Lawrence G. Townsend Intellectual Property Lawyer
Schedule a consultation
415-882-3288
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin
  • Twitter

Jury awards $2.7 million in damages in Katy Perry copyright case

News and Notes Focused on the 3 Public Faces of IP Law

  • Brand Image Protection - Trademark Law
  • Visual Image Protection - Copyright Law
  • Personal Image Protection - Right of Publicity Law

The Image Protection Law blog has been created in order to share stories and information on the legal aspects of: 1) the marketplace reputation of a company or product captured in its trademark, 2) published or publicly-displayed artwork, photography, and any created visual design, and 3) use of a person's photograph or likeness for product promotion or other commercial purposes.

The "IP3" share at least one thing in common: Image is everything. In these posts let's look at what that means in the realm of intellectual property in the news, but let's also be prepared to explore if there's something more beyond "everything." Don't forget, the intellectual in "intellectual property" doesn't mean smart or brainy, although by nature true creators often are. The word is used to refer to any creation, i.e., a "product of the mind." While this blog will be regularly updated, you are encouraged to share your thoughts on these posts.

On August 1, a federal jury in Los Angeles calculated that Katy Perry, her label Capitol Records and related co-defendants owe rapper Marcus Gray and his co-writer $2.78 million for copyright infringement for Perry’s 2013 megahit “Dark Horse.” Gray, also known professionally as Flame, alleged in his lawsuit that Perry and her writing and production team copied for “Dark Horse” a basic series of notes used repeatedly in Gray’s popular 2008 Christian rap song “Joyful Noise.”

According to CBS, the jury calculated damages based on their finding that 22.5% of “Dark Horse” profits can be traced to the six-note musical phrase in “Joyful Noise.”

The verdict and damage award are not without controversy since the dispute only involves a series of six notes. Variety reports that Perry’s lawyer argued in closing argument that the plaintiffs were “trying to own basic building blocks of music, the alphabet of music that should be available to everyone,” implying further that Perry would appeal.

At trial, Perry testified that she was not familiar with Gray’s song.

The Variety article explains that a growing number of professionals oppose complex musical copyright cases going to juries of people who have no background in music. The concern is that copyright infringement will be found for elements of songs that are so common that they do not merit protection. Still others point to the constitutional right to a jury trial.

Variety also reports that many of these kinds of music copyright cases are being settled instead of going to trial and that in some cases, the music professionals being sued are agreeing to add plaintiffs’ names to the list of writers getting credit for those songs.

(An article about the case in Digital Music News includes videos of each song for comparison.)

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Contact Me to Discuss Your Specific Concerns

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy