![\"\"](\"https:\/\/omnilegalgroup.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/Gwen-Stefani-Spark-the-Fire-1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A United States District Court Judge recently extinguished a lawsuit brought by a hairstylist against Gwen Stefani, Pharrell Williams, and Interscope Records alleging direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement based on defendants\u2019 song, \u201cSpark the Fire.\u201d The lawsuit also included a separate conversion claim under California state law against Stefani only. Having been previously unsuccessful in obtaining a dismissal of the case when it was transferred from its original court in Colorado to California, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Judge Dolly M. Gee granted this motion in favor of the defendants, finding the works in question were not substantially similar so as to sustain a claim for copyright infringement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The plaintiff, Richard Morrill, is a singer\/songwriter and former Huntington Beach hairstylist who allegedly colored and styled Stefani\u2019s hair one time in 1998. Morrill is best known for his stint in the late 1980s\/early 1990s metal band, L.A.P.D, an outfit which later became Korn. During his session with the then-twenty-something No Doubt star, Morrill played his song \u201cWho\u2019s Got My Lightah?\u201d In response, Stefani claimed to like the song and agreed to accept a compact disc with the same on it. Morrill contends to have written and recorded his original version of \u201cWho\u2019s Got My Lightah?\u201d in 1996, two years before sharing it with Stefani. Fast forward to 2014, during which time Morrill discovered the alleged infringement when Stefani and Williams performed their then-recent hit on \u201cThe Voice,\u201d a television singing competition. The plaintiff further claims a 2009 derivative version of the song, \u201cWho\u2019s Got My Lighter,\u201d is also infringed by \u201cSpark the Fire,\u201d although this version was not shared directly with Stefani or any of the defendants.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In his complaint, Morrill alleges the lyrics, chorus, rhythm, melody, metric placement, background music, and accompanying sounds in the defendants\u2019 song and his two copyrighted works are extremely similar. More specifically, the plaintiff asserts there is structural similarity and recurring lyrics between the paired hook structures of the works. Plaintiff\u2019s song features the lines \u201cWho got my light-ah\u201d followed by \u201cwho got my fi-ah\u201d while defendants\u2019 song contains \u201cWho got the light-ah\u201d and then \u201clet\u2019s spark the fire.\u201d Moreover, Morrill pointed out the distinctive pronunciation that is different from standard English. For instance, the pronunciation of the words \u201clighter\u201d and \u201cfire\u201d as \u201clight-ah\u201d and \u201cfi-ah\u201d is identical among the songs. The plaintiff further asserted that Stefani, Williams, and the label made at least $25 million from \u201cSpark the Fire.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A judge should properly grant a motion for summary judgment when the requesting party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the requesting party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party then is required to demonstrate that there exists specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Copyright infringement occurs where (1) the plaintiff owns a valid copyright and (2) the defendant infringed elements of that work that are capable of copyright protection.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiff owns copyrights in both the 1996 original version and the 2009 derivative version of his song. That being said, absent evidence of direct copyright, infringement can be established by showing the defendant had access to the plaintiff\u2019s work and that the works are substantially similar. In determining substantial similarity, courts break down the respective works into their constituent elements. Those elements are then compared for proof of copying. In this comparison, it is crucial to distinguish between protected and unprotected elements. More particularly, the sc\u00e8nes \u00e0 faire doctrine provides that certain elements, which are stock or standard features commonly associated with the treatment of a given subject, are unprotectable under copyright law.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In dismissing the case through summary judgment, Judge Gee found Morrill failed to show substantial similarity between his copyrighted work and the accused song. Primarily, the court found pronunciation of the words \u201clighter\u201d and \u201cfire\u201d as \u201clight-ah\u201d and \u201cfi-ah\u201d does not, in itself, demonstrate similarity. In particular, while this is not the pronunciation in standard English, pronouncing words that end in an \u201c-er\u201d with an \u201cah\u201d sound is a common practice in African American vernacular English. In fact, according to the court, this practice predates Morrill\u2019s 1996 song and is viewed as a staple in rap and hip-hop music, as well as, other types of media. Moreover, deleting verbs is another common practice in African American vernacular English. For instance, the court cited pronunciation of \u201cwho got\u201d instead of \u201cwho\u2019s got\u201d in the movie \u201cBilly Madison.\u201d As another example, the court referred to the identical pronunciation of the words \u201cfire\u201d and \u201clighter\u201d in The Roots\u2019 song, \u201cPush Up Ya Lighter.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As another matter, the court determined that the common practice of rhyming the last word in the line of a song is not protectable. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed the respective songs are substantially similar, in part, because of identical rhyming of the words \u201clight-ah\u201d and \u201cfi-ah\u201d on the fourth beat of each song. Additionally, the presence of a long-short-long rhythm does not render the two songs rhythmically similar as this practice is too general to be protectable. Furthermore, the alleged \u201csimilar rhythms\u201d are implemented in vastly different manners in each song.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lastly, Judge Gee concluded there was no infringement of the 2009 version of the plaintiff\u2019s song because it is a derivative work. Copyright in a derivative work only subsists in the material contributed by the author of such work. Protection is limited to changes and contributions made and does not cover preexisting material, such as the plaintiff\u2019s 1996 version of the song. With all of this in mind, the court ultimately concluded Morrill did not sufficiently establish substantial similarity so as to present a genuine issue of material fact for trial.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A United States District Court Judge recently extinguished a lawsuit brought by a hairstylist against Gwen Stefani, Pharrell Williams, and Interscope Records alleging direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement based on defendants\u2019 song, \u201cSpark the Fire.\u201d The lawsuit also included a separate conversion claim under California state law against Stefani only. Having been previously unsuccessful…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3056,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-593","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n