Selle v. Gibb

Decision Date23 July 1984
Docket NumberNos. 83-2484,83-2545,s. 83-2484
Citation741 F.2d 896
Parties, 1984 Copr.L.Dec. P 25,688 Ronald H. SELLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barry GIBB, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Ronald H. SELLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barry GIBB, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Barry A. Erlich, Engerman, Erlich, Jacobs & Berman, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Robert C. Osterberg, Abeles, Clark & Osterberg, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

Before WOOD and CUDAHY, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. *

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, Ronald H. Selle, brought a suit against three brothers, Maurice, Robin and Barry Gibb, known collectively as the popular singing group, the Bee Gees, alleging that the Bee Gees, in their hit tune, "How Deep Is Your Love," had infringed the copyright of his song, "Let It End." The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor on the issue of liability in a bifurcated trial. The district court, Judge George N. Leighton, granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial. Selle v. Gibb, 567 F.Supp. 1173 (N.D.Ill.1983). We affirm the grant of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

I

Selle composed his song, "Let It End," in one day in the fall of 1975 and obtained a copyright for it on November 17, 1975. He played his song with his small band two or three times in the Chicago area and sent a tape and lead sheet of the music to eleven music recording and publishing companies. Eight of the companies returned the materials to Selle; three did not respond. This was the extent of the public dissemination of Selle's song. 1 Selle first became aware of the Bee Gees' song, "How Deep Is Your Love," in May 1978 and thought that he recognized the music as his own, although the lyrics were different. He also saw the movie, "Saturday Night Fever," the sound track of which features the song "How Deep Is Your Love," and again recognized the music. He subsequently sued the three Gibb brothers; Paramount Pictures Corporation, which made and distributed the movie; and Phonodisc, Inc., now known as Polygram Distribution, Inc., which made and distributed the cassette tape of "How Deep Is Your Love."

The Bee Gees are internationally known performers and creators of popular music. They have composed more than 160 songs their sheet music, records and tapes have been distributed worldwide, some of the albums selling more than 30 million copies. The Bee Gees, however, do not themselves read or write music. In composing a song, their practice was to tape a tune, which members of their staff would later transcribe and reduce to a form suitable for copyrighting, sale and performance by both the Bee Gees and others.

In addition to their own testimony at trial, the Bee Gees presented testimony by their manager, Dick Ashby, and two musicians, Albhy Galuten and Blue Weaver, who were on the Bee Gees' staff at the time "How Deep Is Your Love" was composed. These witnesses described in detail how, in January 1977, the Bee Gees and several members of their staff went to a recording studio in the Chateau d'Herouville about 25 miles northwest of Paris. There the group composed at least six new songs and mixed a live album. Barry Gibb's testimony included a detailed explanation of a work tape which was introduced into evidence and played in court. This tape preserves the actual process of creation during which the brothers, and particularly Barry, created the tune of the accused song while Weaver, a keyboard player, played the tune which was hummed or sung by the brothers. Although the tape does not seem to preserve the very beginning of the process of creation, it does depict the process by which ideas, notes, lyrics and bits of the tune were gradually put together.

Following completion of this work tape, a demo tape was made. The work tape, demo tape and a vocal-piano version taken from the demo tape are all in the key of E flat. Lead sheet music, dated March 6, 1977, is in the key of E. On March 7, 1977, a lead sheet of "How Deep Is Your Love" was filed for issuance of a United States copyright, and in November 1977, a piano-vocal arrangement was filed in the Copyright Office.

The only expert witness to testify at trial was Arrand Parsons, a professor of music at Northwestern University who has had extensive professional experience primarily in classical music. He has been a program annotator for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the New Orleans Symphony Orchestra and has authored works about musical theory. Prior to this case, however, he had never made a comparative analysis of two popular songs. Dr. Parsons testified on the basis of several charts comparing the musical notes of each song and a comparative recording prepared under his direction.

According to Dr. Parsons' testimony, the first eight bars of each song (Theme A) have twenty-four of thirty-four notes in plaintiff's composition and twenty-four of forty notes in defendants' composition which are identical in pitch and symmetrical position. Of thirty-five rhythmic impulses in plaintiff's composition and forty in defendants', thirty are identical. In the last four bars of both songs (Theme B), fourteen notes in each are identical in pitch, and eleven of the fourteen rhythmic impulses are identical. Both Theme A and Theme B appear in the same position in each song but with different intervening material.

Dr. Parsons testified that, in his opinion, "the two songs had such striking similarities that they could not have been written independent of one another." Tr. 202. He also testified that he did not know of two songs by different composers "that contain as many striking similarities" as do the two songs at issue here. However, on several occasions, he declined to say that the similarities could only have resulted from copying.

Following presentation of the case, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the issue of liability, the only question presented to the jury. Judge Leighton, however, granted the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and, in the alternative, for a new trial. He relied primarily on the plaintiff's inability to demonstrate that the defendants had access to the plaintiff's song, without which a claim of copyright infringement could not prevail regardless how similar the two compositions are. Further, the plaintiff failed to contradict or refute the testimony of the defendants and their witnesses describing the independent creation process of "How Deep Is Your Love." Finally, Judge Leighton concluded that "the inferences on which plaintiff relies is not a logical, permissible deduction from proof of 'striking similarity' or substantial similarity; it is 'at war with the undisputed facts,' and it is inconsistent with the proof of nonaccess to plaintiff's song by the Bee Gees at the time in question." 567 F.Supp. at 1183 (citations omitted).

