[ad_1]
A copyright battle over Led Zeppelin's iconic song "Stairway to Heaven" is back after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal partially overturned the court's ruling in favor of the group and sent back the case for a new trial.
The lawsuit was filed by Michael Skidmore, the trustee of the deceased songwriter Randy Wolfe (better known as Randy California), who composed the "Bull" of Spirit in the late 1960s. The complaint – 43 years in the making after much discussion in the music community to find out if "Stairway to Heaven" has plagiarized "Taurus" – explicitly Required a rewrite of the history of rock.
In June 2016, Led Zeppelin won the case after the jury heard members of Led Zeppelin jimmy Page and Robert Plant testify, as well as a member of the Spirit Group, musicologists and other witnesses about the similarity between the songs. The jury did not hear the recording of "Taurus" because the song was protected by copyright before sound recordings were covered by federal law.
According to the opinion of today, a group of judges of appeal considers that the jury received erroneous instructions on unprotected musical elements and was not given any instructions on the originality. Although the panel confirms that the scope of protection of an unpublished musical work under the former Copyright Law is defined by what has been filed with the Copyright Office and that reading "Taurus" determines that the recording should nevertheless have been played in order to demonstrate Led Zeppelin's access to the song.
Here is the complete decision.
Many legal observers were expecting a legal battle over the "fuzzy lines" between Marvin Gaye's heirs with Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, on the other hand, to provide insight into cases of stolen songs. Earlier this year, the 9th Circuit upheld the verdict on "blurry lines" but failed to provide the expected guidance due to Williams' lawyer's inability to properly uphold certain issues on appeal.
The dispute over "Stairway to Heaven" has now come to provide useful instructions in copyright lawsuits over songcraftings.
Judge of the circuit Richard Paez begins its majority opinion by going through the history of the case, the allegations made and revising the copyright standards, namely that the plaintiffs must submit an author's right to valid and that the defendants have copied the protected aspects of the expression. The judge also notes that independent creation is a complete defense against a claim of copyright infringement. Paez goes on to say that when there is no direct evidence of copying, the plaintiff may attempt to prove it circumstantially by showing that the accused had access to a work and that both works share convincing similarities of copy. Perhaps the most controversial, Paez adopts what is called the inverse ratio rule: when a high degree of access is shown, it takes less similarity to prove the copy.
On appeal, Skidmore first submitted that the trial judge had failed to instruct that the selection and arrangement of otherwise non-deprotatable musical elements could be protected.
Paez is concerned that the extrinsic test – a review of supposedly objective similarity factors – is not properly administered and ends up being in agreement with Skidmore on this point. He writes, "The inability of the district court to instruct the jury was particularly problematic in this case, because Skidmore's expert, Dr. Stewart, stated that there was substantial similarity extrinsic based on the combination of five elements, some of which were in the public domain. "
The unprotected elements of a song can include the notes or scale of a song, but the arrangement is obviously essential.
With respect to originality, the jury's instruction states that copyright does not protect chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes.
Skidmore argued, and Paez again agreed, that was a mistake.
"There is a low level of originality in copyright," he writes. "Copyright applies to parts of a work created (1) independently, that is to say, not copied from the work of another and (2) which contains only a few Most of the basic musical elements Swirskyhowever, we have recognized that even if "a single musical note is too small a unit to attract copyright protection … a provision of a limited number of notes may protect copyright."
Paez summarizes it by concluding that these instructions of the jury were erroneous, because the jury was informed that the elements of the public domain could not be the object of rights of author "even if they are modified from original way or are part of a selection and an arrangement. were prejudicial because they undermined the core of Skidmore's argument that "Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven" were essentially essentially similar. judgment and detention on remand for a new trial. "
The appeal decision continues, noting that the jury terminated its deliberations after deciding that "Taurus" and "Stairway to Heaven" were not substantially similar under the extrinsic criterion. Thus, the jury never asked the question of whether there had been a copy. As such, the judge finds that the lack of jury direction regarding the reverse ratio rule was irrelevant and inconsequential.
"As we proceed to a new trial, we note that in a case like the one where the copy is involved and that there is substantial evidence of access, a jury trial may be appropriate," he wrote. "Here, there was substantial evidence of access, and indeed, the jury concluded that James Page and Robert Plant had access to" Taurus. "On remand, the district court should re-examine the question of if the reverse ratio rule instruction is warranted unless it determines, in law, that Skidmore's proof of access evidence is insufficient
In the context of what will now take place before the court of first instance, the Court of Appeal seems to think that a sound recording is in order. Again, although sound recording can not be protected by federal copyright law, this does not necessarily mean that all aspects of arbitration are prohibited.
"Skidmore contends that by not allowing the jury to observe Page while listening to the" Taurus "recordings, the court's decision had the effect of diminishing the probative value of the Skidmore question," says Skidmore. opinion. "Although the jury could still draw conclusions and conclusions from Page's behavior during his testimony, allowing the jury to observe the listening of the recordings would have enabled them to evaluate his behavior by listening to the recordings and answering questions. the probative value of the observation was not appropriate here, as the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion of the jury was relatively low and could have been reduced further with an appropriate reprimand. "
[ad_2]
Source link
