Comins v. Discovery Communications, Inc., 200 F. Supp.
2d 512, 515 (D. Md. 2002) (internal citations omitted) Here The Universal Defendants do not appear to dispute that Staggs has a valid copyright in the words and music of his Song. Further, while it is by no means clear that Staggs would be able to establish that the Universal Defendants had access to his Song, for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss, since Staggs has alleged that West had access to it through his MySpace page, and since
the Universal Defendants could conceivably have had access through West, the Court finds that
this element is satisfied.
However, subject to the caveat in the footnote,4 the Court will deny without prejudice the
Motion to Dismiss as to the Recording and will invite the Universal Defendants to challenge
Staggs’ claims of copyright in this regard on some basis other than the untimeliness of its
assertion.
It would appear that Staggs Claim for copyright infringement was GRANTED. As far as the music which provided
sheet charts, far as music in the song”. And Defendants violated that right which the Order says explicitly.
The copyright was infringed it says it in the Order, and if you read the Memoradum it further states what
a sample is in fact: Footnote is the following: A “sample” is “making a collage, taking a small piece of an old work and using it in a new work.” Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007, 1026 (3d Cir.2008).
Might wanna read the cases laws associated with the Memorandum of Opinion…Clearly references the facts and
the claim of infringement.
Pebo John,
To establish a copyright infringement claim, the plaintiff must prove that (1) s/he has a valid copyright registration, (2) that the defendant had “access” to the copyrighted work, and (3) that the defendant’s work is “substantially similar” to the plaintiff’s work.
The quote you reference only relates to the Court’s determinations that (1) Universal did not dispute that Staggs has a valid copyright in the words and music (number 1 above); and (2) the “access” requirement was satisfied (number 2). What you left out of the quote was the Court’s holding that the “substantial similarity” requirement for both the song and the lyrics was not satisfied (number 3 above). That is, the court found that neither the melodies nor the lyrics of Staggs’ song and Kanye’s songs were “substantially similar.” Thus, there was no finding of copyright infringement.
You appear to be confused by the Court’s use of the term “GRANTED” in the Order which says:
It’s not Staggs’ claim that was “GRANTED.” Rather, it’s Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ claim of copyright infringement that was “GRANTED.” That is, the Court granted Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ claim on copyright infringement of his song.
In other words, Staggs’ claim with respect to the song (music and lyrics) was dismissed.
No Apparently I think your confused; Why would a Federal Court GRANT a Claim for Copyright infringement of Staggs, song if wasn’t infringed by the prior release of West Work. I Think you need to Revisit the Court Records when the Case Begin and see all the Evidence and Facts which satisified all doubts of access and “substantial similarity” of the sheet music.
So If the Order reads a. It is DENIED as to Staggs claim’s of copyright infringement of his song, Volume of the good LIfe: would legal your opinion would that indicate? Exactly Thats Right, the work wasn’t infringed and the Entire Case would of be dismissed with prejudice without a appeal or otherwise.
[Paper No 41] was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART; which you fail to even address. Courts don’t render Orders GRANTING anything unless a form of infringement has occurred. Rather right to public performance; Right to make derivative works; all fall under Plaintiff Bundle of rights. Most Orders entered and in Form of Summary Judgement.
GRANTED IN PART as to the Staggs claim of copyright infringement of his song; music not lyric’s and DENIED IN PART as to Staggs claim of copyright infringement of his Recording. Here Challenging Universal to prove otherwise.
Pebo John,
The Court GRANTED Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ claim of copyright infringement of his music and lyrics. Therefore, Staggs’ claim has been rejected and thrown out of court. Staggs will be getting no musical composition (song/lyric) royalties based on the Court’s decision.
The Court DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE Universal’s motion to dismiss Staggs’ claim of copyright infringement of his sound recording. Therefore, the case will continue with respect to the sound recording claim, but Universal has the opportunity to file a new motion to dismiss that claim. Presumably Universal will argue that Staggs does not have a valid copyright in the sound recording.
