Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-13-57093/USCOURTS-ca9-13-57093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jessica Cornish
Appellee
Will Loomis
Appellant
Universal Music Group, Inc.
Appellee
Universal Republic Records
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILL LOOMIS, an individual,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JESSICA CORNISH, PKA Jessie J.,

an individual; UNIVERSAL MUSIC

GROUP, INC., Delaware corporation

Erroneously Sued As UMG

Recordings, Inc.; UNIVERSAL

REPUBLIC RECORDS, a division of

UMG Recordings, Inc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-57093

D.C. No.

2:12-cv-05525-

RSWL-JEM

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 8, 2016

Pasadena, California

Filed September 2, 2016

Before: Richard R. Clifton, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit

Judges, and Frederic Block,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Clifton

* The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 1 of 13
2 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

SUMMARY**

Copyright

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

in favor of the defendants in a copyright infringement case.

Will Loomis, composer of the song “Bright Red Chords,”

alleged that the defendants stole a two-measure vocal melody

and used it as the theme for the verse melody in their hit song

“Domino.” The panel held that Loomis did not put forth any

potentially admissible evidence to establish that the Domino

songwriters had access to Bright Red Chords, either on a

chain-of-events theory or a widespread-dissemination theory. 

Accordingly, he failed to establish copyright infringement.

COUNSEL

Michael Gross (argued), Michael Gross Law Office, St.

Louis, Missouri, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jeffrey M. Movit (argued) and Christine Lepera, Mitchell

Silberberg & Knupp LLP, New York, New York; Elaine K.

Kim, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles,

California; for Defendants-Appellees.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 2 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 3

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff Will Loomis is the composer of a song called

“Bright Red Chords.” He brought this lawsuit alleging that

Defendant Jessica Cornish (publicly known as Jessie J) and

a team of high-profile songwriters led by Lukasz Gottwald

(publicly known as Dr. Luke) stole a two-measure vocal

melody from Bright Red Chords and used it as the theme for

the verse melody in their hit song “Domino.” The district

court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

concluding that Loomis did not put forth any potentially

admissible evidence to establish that the Domino songwriters

had access to Bright Red Chords. We affirm.

I. Background

Loomis composed and recorded Bright Red Chords with

his band, Loomis and the Lust, in Santa Barbara, California,

in 2008, and thereafter obtained a copyright registration for

the song by depositing a copy with the U.S. Copyright Office. 

Loomis then released Bright Red Chords on a 2009 album,

Nagasha, and a 2010 album, Space Camp. He also created a

music video for the song.

Bright Red Chords was Nagasha’s feature track and it

garnered some attention in 2009 and 2010. For example, the

Bright Red Chords video won the MTVU “Best Freshman”

video award and was featured in Billboard Magazine. In

addition, there was evidence presented that Bright Red

Chords was distributed by Urban Outfitters as part of a

corporate sampler CD and was played in a variety of namebrand clothing stores. MTV selected Loomis and the Lust as

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 3 of 13
4 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

one of its best new bands of 2010, and the band won an

industry-sponsored “Artist on the Verge” award, which

included a $25,000 prize.

Despite these achievements, Bright Red Chords was not

commercially successful. Although the band hired a radio

promotions company to promote the song on a variety of

radio stations and a video promotions company to

disseminate the music video through multiple media

platforms, Bright Red Chords did not achieve an appreciable

level of national saturation. Loomis was able to provide to

the district court documentation of only 46 sales of the

recording.

Domino was written in June of 2011 by a five-person

songwriting team. Dr. Luke and his collaborator Henry

Walter created the instrumental track that became the musical

bed for the song. The melody and lyrics were added in a later

session at Conway Studios in Los Angeles. Jessie J created

the melody in collaboration with Dr. Luke and Claude Kelly. 

Karl Martin Sandberg (publicly known as Max Martin) also

participated in this session, and he and Dr. Luke provided

additional creative contributions to the song. Defendant

Universal Republic Records releasedDomino, and it achieved

substantial commercial success.

After hearingDomino, Loomis brought suit against Jessie

J and her record label alleging copyright infringement. The

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the

Defendants. This appeal followed.

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 4 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 5

II. Discussion

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. 

Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, we must determine whether “there are any

genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court

correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” Id. (quoting

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

banc)).

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must

prove two elements: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and

(2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are

original.” Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service

Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). Copyright ownership by

Loomis is not in dispute in this case. The only issue is

whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the Domino

songwriters copied protectable elements of Bright Red

Chords.

“Proof of copyright infringement is often highly

circumstantial, particularly in cases involving music.” Three

Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir.

2000). “Absent direct evidence of copying, proof of

infringement involves fact-based showings that the defendant

had ‘access’ to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are

‘substantially similar.’” Id. (quoting Smith v. Jackson,

84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996)); see also Funky Films,

Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th

Cir. 2006). In this case there was no direct evidence of

copying. The summary judgment entered by the district court

relied entirely on the issue of access. Specifically, the district

court concluded that Loomis failed to present sufficient

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 5 of 13
6 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

evidence to support a finding that Defendants had access to

Loomis’s work. Although Defendants also disputed the claim

that the works were substantially similar, the district court’s

order did not address that issue.1

Proof of access requires “an opportunity to view or to

copy plaintiff’s work.” Sid and Marty Krofft Television

Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1172 (9th

Cir. 1977), superseded on other grounds by 17 U.S.C.

§ 504(b). “To prove access, a plaintiff must show a

reasonable possibility, not merely a bare possibility, that an

alleged infringer had the chance to view the protected work.” 

Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 581 F.3d 1138,

1143 (9th Cir. 2009). “Where there is no direct evidence of

access, circumstantial evidence can be used to prove access

either by (1) establishing a chain of events linking the

plaintiff’s work and the defendant’s access, or (2) showing

that the plaintiff’s work has been widely disseminated.” Id.

Loomis relies on both theories to challenge the summary

judgment. His chain of events theory is that multiple

intermediaries could have provided a copy of Bright Red

Chords to the Domino songwriters. His widespread

dissemination theory is that Bright Red Chords had saturated

the market in Santa Barbara so thoroughly that the presence

of certain Domino songwriters at a recording studio in Santa

Barbara during the period of saturation created a reasonable

possibility of access. We take up each in turn.

 

1

 “Absent evidence of access, a ‘striking similarity’ between the works

may give rise to a permissible inference of copying.” Baxter v. MCA.,

Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court noted that

Loomis had not presented any evidence or argument regarding striking

similarly, and Loomis has not advanced that theory on appeal.

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 6 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 7

A. Access Through Intermediaries

“[E]vidence that a third party with whom both the

plaintiff and defendant were dealing had possession of

plaintiff’s work is sufficient to establish access by the

defendant.” 4 Meville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer

on Copyright § 13.02[A] (2015); Kamar Int’l, Inc. v. Russ

Berrie & Co., 657 F.2d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1981). “[T]he

dealings between the plaintiff and the intermediary and

between the intermediary and the alleged copier must involve

some overlap in subject matter to permit an inference of

access.” Meta-Film Assocs., Inc. v. MCA, Inc., 586 F. Supp.

1346, 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1984); id. at 1355–58 (citing cases

where the intermediary “either was a supervisor with

responsibility for the defendant’s project, was part of the

same work unit as the copier, or contributed creative ideas or

material to the defendant’s work,” id. at 1355–56). For

example, in Kamar, we held that access was established by

the fact that the defendant purchased stuffed animals from a

manufacturer that had previously made stuffed animals for

the plaintiff based on the plaintiff’s copyrighted designs. 

657 F.2d at 1060–62; see also De Acosta v. Brown, 146 F.2d

408, 410 (2d Cir. 1944) (sufficient evidence of access where

plaintiff submitted her work to a literary agent who thereafter

was consulted by the defendant for input on the infringing

work).

By contrast, multiple courts have held that a plaintiff

“cannot create a triable issue of access merely by showing

‘bare corporate receipt’ of her work by an individual who

shares a common employer with the alleged copier.” Bernal

v. Paradigm Talent &Literary Agency, 788 F. Supp. 2d 1043,

1056 (C.D. Cal. 2010); see, e.g., Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony

Records, 351 F.3d 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2003). “Rather, it must be

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 7 of 13
8 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

reasonably possible that the paths of the infringer and the

infringed work crossed.” Towler v. Sayles, 76 F.3d 579,

582–83 (4th Cir. 1996) (requiring a “close relationship” for

the corporate receipt doctrine to apply); see also Jones v.

