Famous Copyright Infringement Cases

Famous copyright infringement cases have long captured public attention, often involving high-profile figures and iconic works. These disputes highlight the complexities of intellectual property rights, particularly in musical similarity, where major record labels and artists frequently clash over the sound recording copyright.

Notable cases include Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s legal battle over Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” which brought the issue of substantial similarity in music to the forefront.

In another instance, the estate of Chuck Berry alleged that Barack Obama’s presidential campaign used a version of Berry’s “Johnny B. Goode” without proper licensing. Similarly, Ronnie Mack’s “He’s So Fine” was at the center of a legal fight with George Harrison, setting a precedent for future copyright disputes.

These cases highlight the importance of protecting creative works against digital piracy, from songs to millions of books, to ensure that original creators are properly credited and compensated.

Famous Copyright Infringement Cases

Studios Paramount v. Art Buchwald

Comedian and writer Art Buchwald filed a lawsuit against Paramount in 1990, alleging that the studio had stolen his ideas from an abandoned project and used them for the screenplay.

In defence of themselves, Paramount claims that at the time, they paid its writers via the “Hollywood account,” which means that the screenwriters’ compensation was determined by the box office success of the movie.

They refused to back down from their position that, even with a $288 million box office haul, the movie turned a loss, meaning they didn’t have to compensate Buchwald. If you found this statement confusing, the judge thought the same thing.

In his decision, he deemed Paramount’s mode of payment “blatantly unethical and unconscionable” and granted Buchwald a 900,000 dollar damages award.

Harrington vs. Ed Sheeran (2016)

The dispute centred on Sheeran’s popular song “Photograph” and its purported resemblance to Leonard and Harrington’s song “Amazing.” The plaintiff asserted that Sheeran’s song plagiarised the core of “Amazing,” citing words, melody, and harmony that were all identical.

In response, Ed Sheeran said that the disputed components were typical of the music business and did not constitute copyright infringement. Nevertheless, the case was dismissed in 2017 as a result of an out-of-court settlement between the parties.

The resolution emphasised the possible expense and unpredictable nature of copyright lawsuits. The music industry was significantly impacted by this issue, which led to increased inspection of song similarities and encouraged musicians to exercise caution to prevent any potential copyright conflicts.

Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie & Queen

One of the most famous music copyright issues involved Queen, David Bowie, and Vanilla Ice in 1990 had to do with the popular song “Ice Ice Baby.”

The controversy started when it was claimed that Vanilla Ice had illegally stolen the famous bassline from Queen and David Bowie’s hit song “Under Pressure” in order to create his own number-one hit.

Because Vanilla Ice used a bassline without permission and in a way that was very similar to Queen and David Bowie’s original composition, the case brought attention to copyright violations in music sampling. Vanilla Ice countered that he had changed the riff just enough to not violate anyone’s exclusive rights..

In the end, the matter was resolved out-of-court when Vanilla Ice consented to pay a sum of money that would remain hidden and give Queen and David Bowie credit in any follow-up releases of “Ice Ice Baby.”

This case served as a reminder to musicians that they must obtain the necessary authorisations before sampling music and participating in conversations about the permissible uses of song elements.

Battlestar Galactica vs. Star Wars

Science fiction enthusiasts found 1977 to be a fascinating year. The same year that A New Hope was released and came to define a generation, Twentieth Century Fox filed a lawsuit against Universal Studios for infringement.

Fox claimed that the science fiction series Battlestar Galactica, which was produced by Universal, was “too similar” to one of their most well-known creations. Not to be outdone, Universal Studio launched a lawsuit of its own, alleging that Star Wars plagiarised concepts from earlier works of art, including the 1972 movie Silent Running.

“Playas Gon’ Play” Writers vs. Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift and Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, the authors of the 2001 3LW song “Playas Gon’ Play,” got into a legal dispute in 2017. Swift’s hit song “Shake It Off” was the focus of the debate, with Hall and Butler claiming that Swift had plagiarised lines from their previous works.

The problematic phrases, which appeared in both songs, were “haters gonna hate” and “players gonna play.” Swift maintained that these expressions belonged in the public domain because they were too cliched and unoriginal.

The case brought up issues regarding the degree of creativity required in lyrics and the scope of short phrase copyright protection.

The words were deemed too simple to be protected by copyright, according to a judge who dismissed the lawsuit in 2018.

YouTube vs. Viacom

Viacom sued YouTube, accusing the platform of allowing users to upload and share Viacom’s copyrighted content without permission.

