<b>Decision of Note: </b>'Holla Back' Hook Not Infringing

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no substantial similarity between the hook in the plaintiff's song and the hook in the defendant's song that would support an inference of copying. Boone v. Jackson, 03 CV 8661 (GBD). Hip-hop producer Carla Boone filed suit alleging that the song “Young N” by Fabolous infringed on the rights she held in the song “Holla Back.” Both songs repeated the phrase “holla back.”

But granting summary judgment for the defendants, the district court noted: “Although 'Holla Back' as a complete work is protected, not every element of the song is protectable per se. … The presence of the phrase 'holla back,' rapped in an eighth note, eighth note, quarter note rhythmic pattern in the hook of each song is too common to be protectable. … Defendant's exhibit indicates that out of 32 songs found which contain the phrase 'holla back,' nine songs repeat 'holla back' in the same rhythmic pattern used in 'Holla Back' and 'Young N,' four songs predate the release of plaintiff's song, and five songs were released in the same year as plaintiff's song. … Even if evidence of copying could be found, the plaintiff fails to satisfy the unlawful appropriation prong of the infringement test. Under the ordinary observer test, it is unlikely that an ordinary observer would regard plaintiff's song 'Holla Back' and defendant's song 'Young N' as aesthetically similar given their greater obvious differences.”

But the district court denied the defendants' request for Rule 11 sanctions against Boone's counsel on the ground that the “record does not support a finding that this case was interposed for any improper purpose or that there was no reasonable basis for plaintiff's counsel to believe that plaintiff's allegations were grounded in fact when counsel filed the complaint.”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no substantial similarity between the hook in the plaintiff's song and the hook in the defendant's song that would support an inference of copying. Boone v. Jackson, 03 CV 8661 (GBD). Hip-hop producer Carla Boone filed suit alleging that the song “Young N” by Fabolous infringed on the rights she held in the song “Holla Back.” Both songs repeated the phrase “holla back.”

But granting summary judgment for the defendants, the district court noted: “Although 'Holla Back' as a complete work is protected, not every element of the song is protectable per se. … The presence of the phrase 'holla back,' rapped in an eighth note, eighth note, quarter note rhythmic pattern in the hook of each song is too common to be protectable. … Defendant's exhibit indicates that out of 32 songs found which contain the phrase 'holla back,' nine songs repeat 'holla back' in the same rhythmic pattern used in 'Holla Back' and 'Young N,' four songs predate the release of plaintiff's song, and five songs were released in the same year as plaintiff's song. … Even if evidence of copying could be found, the plaintiff fails to satisfy the unlawful appropriation prong of the infringement test. Under the ordinary observer test, it is unlikely that an ordinary observer would regard plaintiff's song 'Holla Back' and defendant's song 'Young N' as aesthetically similar given their greater obvious differences.”

But the district court denied the defendants' request for Rule 11 sanctions against Boone's counsel on the ground that the “record does not support a finding that this case was interposed for any improper purpose or that there was no reasonable basis for plaintiff's counsel to believe that plaintiff's allegations were grounded in fact when counsel filed the complaint.”