William L. Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc. Gilbert M. Martin
905 F.2d 731, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 9188, 15 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1132 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a copyright infringement case, the 'ordinary observer' test for substantial similarity of expression must be conducted from the perspective of the work's intended audience, which may require a focus on a specialized audience with particular expertise if the lay public does not fairly represent that audience.
Facts:
- William L. Dawson created and holds a valid copyright for a musical arrangement of the spiritual 'Ezekiel Saw De Wheel'.
- Over many years, Dawson sold numerous copies of his copyrighted arrangement.
- In 1980, Gilbert M. Martin composed a different arrangement of the same spiritual.
- Martin granted Hinshaw Music, Inc. the exclusive rights to publish, distribute, and sell his arrangement.
- Martin agreed to indemnify Hinshaw for any losses resulting from a copyright infringement claim.
- The primary market for such spiritual arrangements consists of specialized consumers, such as choral directors, rather than the general public.
Procedural Posture:
- William L. Dawson sued Gilbert M. Martin and Hinshaw Music, Inc. in federal district court, alleging copyright infringement.
- The case was decided in a bench trial (a trial by a judge without a jury).
- The district court found that Dawson had a valid copyright and that Martin had access to Dawson's work.
- The district court found substantial similarity between the 'ideas' of the two arrangements (the extrinsic test).
- Applying an 'ordinary lay observer' standard to the 'expression' of the ideas (the intrinsic test), the district court judge found he could not determine substantial similarity by looking at the sheet music alone and ruled in favor of the defendants, Martin and Hinshaw.
- Dawson, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a copyright infringement case, must the 'ordinary observer' test for substantial similarity of expression always be judged from the perspective of an ordinary lay person, or should it be judged from the perspective of the work's intended audience when that audience possesses specialized expertise?
Opinions:
Majority - Murnaghan, Circuit Judge
No. The 'ordinary observer' test for substantial similarity of expression must be judged from the perspective of the work's intended audience, not always from the perspective of a lay person. The purpose of copyright is to protect the creator's financial returns from their intended market. Therefore, the relevant inquiry is whether the intended audience would find the works substantially similar, as their perception directly impacts the creator's market. Precedent in cases involving children's products and computer software already demonstrates the necessity of tailoring the test to the specific audience. It is illogical to have an infringement case turn on the opinion of someone who is ignorant of the relevant similarities and differences that the actual market would perceive. The district court erred by applying a strict 'lay observer' standard without first determining the nature of the intended audience for Dawson's spiritual arrangement and whether that audience possesses specialized expertise.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the intrinsic prong of the substantial similarity test in copyright law, moving from a rigid 'ordinary lay observer' standard to a more flexible, context-dependent 'intended audience' test. It clarifies that for works targeted at a niche market with specialized knowledge (e.g., computer software, academic texts, complex musical arrangements), the finder of fact must assess similarity from the perspective of a member of that audience. This holding provides greater protection for creators in specialized fields, as it prevents infringers from escaping liability merely because a layperson cannot discern similarities that are obvious and material to the actual consumer base. Future litigation involving specialized works will now likely involve evidence and expert testimony regarding the perceptions of the specific intended market.