The lawsuit brought attention to the responsibilities of online platforms in preventing copyright infringement and the application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

YouTube defended itself by citing the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, which protect online service providers from liability for user-uploaded content as long as they promptly remove infringing material when notified.

In 2010, the court ruled in YouTube’s favor, highlighting the platform’s adherence to the DMCA and acknowledging that YouTube could not feasibly pre-screen all user-generated content.

This case set important legal framework for the obligations of online platforms in managing copyright issues, with the ruling favoring YouTube and fueling ongoing discussions about the balance between intellectual property protection and fostering online innovation.

Sam Smith vs. Tom Petty

The case centered on Sam Smith’s hit song “Stay with Me” and its alleged similarities to Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” Critics and listeners pointed out the resemblance between the melodies of the two tracks, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

The dispute highlighted the challenges of unintentional similarities in musical compositions. Sam Smith acknowledged the likeness and reached an out-of-court settlement with Tom Petty’s estate, resulting in Petty and Jeff Lynne being credited as co-writers of “Stay with Me.”

This case left a lasting impact on the music industry, underscoring the importance of recognising musical influences and securing proper permissions to avoid copyright conflicts.

Apple vs. Google

In 2010, as smartphones became increasingly integral to our daily lives, Apple and Samsung went to court over Samsung’s alleged violations of Apple’s patents on various smartphone designs.

While the legal battle was with Samsung, Apple’s primary competition was the Android operating system, developed by Google and used by Samsung and other manufacturers.

Due to a “Mobile Application Distribution Agreement,” Google’s legal team had to step in to assist Samsung in the lawsuit.

At the same time, Motorola launched one of the most publicised lawsuits in tech history, accusing Apple of infringing on its intellectual property.

Motorola claimed that Apple violated patents related to 3G technology and other smartphone design aspects, while Apple countered by accusing Motorola of infringing on several of its patents.

The court grew so frustrated with the back-and-forth that judges dismissed the case three times in 2012, citing insufficient evidence from both parties and urging them to settle out of court. Notably, 2012 was also the year Google acquired Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly targeted Google, they have focused on third-party companies that sell products using Google’s software. Despite this, Google remains determined to defend its popular mobile software.

Christian Louboutin vs. Yves Saint Laurent

Christian Louboutin, famed for its iconic red-soled shoes, filed a lawsuit against Yves Saint Laurent, accusing the brand of copyright and trademark infringement. The dispute centered on whether Louboutin could exclusively claim the use of a red sole on high-heeled shoes.

Yves Saint Laurent countered that a single color should not be eligible for trademark protection. The case explored the complexities of fashion trademarks and the uniqueness of a single-color mark.

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Christian Louboutin, affirming the red sole as a valid and distinctive trademark, but with the stipulation that this protection only applied when the shoe’s upper contrasted with the red sole.

This ruling had a significant impact on the fashion industry, influencing debates on color trademarks and the scope of digital piracy and intellectual property protection in haute couture.

Naruto and PETA v. Slater

This case is widely known as the “monkey selfie” case, stemmed from a 2011 incident where a macaque monkey named Naruto took a selfie using photographer David Slater’s camera.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, arguing that the monkey should be recognised as the copyright owner of the selfie and that the rights should be assigned to him.

However, the case was dismissed by a judge who ruled that U.S. copyright law does not extend to animals. The court determined that copyright typically belongs to the human who captures the image, and as a non-human, Naruto was ineligible to hold copyright. After PETA appealed, the parties reached a settlement.

As part of the agreement, David Slater pledged to donate 25% of the photo’s earnings to organisations focused on protecting macaques in Indonesia.

Flame vs. Katy Perry

Flame, whose real name is Marcus Gray, accused Katy Perry of infringing on his 2008 Christian rap song “Joyful Noise.” The lawsuit centered on the alleged similarities between the beats and instrumental elements of the two tracks.

Flame claimed that Perry and her co-creators had copied a distinctive musical phrase from “Joyful Noise.” Perry countered by arguing that the elements in question were common in music and not protected by copyright.

In 2019, a jury sided with Flame, finding Katy Perry and her team liable for copyright infringement. The court initially ordered Perry to pay $2.8 million to Marcus Gray. However, the legal landscape shifted when an appeals court later overturned the ruling, absolving Perry of the payment.

This case, which initially sent ripples through the music industry by highlighting the complexities of music copyright, took a significant turn with the appeals court’s revised decision.

