Ahmad Javon Lane, a singer, commenced proceedings against Beyonc\u00e9 Knowles-Carter and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming copyright infringement in respect of his song XOXO<\/em>. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had reproduced elements of XOXO<\/em> in producing XO<\/em>, a single released by Beyonc\u00e9. The suit claimed damages of $ 7 million.<\/p>\n On 20 June 2013, the plaintiff transmitted a digital copy of XOXO<\/em> to Chrissy Collins, a background singer for Beyonc\u00e9. On 22 June 2013, the plaintiff registered a copyright claim in respect of the lyrics of XOXO<\/em> with the United States Copyright Office. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants thereafter used his song as the basis for XO<\/em>. He further alleged that a Production Agreement concluded with David Abisinito, the owner of a “sequence 4-bar introduction” referred to as “the Beat”, granted him exclusive rights over the Beat in exchange for $ 150 and due credits. The plaintiff filed a complaint pro se<\/em> for copyright infringement and sought $ 7 million in damages.<\/p>\n The defendants moved to dismiss the suit on two grounds: first, that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claim because he had not alleged a valid copyright registration; and second, that there was no substantial similarity between XOXO<\/em> and XO<\/em>.<\/p>\n The presiding judge, District Judge Paul A. Engelmeyer, was required to determine: (1) whether the plaintiff had a valid copyright registration sufficient to confer standing; and (2) whether the two songs were substantially similar in copyrightable elements so as to support an infringement claim.<\/p>\n On the question of standing, the plaintiff relied on the copyright registration of the lyrics of XOXO<\/em> and on the Production Agreement with Abisinito as the basis for his standing to sue in respect of the Beat. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s registration covered only the lyrics, which he did not allege had been infringed, and that the plaintiff had failed to assert that Abisinito held a validly registered copyright in the Beat.<\/p>\n On the question of substantial similarity, the defendants contended that no reasonable jury could find the two works substantially similar. The plaintiff maintained that the use of the Beat and the overall holistic similarity between the songs established infringement.<\/p>\n The Court noted the established two-part test for copyright infringement requiring: (1) ownership of a valid copyright; and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original, citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Serv. Co.<\/em>, 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).<\/p>\n On standing, the Court observed that “persons who have been granted exclusive licenses by owners of copyrights” have standing to sue for copyright infringement, citing Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co.<\/em>, 697 F.2d 27, 32 (2d Cir. 1982). However, the plaintiff had not alleged that Abisinito himself held a validly registered copyright in the Beat, which the Court held to be a prerequisite for bringing an infringement claim. The claim was accordingly dismissed for lack of standing, though the Court characterised the deficiencies as “potentially correctable” and declined to dismiss the action with prejudice on that basis alone.<\/p>\n On substantial similarity, the Court identified elements that courts have consistently found to be non-copyrightable: meter and tempo; a single note; words and short phrases such as titles or slogans; and common rhythms, song structures, and harmonic progressions. The applicable test for substantial similarity was stated to be whether “an ordinary observer, unless he set out to detect the disparities, would be disposed to overlook them, and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same”, citing Boisson v. Banian, Ltd.<\/em>, 273 F.3d 262, 272 (2d Cir. 2001). Where a work incorporates public domain elements, a “more discerning observer” standard applies, requiring the Court to identify substantial similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original protected elements of the plaintiff’s creation, citing McDonald<\/em>, 2015 WL 5751197.<\/p>\n Applying these principles, the Court found that the musical structures in question were too commonplace to attract protection. An examination of the lyrics disclosed no similarity: XOXO<\/em> described romantic and sexual feelings toward a new love interest, while XO<\/em> expressed an uplifting celebration of love and life. The shared use of the letters “X” and “O” and a common romantic addressee did not constitute substantial similarity. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find the two works substantially similar.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Court found that the defendants had not infringed the plaintiff’s copyright and dismissed the claim.<\/p>\n The decision is a useful illustration of the threshold requirements for a copyright infringement claim in the United States. It underscores that an exclusive licensee’s standing to sue is derivative of the copyright owner’s registered interest, and that structural and thematic similarities in popular music lyrics will not, without more, establish the substantial similarity necessary to ground an infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 411(a).<\/p>\n This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Beyonce successfully defended a copyright lawsuit over her song XO, where Ahmad Javon Lane alleged infringement of his song XOXO. The court found no substantial similarity or valid copyright claim, resulting in dismissal of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":59,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6],"tags":[7578,2333,31,3339,242,9230,6740,7577],"class_list":["post-30552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","tag-ahmad-javon-lane","tag-beyonce","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-copyright-registration","tag-music-copyright","tag-substantial-similarity","tag-us-copyright-law","tag-xo-song"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30552"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30552\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149926,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30552\/revisions\/149926"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Facts<\/h2>\n
Questions Before the Court<\/h2>\n
Arguments<\/h2>\n
Findings<\/h2>\n
Significance<\/h2>\n
Disclaimer<\/h2>\n