9th Circuit: No Music in the Courtroom for Led Zeppelin Hearing
Eleven Ninth Circuit judges will hear a lot of arguments about copyrights Monday in the dispute over "Stairway to Heaven." But they'll do it without musical accompaniment.
September 20, 2019 at 09:58 AM
4 minute read
The Ninth Circuit is set to hear en banc arguments Monday on a case that could set broad new law on the copyrightability of musical works.
Seventies super group Led Zeppelin and its music labels will square off before the en banc court with the estate of a musician that claims the band copied his song. They'll hash out whether the selection and arrangement of a limited number of musical notes can be copyrighted, and, if so, how much protection such a composition is due. The U.S. government is also chiming in, cautioning the court against "granting a monopoly on a common musical convention."
They're also looking for a definitive ruling on whether sheet music deposited with the Copyright Office or the actual recordings of songs define the scope of copyright protection for pre-1978 musical works. A lawyer for the estate of musician Randy Wolfe says that if he can play Wolfe's 1967 song "Taurus" for a jury, his case against Led Zeppelin would be a slam dunk.
The estate has already lost one minor skirmish before the en banc panel. The court on Tuesday turned down attorney Francis Malofiy's request to play portions of " Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven" for the judges at Monday's argument on his cellphone. He told the court it would prove that "the two songs are, in fact, virtually identical."
Jurors found in 2016 that the two songs are not substantially similar, but a Ninth Circuit panel last year ordered a new trial. U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner had instructed jurors that "common musical elements, such as descending chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes" are not protected by copyright. They should have been told that even a limited number of notes can be copyrighted if selected and arranged in an original way, the panel held.
The panel also backed Klausner's decision not to play a recording of "Taurus" for the jury, on the ground that it's the sheet music deposited with the Copyright Office that defines the scope of copyright under the 1909 Copyright Act. (That law has since been superseded by the Copyright Act of 1976.)
The Department of Justice and Copyright Office weighed in on the case last month, arguing that the selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements should be entitled to only "thin" copyright protection. That means only "virtually identical" copying would infringe. Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin can't meet that standard because the notes and the rhythm of the two songs "are not all, or even mostly, the same," the government says. Daniel Tenny of the DOJ Civil Division's appellate staff will present amicus argument for the government Monday.
The government's position led to another round of briefing from the parties in the run-up to the argument. Malofiy, of Pennsylvania's Francis Malofiy Esquire, wrote that "the Trump Administration's" amicus brief is "an embarrassment that fails to understand the applicable law or the history of copyright."
He accuses the government of taking up the music industry's "cause du jour" with the thin-protection argument. Thin copyright might apply to "functional, fact-driven" works. But "artistic works with endless variations, such as songs, by their nature are afforded broad protection, not 'thin' copyright," Malofiy argues.
Representing Led Zeppelin and the music labels, Davis Wright Tremaine partner Peter Anderson argues that the estate didn't make a selection-and-arrangement argument at trial. But if the en banc court endorses that theory for musical works, it must emphasize that the unprotected elements have to be "sufficiently numerous," combined in a sufficiently original way, and be virtually identical in order to infringe, he says.
He wants the court to disclaim language from recent decisions, such as a 2018 case involving Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines," that he says makes it too easy for plaintiffs to "cherry-pick" snippets of allegedly infringing works.
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas will hear argument Monday along with Judges Susan Graber, M. Margaret McKeown, William Fletcher, Carlos Bea, Sandra Ikuta, Mary Murguia, Jacqueline Nguyen, Paul Watford, Andrew Hurwitz and Bridget Bade.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Transforming Children Into ATMs'?: Roblox, Epic Games Sued for Allegedly Fueling Addictive Behavior in Minors
SAG-AFTRA Union Health Plan Slammed With Data Breach Class Actions in Wake of Phishing Attack
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250