5 Biggest Copyright Infringement Cases

Let’s explore 5 high-profile cases of copyright infringement:

John Fogarty v. Creedence Clearwater Revival

The former front man of Creedence Clearwater Revival was John Fogarty. Sued for plagiarism and sounding too much like himself, Fogarty left the band and the Fantasy record company.

Fantasy Records claimed that Fogarty’s solo song “The Old Man Down the Road,” which he published in 1985, was a straight ripoff of the Creedence Clearwater Revival song “Run Through the Jungle” from 1970, to which they held the rights.

The songs were deemed enough different by the court to support Fogarty, although Fogarty was now required to pay $1.09 million in legal fees for his defence.

His first appeal was turned down because he was unable to demonstrate that the litigation was baseless or filed in bad faith. In Fogarty v. Fantasy, Inc., it was heard by the US Supreme Court, where the decision was in his favour.

Rolling Stones vs. The Verve

In 1997, The Verve released “Bittersweet Symphony,” which included a sample from an orchestral version of the 1965 Rolling Stones song “The Last Time.”

Although The Verve had secured permission from Decca Records to use the sample, the Rolling Stones argued that the band had used more than what was agreed upon. Additionally, the underlying composition rights had not been properly cleared.

Allen Klein, the former manager of the Rolling Stones, sued The Verve on behalf of his record company, ABKCO, claiming ownership of the song’s rights. As a result, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were given songwriting credit for “Bittersweet Symphony,” and The Verve had to pay $1.7 million in royalties.

This lengthy legal battle highlighted the complexities of copyright law, illustrating how a single song can have multiple layers of rights and ownership.

The Turtles vs. De La Soul

Hip-hop and rap artists often incorporate samples from other songs into their own music. Early pioneers like De La Soul built much of their initial work around this practice when sampling was still a relatively new technique. However, not all of these samples were properly cleared.

In 1991, De La Soul released the album 3 Feet High and Rising, which included an interlude skit titled “Transmitting Live From Mars.” The track featured a 12-second sample from the 1969 Turtles song “You Showed Me.”

Howard Kaylan and Mark Volman, former members of The Turtles, sued De La Soul, filing a $2.5 million lawsuit that was ultimately settled out of court for $1.7 million.

This case set a concerning precedent for the rap and hip-hop genres, leading to a decline in sampling due to the complexities of obtaining all necessary rights and the potential consequences of copyright infringement.

Roy Orbison vs. 2 Live Crew

In 1989, the hip-hop group 2 Live Crew released “Pretty Woman,” a parody of Roy Orbison’s 1964 hit “Oh, Pretty Woman.” Before releasing the song, 2 Live Crew sought permission from Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the copyright holder, but their request was denied.

Despite this, the group released the song, believing they were protected under the “fair use” doctrine, which permits the use of copyrighted material for parody. Initially, a Federal District Court ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew, but the decision was overturned by an appeals court, which argued that the song’s commercial intent disqualified it from “fair use” protection.

Luke Campbell of 2 Live Crew contested this, asserting that satire and parody are safeguarded by the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of 2 Live Crew in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case, affirming that parody is indeed protected under the “fair use” doctrine.

Spirit vs. Led Zeppelin

One of the most iconic guitar pieces in rock history, Led Zeppelin’s 1971 hit “Stairway to Heaven,” faced legal challenges when the estate of Randy Wolfe from the band Spirit alleged that the song was plagiarised from Wolfe’s 1968 track “Taurus.” The lawsuit was filed in 2014.

Proving the case was challenging, as it required an in-depth analysis of music theory and the specifics of harmonic progression. Although Led Zeppelin had access to “Taurus” after touring with Spirit in 1969, a court ruled in 2016 that the songs were not substantially similar.

An appeals court revisited the case in 2018, but the original verdict was upheld in 2020. The legal battle officially ended when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

What’s Next?

Copyright infringement lawsuits often arise when parties believe their original content has been improperly used by others, leading to significant legal troubles.

In these cases, courts examine whether there is substantial similarity between the works in question, balancing the need to protect artistic expression with the rights of the copyright owner.

As digital technology advances, the ease of accessing and replicating content has increased the number of copyright claims, making it more challenging to safeguard original content in the creative industry.

Bytescare prevents copyright violation through its innovative solution, which is designed for intellectual property protection using advanced technologies. Book a demo to explore how Bytescare digital piracy monitoring can safeguard your digital content.

Ensuring respect for copyright laws protects the rights of creators and promotes an environment where creativity and innovation can thrive.

FAQs