Jones v. Blige
89 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 2029, 558 F.3d 485, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4451 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish copyright infringement circumstantially, a plaintiff must show the defendant had a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work; mere submission of the work to a large corporation ('bare corporate receipt') is insufficient without evidence of a nexus between the recipient and the alleged infringers. A defendant can conclusively rebut an inference of copying by providing evidence of independent creation that predates the plaintiff's creation of their work.
Facts:
- On September 13, 2000, producer Andre Young ('Dr. Dre') created an initial version of the musical track that would become the song 'Family Affair.'
- By January 10, 2001, Young's musical track was in near-final form and had been renamed 'Family Affair.'
- In March 2001, producer Dannie Longmire created the melody for a song that would become 'Party Ain’t Crunk.'
- In March or April of 2001, James E. White and Tim Acker co-wrote and recorded lyrics over Longmire's track, creating the song 'Party Ain’t Crunk.'
- On May 7, 2001, White registered 'Party Ain’t Crunk' with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- In May 2001, White hand-delivered a demo CD containing 'Party Ain’t Crunk' to the office of Andy McKaie, an executive in a division of Universal Music Group that re-issues old music compilations.
- McKaie's secretary, JoAnn Frederick, later returned the demo materials to White in a package that had clearly been opened, along with a note stating the company was not accepting unsolicited material.
- In August 2001, Universal released Mary J. Blige’s song 'Family Affair,' which featured the music created by Young.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard Jones and James E. White filed a copyright infringement suit against Mary J. Blige, her lyricists, and Universal Music Group in the U.S. District Court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to access and that the defendants had proved independent creation.
- Defendants Blige and Universal subsequently filed a motion for attorneys' fees, which the district court denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Defendants Blige and Universal cross-appealed the denial of their motion for attorneys' fees.
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 a plaintiff raise a triable issue of fact as to an alleged infringer's access to a copyrighted work by showing that the work was submitted to an employee in one division of a large corporation with which the alleged infringer is affiliated, without providing any evidence of a link or channel of communication between that employee and the alleged infringer?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, Circuit Judge.
No. A plaintiff does not raise a triable issue of fact as to access based on bare corporate receipt, as there must be some evidence of a reasonable possibility that the work was transmitted from the recipient to the alleged infringers. To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must show more than a 'bare possibility' of access, which requires demonstrating a nexus between the person who received the submitted work and the creators of the allegedly infringing work. Here, Jones and White provided no evidence that McKaie, who worked in Universal's re-issue division, had any contact with, or channel for providing material to, Blige or Young, who were involved in creating new music. The court explicitly rejected the 'bare corporate receipt' doctrine, aligning with other circuits that require a plausible chain of events for access to be inferred. Furthermore, the court found the songs were not 'strikingly similar,' which would have been required to infer copying without proof of access. Finally, the defendants provided uncontroverted evidence that Young independently created the music for 'Family Affair' months before 'Party Ain't Crunk' was even written, which serves as a complete defense to the infringement claim regarding the music.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rejection of the 'bare corporate receipt' doctrine in the Sixth Circuit, aligning it with other circuits like the Second and Fourth. It raises the evidentiary bar for copyright plaintiffs suing large, compartmentalized corporations, requiring them to do more than simply prove they submitted a work to the company. Plaintiffs must now produce evidence of a specific, plausible connection or 'nexus' between the recipient of their work and the alleged infringers. This ruling makes it more difficult for infringement claims based on speculation to survive summary judgment and reinforces the strength of the independent creation defense, particularly when supported by verifiable records like studio logs.
