Cameo Clips

The appeals court further found that, “while both songs refer to the beloved's light eyes and to written correspondence between the lovers, they do so in entirely different ways. ' In short, Hobbs cannot rely upon a combination of dissimilar expressions to establish that 'Nikita' infringes upon 'Natasha”s' 'unique selection, arrangement, and combination of' those expressions.”

Of the two songs' similarities, such as the use of repetition and that each title beings with a “N” and ends with an “A,” the Seventh Circuit decided they were “rudimentary, commonplace, standard, or unavoidable in popular love songs. Repetition is ubiquitous in popular music. ' And, as the district court observed, the United States Copyright Office's Registered Works Database reveals that numerous works share the titles 'Natasha' and 'Nikita.'”

In a footnote in Hobbs, the Seventh Circuit clarified its ruling in Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012), a decision that Kanye West's hip-hop song “Stronger” didn't infringe on the plaintiff's song of the same name. In Peters, the Seventh Circuit stated: “If the copied parts are not, on their own, protectable expression, then there can be no claim for infringement of the reproduction right.” But in Hobbs, the appeals court acknowledged “there is a wealth of authority recognizing that, in certain situations, a unique arrangement of individually unprotectable elements can form an original expression entitled to copyright protection.”

Use of Faulkner Quote in Woody Allen Film Isn't Copyright Infringement

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decided that the paraphrase of a line from William Faulkner's novel Requiem for a Nun in Woody Allen's movie Midnight in Paris was de minimis and thus not copyright infringement. Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 3:12cv100. In practice, the ruling demonstrates how consideration of copyright infringement by federal courts within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “mirrors the third factor of the fair use defense, 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole',” Chief District Judge Michael P. Mills observed. “Therefore,” Judge Mills added, “the court will utilize the fair use factors in making a determination on the de minimis and substantial similarity issues.”

In Faulkner's book, a county attorney says: “The past is never dead. It's not even past.” Lead character Gil Pender in Midnight in Paris states: “The past is not dead. Actually, it's not even past. You know who said that? Faulkner, and he was right. I met him too. I ran into him at a dinner party.”

Chief District Judge Michael P. Mills noted: “Characters in both works use the quote for antithetical purposes of persuasion. On one hand is a serious attempt to save someone from the death penalty, and on the other is a fianc' [Gil Pender] trying to get a leg up in a fleeting domestic dispute” with the woman to whom he is engaged. Chief Judge Mills determined that quoting a line from a serious literary work in a comedy film made the use transformative.

Granting Sony Pictures' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the district judge found that Faulkner Literary Rights' ability to exploit a potential market for the Requiem quote hadn't been harmed. “How Hollywood's flattering and artful use of literary allusion is a point of litigation, not celebration, is beyond this court's comprehension,” Chief Judge Mills wondered. “The court, in its appreciation for both William Faulkner as well as the homage paid him in Woody Allen's film, is more likely to suppose that the film indeed helped the plaintiff and the market value of Requiem if it had any effect at all.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.

Elton John Song “Nikita” Not Substantially Similar to Plaintiff's Composition “Natasha”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found no substantial similarity between plaintiff Guy Hobbs' song “Natasha” and the Elton John/Bernie Taupin composition “Nikita.” Hobbs v. John, 12-3652. “Natasha” is about Hobbs' brief affair with a Russian waitress. “Nikita” portrays the protagonist's sighting of a woman behind a geo-political “Cold War” wall about whom he sings of the unlikelihood of a relationship. Hobbs sent his song, without result, to Big Pig Music, which publishes John/Taupin compositions. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Hobbs' copyright infringement suit against John, Taupin and Big Pig.

Affirming, the Seventh Circuit initially noted: “Hobbs relies solely upon his 'unique combination' theory. Hobbs contends that the unique selection, arrangement, and combination of individually unprotectable elements in a song can be entitled to copyright protection.” But, the appeals court observed, “'Natasha' and 'Nikita' tell different stories about impossible romances during the Cold War.” Among these are that, while “Natasha” cites “the freedom [the woman will] never know,” the John/Taupin protagonist sings he will “never know how good it feels to hold” Nikita.

The appeals court further found that, “while both songs refer to the beloved's light eyes and to written correspondence between the lovers, they do so in entirely different ways. ' In short, Hobbs cannot rely upon a combination of dissimilar expressions to establish that 'Nikita' infringes upon 'Natasha”s' 'unique selection, arrangement, and combination of' those expressions.”

Of the two songs' similarities, such as the use of repetition and that each title beings with a “N” and ends with an “A,” the Seventh Circuit decided they were “rudimentary, commonplace, standard, or unavoidable in popular love songs. Repetition is ubiquitous in popular music. ' And, as the district court observed, the United States Copyright Office's Registered Works Database reveals that numerous works share the titles 'Natasha' and 'Nikita.'”

In a footnote in Hobbs, the Seventh Circuit clarified its ruling in Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012), a decision that Kanye West's hip-hop song “Stronger” didn't infringe on the plaintiff's song of the same name. In Peters, the Seventh Circuit stated: “If the copied parts are not, on their own, protectable expression, then there can be no claim for infringement of the reproduction right.” But in Hobbs, the appeals court acknowledged “there is a wealth of authority recognizing that, in certain situations, a unique arrangement of individually unprotectable elements can form an original expression entitled to copyright protection.”

Use of Faulkner Quote in Woody Allen Film Isn't Copyright Infringement

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois decided that the paraphrase of a line from William Faulkner's novel Requiem for a Nun in Woody Allen's movie Midnight in Paris was de minimis and thus not copyright infringement. Faulkner Literary Rights LLC v. Sony Pictures Classics Inc., 3:12cv100. In practice, the ruling demonstrates how consideration of copyright infringement by federal courts within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “mirrors the third factor of the fair use defense, 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole',” Chief District Judge Michael P. Mills observed. “Therefore,” Judge Mills added, “the court will utilize the fair use factors in making a determination on the de minimis and substantial similarity issues.”

In Faulkner's book, a county attorney says: “The past is never dead. It's not even past.” Lead character Gil Pender in Midnight in Paris states: “The past is not dead. Actually, it's not even past. You know who said that? Faulkner, and he was right. I met him too. I ran into him at a dinner party.”

Chief District Judge Michael P. Mills noted: “Characters in both works use the quote for antithetical purposes of persuasion. On one hand is a serious attempt to save someone from the death penalty, and on the other is a fianc' [Gil Pender] trying to get a leg up in a fleeting domestic dispute” with the woman to whom he is engaged. Chief Judge Mills determined that quoting a line from a serious literary work in a comedy film made the use transformative.

Granting Sony Pictures' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the district judge found that Faulkner Literary Rights' ability to exploit a potential market for the Requiem quote hadn't been harmed. “How Hollywood's flattering and artful use of literary allusion is a point of litigation, not celebration, is beyond this court's comprehension,” Chief Judge Mills wondered. “The court, in its appreciation for both William Faulkner as well as the homage paid him in Woody Allen's film, is more likely to suppose that the film indeed helped the plaintiff and the market value of Requiem if it had any effect at all.”

Stan Soocher is Editor-in-Chief of Entertainment Law & Finance and a tenured Associate Professor of Music & Entertainment Industry Studies at the University of Colorado's Denver Campus. He can be reached at [email protected] or via www.stansoocher.com.