Peters v. West

• Decision Date: 20 August 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–1708.,11–1708.
• Citation: 692 F.3d 629,2012 Copr.L.Dec. P 30304
• Parties: Vincent PETERS, professionally known as Vince P, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Kanye WEST, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

692 F.3d 629

2012 Copr.L.Dec. P 30,304

Vincent PETERS, professionally known as Vince P, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Kanye WEST, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–1708.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued March 26, 2012.

Decided Aug. 20, 2012.

William T. McGrath (argued), Attorney, Davis McGrath, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Ilene S. Farkas (argued), Attorney, Pryor Cashman, New York, NY, Carrie A. Hall, Attorney, Michael Best & Friedrich

LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WOOD, Circuit Judges.

WOOD, Circuit Judge.

In 2006, Vincent Peters, whose stage name is Vince P, wrote, recorded, and distributed a song entitled Stronger. The song's title comes from a key line in its “hook” (refrain or chorus). The line in turn draws from an aphorism coined by Friedrich Nietzsche: “what does not kill me, makes me stronger.”

Vince P believes that he had an opportunity to “make it” in the hip-hop recording industry—he needed only to find an executive producer. His search led him to John Monopoly, a business manager and close friend of Kanye West, one of hip-hop's superstars. Vince P sent Monopoly a disc containing a recording of Stronger, and even secured a meeting with Monopoly, during which Vince P played his recording of Stronger for Monopoly. Monopoly was apparently impressed and agreed to be Vince P's producer, so long as Vince P was funded by a record label. That funding never materialized, unfortunately, and so the proposed collaboration foundered.

Shortly thereafter, Kanye West released a song entitled Stronger. West's song also features a hook that repeats the Nietzschean maxim. Worse, according to Vince P, West's song contains several other suspicious similarities to his song. Vince P tried to contact West, but he was turned away by West's representatives. In response, Vince P registered his copyright in his version of Stronger with the U.S. Copyright Office and filed suit against West. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We agree with the district court that the two songs are not similar enough to support a finding that copyright infringement has occurred, and we thus affirm.

I

Vince P describes himself in the complaint as an up-and-coming hip-hop artist and songwriter. In 2006, as he was beginning his career in music, he wrote and recorded a song entitled Stronger, which is about the competitive—indeed cutthroat—nature of the hip-hop and rap world. For clarity, we refer to this as Stronger (VP). Vince P's music apparently captured the attention of someone at Interscope Records; that person told him that the company would devote “substantial resources” to producing Vince P's inaugural album, but only if he could procure the services of a good executive producer.

His search led him to John Monopoly, a well-known producer and—importantly for our purposes—a close friend and business manager to Kanye West. Vince P sent several of his songs to Monopoly, who liked what he heard enough to schedule a meeting. On November 12, 2006, Vince P and Monopoly met at the latter's home in Chicago, where Vince P played several of his recordings, including Stronger (VP). At the conclusion of their meeting, Vince P left a CD of some of his songs—including Stronger (VP)—with Monopoly. Eventually, Monopoly agreed to be Vince P's executive producer, so long as Interscope Records was willing to fund the recording project. That funding, however, fell through, and so the project stalled.

In July 2007, less than a year after the November 2006 meeting between Vince P and Monopoly, West released his own single titled Stronger. (We call this Stronger (KW).) It was a huge hit. The song earned the # 1 spot in several Billboard charts, the single sold over three million copies, and it eventually earned West a Grammy for Best Rap Solo Performance. Vince P, however, was not among its fans. He noticed what he thought were several infringing similarities between his 2006 song and West's more recent release. Vince P also saw that Monopoly was listed as a manager on the notes to West's album Graduation, on which Stronger (KW) appears. Vince P attempted to contact West, but he was rebuffed by West's representatives, and so he turned to the federal courts. After formally registering his copyright in Stronger (VP) with the U.S. Copyright Office, see 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1241, 176 L.Ed.2d 18 (2010) (copyright registration, while not jurisdictional, is a substantive requirement of infringement litigation), Vince P sued West in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That court dismissed Vince P's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and he now appeals.

II

We review the district court's order granting West's motion to dismiss de novo.Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir.2009). We “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” and we therefore draw all plausible inferences in Vince P's favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir.2008). As a practical matter for the present case, this means that we assume as true all of Vince P's allegations regarding Monopoly's early access to Vince P's song and his claims about the close relationship between Monopoly and Kanye West. We review de novo the district court's determinations regarding the similarity between the two songs as well as its ultimate conclusion of noninfringement. Intervest Constr. Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914, 919–20 (11th Cir.2008).

Vince P's complaint contains only one claim: his allegation that Stronger (KW) infringes his valid copyright in Stronger (VP). Proving infringement of a copyright owner's exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (the reproduction right) requires proof of “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991); JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir.2007).

A

Copyright “registration made before or within five years after the first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Vince P applied for copyright registration in Stronger (VP) on March 28, 2010, which is well within the statutory five-year window beginning in 2006. West appropriately does not challenge Vince P's copyright registration, nor does he otherwise question the validity of Vince P's copyright ownership in Stronger (VP). Vince P has thus made a prima facie showing of his ownership in the whole of the lyrics to his song.

Nevertheless, whether the parts of that song that West allegedly copied are, on their own, entitled to copyright protection is a separate question. If the copied parts are not, on their own, protectable expression, then there can be no claim for infringement of the reproduction right. See Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir.2010).

B

Satisfied that Vince P has shown valid copyright ownership, we turn our attention to the question of copying. The standard for copying is surprisingly muddled. Where direct evidence, such as an admission of copying, is not available (as is typically the case, see JCW, 482 F.3d at 915), a plaintiff may prove copying by showing that the defendant had the opportunity to copy the original (often called “access”) and that the two works are “substantially similar,” thus permitting an inference that the defendant actually did copy the original. The various efforts to define these two key concepts, however, have unfortunately had the unintended effect of obscuring rather than clarifying the issues. This court has said that substantial similarity can be shown by evidence of “actual copying” and “improper appropriation.” Incredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1007, 1011 (7th Cir.2005). Thus, we permit copying to be proven by evidence of access, actual copying, and improper appropriation. Vince P argues that we should adopt a hybrid of our own approach and the one that he argues prevails in the Second Circuit. That court, he contends, permits actual copying to be proven by “access” and “probative similarity” (which is distinct from substantial similarity). Appellant's Br. at 26 (citing Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir.1992)). Putting these tests together, he seems to want us to require proof of access, improper appropriation, and actual copying by means of showing probative similarity and access (again).

Other circuits have also had trouble expressing the test with any clarity. The First Circuit, for example, finds copying where the plaintiff has shown substantial similarity, access, and probative similarity. T–Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 111–12 (1st Cir.2006). The formulation found in the Second Circuit requires proof of improper appropriation and actual copying; the latter is shown by proving access and probative similarity. Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir.2003); Laureyssens, 964 F.2d at 140. The Eleventh Circuit takes still a different approach, requiring either “striking similarity” or access and merely probative similarity. Peter Letterese & Assocs. v. World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, 533 F.3d 1287, 1300–01 (11th Cir.2008); see also La Resolana Architects, PA v. Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, 1178–79 (10th Cir.2009) (applying same test). See also Universal Furniture Int'l, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417, 435 (4th Cir.2010) (access, intrinsic similarity, and extrinsic similarity); Frye v. YMCA Camp Kitaki, 617 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir.2010) (same); Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147, 152 (5th Cir.2007) (factual copying and...