The Court did not “grant” any of Staggs’ copyright claims. Courts don’t “grant” plaintiffs’ claims when deciding whether the claims should be dismissed, which is the context of the Order and Memorandum Opinion. Either the claims will be dismissed (that is, the motion to dismissed is granted), or the claims will not be dismissed and the case will continue. Here, the musical composition claim was dismissed and the sound recording claim was not dismissed—hence, the “IN PART” language.
Are you Dayna Staggs a/k/a D’Mystro, or are you affiliated with him?
If so, please consider posting a link to the original recording of your song “Volume of the Good Life” and we can then “let the public decide” whether the Court got this case right by dismissing the claim.
No I am not
I live in nashville and have been watching this case and looked at some of the sheet
music involved, and heard the musicologist from University Southern California give a lectuer on copyright infringement with sampling.
I am not into rap or R&B I like country and western music.
My Cousin is also Nashville attorney who works for BMI Artists, he looked at Universal Music Defense to Staggs Claim in the Recording. If I understand him correctly The “sound recording” copyright protects the actual recording of a musical composition, as contained on a CD, in an MP3 file, on a computer hard drive, or other “phonorecords.” The Defense is challenges Plaintiff “Copyrights” from copyright office to the court, and is still attacking this guy’s complaint after the court has ruled and outside counsel ruled they are properly registered and the complaint stands.
You are correct in your understanding about the differences between the “sound recording” copyright and the “musical work” copyright. See my earlier post here on that topic.
Universal did not challenge Staggs’ copyright in his musical work. That is, everyone seemed to agree that Staggs’ had a valid copyright in his musical work. While it may be a valid copyright, the Court determined that Universal had not infringed the copyright. There is a big difference between, on one hand, having a valid copyright, and on the other hand proving that a valid copyright was infringed. I believe this is where you have misinterpreted the Court’s ruling–Staggs has a copyright in the musical work, it just wasn’t infringed by Universal. It’s just like having valid title to your car is not the same as having someone steal your car. That fact that you have valid title does not mean that someone stole it.
As to whether Staggs has a valid copyright in his sound recording, the Court indicated that Staggs had not made a sufficient claim to copyright because his assertion of a claim was a “proverbial moving target.” Nonetheless, the Court gave Staggs the benefit of the doubt and did not dismiss his sound recording copyright claim on the grounds of its untimely assertion, as Universal had requested. Rather, the Court suggested that Universal file a new motion to dismiss to challenge Staggs’ sound recording claim on some basis other than untimeliness. Remember, even if Staggs can prove he has a valid copyright in the sound recording, he would still have to prove that Universal actually infringed it.
Looks like Kanye Tour is Cancelled and he’s still in Legal troubles including his label Universal. Some firm in London says this guy recorded the work in Europe back in the 1980’s. And has World License and WIPO Rights to his work. So I am no legal Guru but wouldn’t that mean he owns all rights in the sound recording and composition on the other side of the planet? Since the high priced attorneys and crooks stole his tune. Well you might win here in USA, but European laws are very very different… I remember reading a Jimmy Hendricks case of something similar and
jimmy team won that case from a younger rock group using his work because he recorded the work in London.
А почему Вы думаете именно так? Ведь мнения сильно расходятся
Все хорошо расписано!
Респект автору!
надеюсь мы увидим продолжение этого материала? действительно интересно
Наконец то нашел что то по тематике.
Я думаю если автор будет писать постоянно настолько интесный материал, то это будет большим плюсом для его блога
Не зря я защёл на этот блог. Действительно интересно. Продолжаю читать другие статьи
Адекватный подход к клиентам и блоу. Много интересных мнений. Добавляю в закладки
While the Court dismissed the case as to the musical work claim, the Court left open the question of whether Staggs holds a copyright in the sound recording and whether Kanye’s song violated that right, presumably by sampling Staggs’ song. The Court gave Universal 30 days on August 14, 2009 to challenge Staggs’ sound recording copyright claim. It would appear the a settlement has been made between Staggs and Universal Music Group as to the United States Sound Recording and International Music Composition which Staggs holds 1975 World Mechanical license from Pallas records. The Memorandum of Understanding is approximately 125 pages long and has been submitted to the
Court to review.