II

Both we and the district court must be reluctant to remove an issue from the purview of the jury on either a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Nonetheless, we have a duty to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the position of the nonmoving party, in this case, the plaintiff. The standards applicable to a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to a directed verdict are, of course, the same. All the evidence, taken as a whole, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. This evidence must provide a sufficient basis from which the jury could have reasonably reached a verdict without speculation or drawing unreasonable inferences which conflict with the undisputed facts. Brady v. Southern Railway, 320 U.S. 476, 480, 64 S.Ct. 232, 234, 88 L.Ed. 239 (1943); United States v. An Article of Device, 731 F.2d 1253, 1257 (7th Cir.1984); Chillicothe Sand & Gravel Co. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 615 F.2d 427, 430 (7th Cir.1980); Hohmann v. Packard Instrument Co., 471 F.2d 815, 819 (7th Cir.1973).

It is, of course, not relevant that, in this case, the trial court denied defendants' motion for a directed verdict and submitted the issue to the jury. It is generally more efficient to proceed in this fashion, so that, in the event the reviewing court reverses, the entire case will not have to be retried. Mattivi v. South African Marine Corp., 618 F.2d 163, 166 (2d Cir.1980). Since we affirm the district court's grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is not necessary to consider either the grant of the motion, in the alternative, for a new trial or the defendants' cross-appeal on the district court's denial of summary judgment. We note, however, that the cross-appeal with respect to the summary judgment motion is inappropriate and redundant since the issues it raised were incorporated in the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The cross-appeal may be little more than a device to win an opportunity to file the last brief or to argue the evidence of witnesses not presented at trial who furnished summary judgment affidavits--and is a procedure not to be encouraged.

III

Selle's primary contention on this appeal is that the district court misunderstood the theory of proof of copyright infringement on which he based his claim. Under this theory, copyright infringement can be demonstrated when, even in the absence of any direct evidence of access, the two pieces in question are so strikingly similar that access can be inferred from such similarity alone. Selle argues that the testimony of his expert witness, Dr. Parsons, was sufficient evidence of such striking similarity that it was permissible for the jury, even in the absence of any other evidence concerning access, to infer that the Bee Gees had access to plaintiff's song and indeed copied it.

In establishing a claim of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 cases
  • Hibma v. Odegaard, s. 84-1137
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 30, 1985
    ...by substantial evidence. Airweld, Inc. v. Airco, Inc., 742 F.2d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir.1984) (citations omitted); see also Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 900 (7th Cir.1984). The evidence here before us reveals that Odegaard, Nikodem and Szula participated in investigations, reported to superiors......
  • Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • December 1, 2011
    ...1999)) or copied from a common source (see Calhoun v. Lillenas Publishing, 298 F.3d 1228, 1233 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 1984) ("two works may be identical in every detail, but, if . . . both works were copied from a common source in the public dom......
  • Williams v. Gaye
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 21, 2018
    ...a common source or themes that are so trite as to be likely to reappear in many compositions." Id. at 1068–69 (citing Selle v. Gibb , 741 F.2d 896, 905 (7th Cir. 1984) ).Three consecutive pitches is just the sort of common theme that will recur in many compositions.7 We have not yet address......
  • Kmetz v. State Historical Soc., 03-C-107-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. Western District of Wisconsin
    • February 3, 2004
    ...rejected without some impeachment, contradiction or inconsistency with other evidence on the particular point at issue." Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 903 (7th Cir.1984). Speculation is insufficient. Id.See also Walter v. Fiorenzo, 840 F.2d 427, 434 (7th Cir.1988) ("A motion for summary judg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • PROVING COPYING.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 64 No. 2, November 2022
    • November 1, 2022
    ...Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987); Ferguson v. Nat'l Broad. Co.. 584 F.2d 111,113 (5th Cir. 1978). (124.) But see Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 901 (7th Cir. 1984) (suggesting that even under the striking similarity doctrine, other circumstantial evidence of access must always be prese......
  • THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS INDEPENDENT CREATION, AND IT'S A GOOD THING, TOO.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 64 No. 6, May 2023
    • May 1, 2023
    ...v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 329 F.3d 923, 929 (7th Cir. 2003). (97.) Ty. Inc., 132 F.3d at 1171. (98.) Id. at 1170; Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 904 (7th Cir. (99.) Martha Woodmansee, The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the "Author." 17 EIG......
  • Intellectual property crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • March 22, 2006
    ...F.3d at 485 (noting plaintiff can prove infringement even without evidence of access if works are "strikingly similar"); Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 903 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984) (stating when there is virtually no evidence of access, considerable similarity is necessary). However, the inverse r......
  • Intellectual property crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • March 22, 2007
    ...F.3d at 485 (noting plaintiff can prove infringement even without evidence of access if works axe "strikingly similar"); Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896, 903 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984) (stating when there is virtually no evidence of access, considerable similarity is necessary). However, the inverse r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT