Jarvis v. a & M RECORDS
1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10062, 827 F. Supp. 282, 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1812 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The digital sampling of a qualitatively significant portion of a copyrighted musical composition constitutes copyright infringement, even if the infringing work as a whole is not substantially similar to the original work.
Facts:
- Around 1982, Boyd Jarvis wrote and recorded a song titled 'The Music’s Got Me' with his group, Visual.
- In November 1982, Jarvis secured a copyright for the musical composition and arrangement of 'The Music’s Got Me'.
- The song was released on Prelude Records, which holds the copyright to the sound recording.
- In 1989, defendants Robert Clivilles and David Cole wrote and recorded a song titled 'Get Dumb! (Free Your Body)'.
- In 'Get Dumb!', Clivilles and Cole digitally sampled two distinct parts of Jarvis's song without authorization.
- The sampled elements included a vocal bridge section containing the words 'ooh ... move ... free your body' and a distinctive keyboard riff that functions as both rhythm and melody in Jarvis's song.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1990, Boyd Jarvis filed a lawsuit against Robert Clivilles, David Cole, their record labels, and the group Seduction in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging copyright infringement and various state law claims.
- Following discovery, the defendants filed several motions for summary judgment on the claims of infringement of the musical composition, infringement of the sound recording, state law claims, and damages, and to dismiss defendant Seduction from the case.
- The case is before the District Court for a ruling on the defendants' summary judgment motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the digital sampling of qualitatively significant portions of a copyrighted musical composition constitute an unlawful appropriation for the purposes of a copyright infringement claim, even if a listener would not confuse the new work with the original work in its entirety?
Opinions:
Majority - Ackerman, J.
Yes. The digital sampling of qualitatively significant portions of a copyrighted musical composition can constitute an unlawful appropriation and therefore copyright infringement. The test for substantial similarity in a case of 'fragmented literal similarity' is not whether a listener would confuse the two works in their entirety, but whether the defendant appropriated a quantitatively or qualitatively substantial portion of the original work. The court reasoned that focusing on the similarity of the entire work would eviscerate copyright protection for artists whose work is sampled in different genres, such as a pop song sampled in a rap song. The proper inquiry focuses on whether the value of the original work is diminished by the copying of its constituent, original elements. Here, defendants admitted to copying via digital sampling. The court found that the copied vocal bridge and keyboard riff were distinctive, original expressions, not cliched or uncopyrightable phrases. Because these copied elements were qualitatively significant to Jarvis's original song, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the copying constituted an unlawful appropriation, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision addresses the emerging issue of digital sampling, affirming that copyright infringement is not limited to wholesale copying. It solidifies the 'fragmented literal similarity' doctrine, establishing that even small samples can be infringing if they are qualitatively important to the original work. The case rejects a narrow 'audience confusion' test, thereby providing stronger protection for copyright holders whose work might be incorporated into stylistically different genres. This ruling emphasizes that the focus of the infringement analysis should be on the value and originality of what was taken from the plaintiff's work, not just its proportional size within the defendant's new work.
Unlock the full brief for Jarvis v. a & M RECORDS