Mariah Carey Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Last week, I wrote about copyright issues in Christmas songs. In that post, I briefly discussed Mariah Cary’s hit, “All I Want for Christmas is You.” While researching, I discovered that a lawsuit was filed in June of this year against Mariah Cary—along with Walter Afanasieff (Carey’s co-author), Sony Music Entertainment, and Sony Corporation of America—for copyright infringement related to the song. The plaintiff, Andy Stone, alleges that Mariah Carey and the other defendants infringed Mr. Stone’s rights when they released their hit in 1994. Stone alleged that the Defendants’ song is derivative in terms of lyrics, melody, harmonic language, rhythm, and meter:
· “[U]pwards of 50% of [Plaintiff’s] lyrics are copied or modified in Defendants version. Further, the songs tell the same story, incorporating the same arc from beginning to end, of an individual who wants their partner more than material goods or seasonal comforts.”
· “‘All I want for Christmas is you’ is what is considered the hook, or most memorable part, of both songs.”
· “In both songs, the notes of the singer’s melody ascend and descend [] identically.”
· “Defendants’ song also shares the chord progression . . . . This includes the identical ‘ii-V-I’ progression over the title phrase as noted above in addition to many other substantially similar chords and ‘chord substitutions.’”
· “The meter of each song in a tempo of 12/8, incorporates an eighth-note pulse provided by piano. Further, each song uses a shuffle rhythm that provide rhythmic contrast between the 12/8 pulse and quarter-note pulse in the rhythm instruments. Finally, there is a characteristic arpeggio used in both songs . . . ,”
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 6). Following the factual allegations, the complaint sets forth counts for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment and misappropriation, and violations of the Lanham Act. The plaintiff demands $20,000,000 in damages. The blog focuses on the claim for copyright infringement.
While preparing this post, I listened to both songs. Personally, I did not notice much similarity between the two songs. Of course, the case will not be decided based on whether I find the songs similar.
To prove copyright infringement, Mr. Stone would almost certainly need to show that the Defendants’ work is substantially similar to his work. The question of substantial similarity is challenging and does not lend itself to helpful generalizations.
Slight similarities are not substantial and are therefore non-infringing. However, two works may not be identical and yet, for purposes of copyright infringement, may be substantially similar.
The plaintiff likely included enough facts to survive an early motion to dismiss. The case will likely be decided on the merits. Perhaps an expert witness and other evidence might make the similarities more apparent.
Unfortunately, this discussion might be purely academic given that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit on November 1, 2022. Often that occurs when the parties reach a settlement, which could be the case here. However, two weeks prior to the dismissal, the Defendants jointly moved for an extension of time to respond to the complaint, wherein Defendants stated: “The parties have been actively engaged in meet and confer discussions concerning the proper venue for this action to proceed. . . .Plaintiff has agreed to either dismiss and refile this action in, or join in a motion to transfer this action to, the United States District Court for the Central District of California.”
The fate of this dispute is uncertain. On one hand, the parties might have settled, or Plaintiff might decide not to refile. On the other hand, the plaintiff could resurrect the lawsuit in the Central District of California or elsewhere. Only time will tell.
