Tag: contraffazione di opera musicale

Contraffazione musicale di Marvin Gaye da parte di Ed Sheeran ancora negata per improteggibilità della canzone azionata

Il 16 maggio 2023 giudice Stanton,  US district -southern dist. of NY, 18 Civ . 5839 (LLS ), STRUCTURED ASSET SALES , LLC v. Sheeran, Atlantic Recordings +altri,  nega la contraffazione di Let’s get it on di Marving Gaywe dsa parte di Thinking Out di Sheeran (v. link al testo dal sito del Tribunale).

Il ragionameto interessante sotto il profilo sostanziale è sub Analysis 2. Defendants’ Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted , p. 9 ss., e si concentra sulla proteggibilità di un insieme di due elementi singolarmenet non proteggibili:

<<SAS alleges that the combination of the chord progression
and the harmonic rhythm used in “Thinking Out Loud” is
substantially similar to that in “Let’s Get It On,” and thus
infringes the work. SAS acknowledges, and the Court concurs,
that the chord progression and harmonic rhythm, in isolation,
are not individually protected . The question then is whether two
common elements are numerous enough to make their combination
eligible for copyright protection .(…)This Court is not aware of any case upholding a selection and arrangement claim based on the combination of two
commonplace , unprotectable musical elements . Courts often
evaluate combinations of at least three common musical elements
and still find their selection and arrangement to be unoriginal.

(…) At some level , every work is the selection and arrangement
of unprotectable elements . Musical compositions chiefly adhere
to this template . All songs , after all , are made up of the
” limited number of notes and chords available to composers .”
Gaste v . Kaiserman , 863 F . 2d 1061 , 1068 (2d Cir. 1988) . Within
that limited number , there are even fewer ways to combine the
elements in a manner that is pleasing to the ears . That means a
songwriter only has finite options for playing a commonplace
chord progression . The options are so few that many combinations
have themselves become commonplace , especially in popular music .
If the selection and arrangement of unprotectable elements , in
their combination , is ” so commonplace that it has come to be
expected as a matter of course ,” then it lacks the “minimal
creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the
Constitution” to be original and thus protectable . Feist
Publications , Inc . v . Rural Tel . Serv . Co ., 499 U. S . 340 , 363
(1991) >> .

In conclusione, la canzone azionata non è proteggibile: <<The selection and arrangement of these two musical elements
in “Let’s Get It On” is now commonplace and thus their
combination is unprotectable. If their combination were
protected and not freely available to songwriters, the goal of
copyright law “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts” would be thwarted. U.S. Const. art. I§ 8. The Copyright
Act envisioned that there will be unprotectable elements-based
works “in which the selection, coordination, and arrangement are
not sufficiently original to trigger copyright protection.”
Feist Publications, Inc., 499 U.S. at 358.
As a matter of law , the combination of the chord
progression and harmonic rhythm in “Let ‘ s Get It On ” is too
commonplace to merit copyright protection>>.

Analogo esito pochji giorni prima per le stessi canzoni nella lite Townsend (erede di uno dei due coautori) v. Sheeran (testo però non reperito in rete)

Contraffazione musicale: l’attore deve prima preoccuparsi che la propria opera sia proteggibile

la District Court, C.D. California, il 16 marzo 2020, decide la lite tra PKA Flame e Kate Perry (docket number: 2:15-cv-05642). Il primo, titolare dei diritti sulla canzone <Joyful noise>, asseriva che la seconda l’aveva contraffatta tramite la canzione <Dark Horse>: in particolare, avrebbe riprodotto solo il c.d. “ostinato” e cioè una breve sequenza ritmica (riff) ripetuta nel corso della canzone.

La giuria accolse la domanda , concedendo danni per 2,8 milioni di dollari.

La Corte però va di contrario avviso, poichè l’opera attorea non è originale: solo se lo è, naturalmente, il titolare può far valere il relativo diritto.

Secondo il diritto USA, l’attore deve provare << (1) “ownership of a valid copyright,” and (2) “copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”>> (v. sub III).

Il copiaggio a sua volta va provato o <<(a) with direct evidence that the defendant actually copied the work, or (b) by showing that the defendant (i) had access to the work and (ii) that the works are “substantially similar.”>> , p. 5.

Nel caso de quo, gli attori allegarono la modalità sub b (accesso+substantial similarity).

A sua volta la substantial similarity richiede di superare il two-part test: extrinsic similarity (elementi oggettivamente somiglianti: <there are two steps to the analysis: the Court (1) identifies the protected elements of the plaintiff’s work, and then (2) determines whether the protected elements are objectively similar to the corresponding elements of the allegedly infringing work>) e intrinsic similarity (somiglianza per l’utente medio: anzi, esattamente, per la reasonable person): p. 5-7.

Provata la substantial similarity, l’attore deve provare l’accesso: << “Proof of access requires an opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff’s work…. “To prove access, a plaintiff must show areasonable possibility, not merely a bare possibility, that an alleged infringer had the chance to view the  protected work.” >>, p. 7

Gli attori non hanno fortuna in Corte: questa nega il superamento dell’extrinsic test.

In generale nella musica pop più che in altre arti il “prestito” tra autori è diffuso e gli elementi originalui e dunque proteggibili sono rari  (passaggio interessante per ragionare sulla tutelabilità di questo tipo di musica), p. 9-10.

Il perito di parte Decker spiegò i cinque o sei elemenri copiati: < “The length of the ostinato is similar, eight notes. The rhythm of the ostinato is similar. The melodic content, the scale degrees present. The melodic shape so the—the way the melody moves through musical space. Similar, the timbre or the quality and color of the sound is similar, and the use of the the placement of this material, this ostinato, in the musical space of the recording in the mix, that is also similar. So that’s five or six points of similarity between the two ostinatos.”> p’. 10

Anzi , se meglio individuati, gli elementi copiati sarebbero addirittura nove: < “(1) a melody built in the minor mode; (2) a phrase length of eight notes; (3) a pitch sequence beginning with ‘3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2’; (4) a similar resolution to both phrases; (5) a rhythm of eighth notes; (6) a square and even rhythm; (7) the structural use of the phrase as an ostinato; (8) the timbre of the instrumentation; and (9) the notably empty and sparse texture of the compositions.”>, p.10.

Tuttavia per la Corte nessuno di questi è proteggibile, singolarmente preso, p. 11 ss (ed anzi pure il perito di parte Decker dice in pratica che molti di essi non sarebbero originali, p. 12: affermazione alquanto strana per un perito di parte…): < In fact, the nine individual elements that plaintiffs identify in their opposition (see JMOL Opp. at 8) are precisely the kinds of commonplace elements that courts have routinely denied copyright protection, at least standing alone, as a matter of law>, p. 13. (segue analisi di ciascuno).

Inevitabilmente dunque <for the foregoing reasons, the Court cannot conclude, pursuant to the extrinsic test, that any of the allegedly original individual elements of the “Joyful Noise” ostinato are independently [*23] protectable as a matter of law>, p .15.

Anche se individualmente non sono proteggibili, i vari elementi potrebbero esserlo se considerati assieme (Protection For Combination Of Unprotected Elements, sub ii., p. 15 ss), ma l’esito è ancora una volta negativo: < in view of these decisions, the Court now turns to whether the musical elements that comprise the 8-note ostinato in “Joyful Noise” are “numerous enough” and “arranged” in a sufficiently original [*32] manner to warrant copyright protection. .. The Court concludes that they do not>, p. 19

Pertanto, <because the sole musical [*36] phrase that plaintiffs claim infringement upon is not protectable expression, the extrinsic test is not satisfied, and plaintiffs infringement claim—even with the evidence construed in plaintiffs’ favor fails as a matter of law> p. 22.

Ma anche se la combinazione di elementi (singolarmente non originali) fosse originale , non ci sarebbe substantial similarity (sub  iii, p,. 22 ss): <The evidence in this case does not support a conclusion that the relevant ostinatos in “Dark Horse” and “Joyful Noise” are virtually identical>, p. 23

Quanto all’intrinsic test, la Corte si attiene ai precedenti , secondo cui la decisione è lasciata alla giuria, p. 24.

SULL’ACCESSO: sotto tale aspetto <The question presented by this posttrial motion is therefore “not whether Plaintiff has proven access by a preponderance of evidence, but whether reasonable minds could find that Defendants had a reasonable opportunity to have heard Plaintiffs song before they created their own song.>, p. 25.

E la Corte ritiente che le prove effettivamenTe permettano di ritenere provato l’accesso, dato che gli attori ha dato prova <at trial that “Joyful Noise” was played more than 6 million times on YouTube and MySpace,  hat “Joyful Noise” was nominated for a Grammy, that “Joyful Noise” was performed at hundreds of concerts across the country, and that “Joyful Noise” ranked highly on the Billboard charts for popular music.> p. 25.

SUI DANNI E SULL’APPORTIONMENT:

la giuria decide che il 22.5% del profitto netto di ciascun convenuto, tratto dalla canzone censurata, derivasse dall’uso dell’ostinato della canzone attorea , sulla base del fatto che l’ostinato ricorre per il 45 % della canzone contraffattrice, p. 29 : la giuria evidentemente  <decided to divide plaintiffs’ requested amount in half—either as a result of defendants’ evidence, or some other reason—and award damages in the amount of 22.5% of total profits>, p. 29/30.

Qui va ricordata la disciplina sull’onere probatorio, specifica del diritto di autore USA: <The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work> US code, tit. 17, § 504 (b). Sarebbe opportuno valutarne l’introduzione anche nella proprietà intellettuale italiana (ed europea, laddove armonizzata).

La Corte ritiene però esatta la quantificazione della giuria, p. 29-30.

Quanto alla deduzione delle spese generali, questione spesso aperta e importante nella pratica, i conveuti censurarono la decisione della giuria. La Corte però rigetta la censura e ricorda la prassi del 9° circuito: < To determine the defendants’ net profits, the Court instructed the jury to “deduc[t] all appropriate expenses incurred by that defendant from that defendant’s gross revenue.” …. In the Ninth Circuit, appropriate expenses are only those which “contributed to the production, distribution or sales of the infringing goods,” including “fixed  overhead” costs, provided that the overhead “contributed” to the infringing good >.

La Corte ricorda più volte il precedente (di pochi giorni prima) Skidmore c. Led Zeppelin, ricordato in precedente post.