Just to be clear, under modern law you don’t copyright (v.t.) [something]. Copyright protection is automatic upon creation.
Ooh, that’s a lotta lawsuits!
Okay, I’ve read the complaint. As I suspected, it doesn’t set forth the argument in detail, which isn’t necessarily unusual. A complaint need only set forth enough information to put the defendant on notice regarding what the lawsuit is about.
Regarding the claim of copyright infringement, the complaint describes Mariah Carey’s song as a “version” of Vance’s song. So, it’s not literally a claim over infringement of the title, which no competent lawyer would file.
If this were to go to trial, then Vance would have to establish “substantial similarity” as an element of hte infringement. In other words, at some point, Vance would have to put forth evidence that Carey’s song is indeed a “version” of his musical work, and not a completely different musical work.
What I would expect to see now is that Carey will answer this complaint by denying that her song infringes Vance’s song. Then, I would expect to see Carey file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which the law offers a remedy.
In response to to the Rule 12(b)(6) motion is when Vance will be obligated to make his case in a little bit more detail. Of course, Vance could always blab to the press in the meantime. So I suppose we shall see.
I listened to both songs. I find it very unlikely that there is a good copyright infringement claim here. However, I have in recent years been surprised by courts’ failure to apply copyright law in music cases sensibly. I’m thinking specifically of the “Blurred Lines” case, which, in my opinion was ridiculous.
The second claim is a common law claim of unjust infringement and misappropriation. To make this claim, the plaintiff would essentially have to prove all the elements of the copyright infringement claim. I would guess that this claim is going to be pre-empted by Section 301(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §301(a).
The third claim is a claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C §1125(a). This is kind of a catch-all for trademark and trademark-adjacent claims and in this case, it looks like Vance is asserting a “false designation of origin” claim. On its face, this also looks like an attempt to duplicate the copyright claim. I doubt this claim can survive the pleading stage.
The citation is Stone v. Carey, No. 22-01616 (E.D. La., complaint filed June 3, 2022).
Yes, but in my case, the story was published and part of a registered serial copyright.
After Robin Thicke lost to Marvin Gaye’s estate for general feel of another song, I would say that all bets are off.
Back in the early 90s, both Stone Temple Pilots and Radiohead had a song named Creep that were getting radio play at the same time.
What is the significance of the “yes, but” there? A copyright interest and registration of that copyright interest are two separate things. If what you are talking about is the registration, then you “registered” it first, not “copyrighted” it first.
I wouldn’t say all bets are off. If, when it comes time for Vance to set forth his allegation of infringement in detail, the claim rests only on the similar title, then that’s not going to get past the pleading stage. It will end in summary judgment before there is even a trial.
“Yes” – you’re right about copyright being automatic.
“but” – But mine is registered. Thus I could sue for statutory damages.
As always, thanks for your expert opinion Acsenray.
Yes, thanks, Acsenray. Always find your posts helpful.
Then he probably hired one of Trump’s “elite strike force” attorneys—that’s the level of desperation he’s suffering from.
::d&r::
I didn’t know Vivian Vance was still alive. I certainly didn’t know she ever wrote songs. On I Love Lucy her character Ethel and husband Fred were supposed to be former vaudevillians and she sang a bit on one show. Just really surprising to hear about this. I suppose this is a result of those unresolved feelings about Lucille Ball. /s
And two years later, TLC released yet another song by the same name.
I am reminded that Frankie Goes To Hollywood, Huey Lewis and the News, and Jennifer Rush all released hit singles titled “The Power Of Love” within the span of a year back in 1984/85 and nobody seems to have lost their shit about it.
This is a silly money/attention grab. The case will at the very least drive some traffic to the Vance single, although whether it will make enough to cover legal fees or whether Vance is just hoping for a quick payoff from Carey to go away remains to be seen.
Now that we’re far enough down this thread, can I make the comment, “What the fuck was up with Vance’s hair?”
We’ll have to wait to see how this develops.
If you ask me, Mariah is being framed…