Loomis v. Cornish

• Decision Date: 02 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 13-57093,13-57093
• Parties: Will Loomis, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jessica Cornish, PKA Jessie J., an individual; Universal Music Group, Inc., Delaware corporation Erroneously Sued As UMG Recordings, Inc.; Universal Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

836 F.3d 991

119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1817

Will Loomis, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.Jessica Cornish, PKA Jessie J., an individual; Universal Music Group, Inc., Delaware corporation Erroneously Sued As UMG Recordings, Inc.; Universal Republic Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

No. 13-57093

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2016—Pasadena, California

Filed September 2, 2016

Michael Gross (argued), Michael Gross Law Office, St. Louis, Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey M. Movit (argued) and Christine Lepera, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, New York, New York; Elaine K. Kim, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: Richard R. Clifton, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Frederic Block,^** District Judge.

SUMMARY^*

Copyright

OPINION

Opinion by Judge Clifton

Plaintiff Will Loomis is the composer of a song called “Bright Red Chords.” He brought this lawsuit alleging that Defendant Jessica Cornish (publicly known as Jessie J) and a team of high-profile songwriters led by Lukasz Gottwald (publicly known as Dr. Luke) stole a two-measure vocal melody from Bright Red Chords and used it as the theme for the verse melody in their hit song “Domino.” The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Loomis did not put forth any potentially admissible evidence to establish that the Domino songwriters had access to Bright Red Chords. We affirm.

I. Background

Loomis composed and recorded Bright Red Chords with his band, Loomis and the Lust, in Santa Barbara, California, in 2008, and thereafter obtained a copyright registration for the song by depositing a copy with the U.S. Copyright Office. Loomis then released Bright Red Chords on a 2009 album, Nagasha, and a 2010 album, Space Camp. He also created a music video for the song.

Bright Red Chords was Nagasha's feature track and it garnered some attention in 2009 and 2010. For example, the Bright Red Chords video won the MTVU “Best Freshman” video award and was featured in Billboard Magazine. In addition, there was evidence presented that Bright Red Chords was distributed by Urban Outfitters as part of a corporate sampler CD and was played in a variety of name-brand clothing stores. MTV selected Loomis and the Lust as one of its best new bands of 2010, and the band won an industry-sponsored “Artist on the Verge” award, which included a $25,000 prize.

Despite these achievements, Bright Red Chords was not commercially successful. Although the band hired a radio promotions company to promote the song on a variety of radio stations and a video promotions company to disseminate the music video through multiple media platforms, Bright Red Chords did not achieve an appreciable level of national saturation. Loomis was able to provide to the district court documentation of only 46 sales of the recording.

Domino was written in June of 2011 by a five-person songwriting team. Dr. Luke and his collaborator Henry Walter created the instrumental track that became the musical bed for the song. The melody and lyrics were added in a later session at Conway Studios in Los Angeles. Jessie J created the melody in collaboration with Dr. Luke and Claude Kelly. Karl Martin Sandberg (publicly known as Max Martin) also participated in this session, and he and Dr. Luke provided additional creative contributions to the song. Defendant Universal Republic Records released Domino, and it achieved substantial commercial success.

After hearing Domino, Loomis brought suit against Jessie J and her record label alleging copyright infringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Mitchell v. Washington , 818 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2016)

. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether “there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Id. (quoting Lopez v. Smith , 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove two elements: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. , 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991)

. Copyright ownership by Loomis is not in dispute in this case. The only issue is whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the Domino songwriters copied protectable elements of Bright Red Chords.

“Proof of copyright infringement is often highly circumstantial, particularly in cases involving music.” Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton , 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000)

. “Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant had ‘access' to the plaintiff's work and that the two works are ‘substantially similar.’ ” Id . (quoting Smith v. Jackson , 84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996) ); see also

Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co. , 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). In this case there was no direct evidence of copying. The summary judgment entered by the district court relied entirely on the issue of access. Specifically, the district court concluded that Loomis failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendants had access to Loomis's work. Although Defendants also disputed the claim that the works were substantially similar, the district court's order did not address that issue.¹

Proof of access requires “an opportunity to view or to copy plaintiff's work.” Sid and Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. , 562 F.2d 1157, 1172 (9th Cir. 1977)

, superseded on other grounds by 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). “To prove access, a plaintiff must show a reasonable possibility, not merely a bare possibility, that an alleged infringer had the chance to view the protected work.” Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm't Inc. , 581 F.3d 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2009). “Where there is no direct evidence of access, circumstantial evidence can be used to prove access either by (1) establishing a chain of events linking the plaintiff's work and the defendant's access, or (2) showing that the plaintiff's work has been widely disseminated.” Id.

Loomis relies on both theories to challenge the summary judgment. His chain of events theory is that multiple intermediaries could have provided a copy of Bright Red Chords to the Domino songwriters. His widespread dissemination theory is that Bright Red Chords had saturated the market in Santa Barbara so thoroughly that the presence of certain Domino songwriters at a recording studio in Santa Barbara during the period of saturation created a reasonable possibility of access. We take up each in turn.

A. Access Through Intermediaries

“[E]vidence that a third party with whom both the plaintiff and defendant were dealing had possession of plaintiff's work is sufficient to establish access by the defendant.” 4 Meville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.02[A] (2015); Kamar Int'l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co. , 657 F.2d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1981)

. “[T]he dealings between the plaintiff and the intermediary and between the intermediary and the alleged copier must involve some overlap in subject matter to permit an inference of access.” Meta

–

Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc , 586 F.Supp. 1346, 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1984) ; id. at 1355–58 (citing cases where the intermediary “either was a supervisor with responsibility for the defendant's project, was part of the same work unit as the copier, or contributed creative ideas or material to the defendant's work,” id. at 1355–56 ). For example, in Kamar, we held that access was established by the fact that the defendant purchased stuffed animals from a manufacturer that had previously made stuffed animals for the plaintiff based on the plaintiff's copyrighted designs. 657 F.2d at 1060–62 ; see also

De Acosta v. Brown , 146 F.2d 408, 410 (2d Cir. 1944) (sufficient evidence of access where plaintiff submitted her work to a literary agent who thereafter was consulted by the defendant for input on the infringing work).

By contrast, multiple courts have held that a plaintiff “cannot create a triable issue of access merely by showing ‘bare corporate receipt’ of her work by an individual who shares a common employer with the alleged copier.” Bernal v. Paradigm Talent & Literary Agency , 788 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

; see, e.g. , Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records , 351 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2003). “Rather, it must be reasonably possible that the paths of the infringer and the infringed work crossed.” Towler v. Sayles , 76 F.3d 579, 582–83 (4th Cir. 1996)

(requiring a “close relationship” for the corporate receipt doctrine to apply); see also

Jones v. Blige , 558 F.3d 485, 491–92 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming summary judgment for the defendant where plaintiff submitted her work to a senior vice president at Universal because there was no evidence that the vice president had any contact with anyone involved in the creation of the allegedly infringing work).

Loomis identified several potential intermediaries through whom he alleged Defendants might have gotten access to his song.

Sunny Elle Lee worked for UMG Recordings as an Artists and Repertoire Representative. In May of 2010, Lee emailed Loomis's mother, Kristin Loomis, who acted as administrative coordinator for the band, to request a copy of Bright Red Chords. The band furnished Lee a copy of the song. Loomis argues that this chain of events created a triable issue of access because Lee's responsibility as an A&R representative was to “find” and “share” music. Loomis posits that because Lee was successful in her job and received a promotion, a reasonable juror could extrapolate that she provided Bright Red Chords to...