TLC prevailed in a suit related to its musical composition, “Unpretty.” The plaintiffs claimed that it infringed on the copyright to the song “Make Up Your Mind.” However, evidence demonstrated that TLC recorded “Unpretty” three weeks prior to the recording of “Make Up Your Mind.” Plaintiffs also failed to establish “striking similarity.” See Glover v. Austin, 447 F.Supp.2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Copyright Law
Law 6102 – Professor Randazza’s Copyright Law Course – Barry University School of Law – Fall 2007
Terms of Use & Subscribing
Terms of Use
You must read and consent to these terms prior to using, reading, or accessing this site for any reason whatsoever.
Terms & Conditions of Use and Legal Information
Click Here to Subscribe
September 4, 2007 at 9:43 pm |
I am sure we will discuss this more in upcoming weeks, but I was left with some questions after reading this case. What about the original song written by Plaintiff for TLC: do we know if that song is similiar to the Make Up Your Mind and/or Unpretty? Also, is there a case that reviews the “strikingly similiar” standard further? Is the standard based on viewing the sheet music or words, or hearing the actual songs? Or is it based on a more subjective standard or possibly even on”actual confusion?”
Jennifer Lizotte
We will get to this stuff later in the semester. I actually posted this months ago, with it “post dated” so it popped up unexpectedly. Just get the gears turning just like you have, but lets see if the lectures on this stuff fill in the blanks for you.
Prof. R.
September 11, 2007 at 1:45 pm |
So what about the fact that a copyrighted work is considered “copyrighted” as soon as its created (satisfying all the other factors). Does it matter that TLC made it 3 weeks later? Its seemed like it was a material issue in the case so it made me think about when a copyrighted work becomes actually copyrightable, giving trhe author a chance to bring infringemnent on its work. But I must say the song, which I member did have a rock and roll feel to it which was out of character for TLC, so I really wonder. Then reading the testimony that the court listened to, it almost semend impossible, to find infringement under the circumstantial evidence. Hoe could the plaintiff’s have made a case other that actually registering the song immediately, which still may not have been able to carry weight, or maybe it would have been a derivative work, if proven otherwise…
JASON RICHARDS
September 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm |
Thought this was relevant:
A federal judge decided that a copyright-infringement case against Mariah Carey had no merit. Singer Rachele Chafir had sued Carey in April 2006, claiming that Carey’s hit “It’s Like That” was copied from her song “Sexy” and lifted key pieces, including the music, for the chorus. Chafir, claimed Carey had access to “Sexy” since it was available on a Web site, but U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood decided that wasn’t proof…
Full story:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1570587/20070926/carey_mariah.jhtml
October 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm |
I went back to read this case again because we have since discussed this subject matter in class. Before when I was “iffy” about the court’s decision, I can now say I definitely support it. It’s weird how sometimes you get caught up in the sound of the songs in these situations. It’s almost like you want to scream at the court, “Don’t you hear this? Can’t you hear how similar this is?” Which of course is a huge part of your case, but at the same time (especially now that we have gone over this stuff), we have to remember there are elements to an accusation of copying. There has to be an opportunity to copy if there is going to be an accusation of copying.
Kimberly Harchuck
October 15, 2007 at 11:01 pm |
It’s been several weeks since I read this case but even after learning about the elements of infringement, I’m STILL disturbed by the judge’s decision. My gut still tells me that these two shmucks most likely did get their song ripped off, but just couldn’t prove it under the law.
After all there was enough circumstantial evidence to show that La Face had access and the songs were also substantially similar according to at least one expert. Certainly there was enough there to at least survive summary judgment! The strongest evidence I think that the plaintiffs had was how La Face could produce lots of documentation but they couldn’t actually produce the original MASTERS of their version of the song to show the actual day they started work on the song.
Maybe if the judge was more technically literate or had a better understanding about how computer files can be manipulated, perhaps he would have let them have their day in court.