Blige, 558 F.3d 485, 491–92 (6th Cir. 2009) (affirming

summary judgment for the defendant where plaintiff

submitted her work to a senior vice president at Universal

because there was no evidence that the vice president had any

contact with anyone involved in the creation of the allegedly

infringing work).

Loomisidentified several potential intermediariesthrough

whom he alleged Defendants might have gotten access to his

song.

SunnyElle Lee worked for UMG Recordings as an Artists

and Repertoire Representative. In May of 2010, Lee emailed

Loomis’s mother, Kristin Loomis, who acted as

administrative coordinator for the band, to request a copy of

Bright Red Chords. The band furnished Lee a copy of the

song. Loomis argues that this chain of events created a

triable issue of access because Lee’s responsibility as an

A&R representative was to “find” and “share” music. 

Loomis posits that because Lee was successful in her job and

received a promotion, a reasonable juror could extrapolate

that she provided Bright Red Chords to the Domino

songwriters. He further argues that Lee’s solicitation of

Bright Red Chords makes this case distinguishable from the

“bare corporate receipt” cases.

We disagree. On the record before us, there is no

evidence of a nexus between Lee and the Domino songwriters

that would be sufficient to raise a triable issue of access. See

Jorgensen, 351 F.3d at 53 (“Bare corporate receipt . . . ,

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 8 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 9

without any allegation of a nexus between the recipients and

the alleged infringers, is insufficient to raise a triable issue of

access.”). In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Loomis

did not dispute Defendants’ statementthat “[t]he five Domino

Writers do not know, have never met, and have never

received anything from Sunny Elle Lee.” He also did not

dispute that “Lee was not part of the work unit that created

Domino.” There was no evidence presented beyond mere

speculation from Loomis himself to show that Lee had any

role or input on any of Jessie J’s music or recordings. 

Therefore, it is not “reasonably possible that the paths of the

infringer and the infringed work crossed.” Towler, 76 F.3d at

582.

Casey Hooper played lead guitar for Loomis and the Lust

from September of 2009 to April of 2010. Hooper did not

perform on the recording of Bright Red Chords, but he did

perform the song live on MTV and at various shows. He left

the band in April of 2010 to join Katy Perry’s band.

Loomis argues that Hooper could have provided the

Domino songwriters with access to Bright Red Chords in two

ways. First, Loomis asserts that Hooper worked with Dr.

Luke and Max Martin in early 2010 on a ten-day recording

session for Katy Perry’s album Teenage Dream. Loomis did

not testify that he had personal knowledge of Hooper’s

involvement in the project. Rather, he claimed that Tucker

Bodine, an owner of the studio and an assistant engineer on

Teenage Dream, told him that Hooper was involved in the

project.

Loomis’s argument fails because he did not submit any

potentially admissible evidence that would show that Hooper

was involved in the Teenage Dream sessions. See Fed. R.

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 9 of 13
10 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

Civ. P. 56(c)(2) (“A party may object that the material cited

to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that

would be admissible in evidence.”). The only evidence that

Loomis provided was his hearsay report of alleged statements

by Bodine. See Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269,

1276–77 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Because the affidavit was not

based on personal knowledge and because it relied on

inadmissible hearsay testimony, the district court properly

rejected it.”). That is not enough to survive summary

judgment.

Loomis’s second argument is that a triable issue of access

was established by evidence that Hooper was involved in

Katy Perry’s movie “Part of Me.” Loomis testified that the

packaging from the film shows that Hooper appeared as a cast

member and that he received songwriting credits on two

tracks. He further testified that Dr. Luke and Max Martin are

listed as co-producers of the movie. This theory is deficient

because there is no evidence detailing the responsibilities of

Hooper, Dr. Luke, or Max Martin with respect to the film, let

alone evidence that demonstrated that they actually worked

together and were in personal contact.2 Nothing in the record

shows the requisite nexus between Hooper and the Domino

songwriters except for Loomis’s own speculation. “[M]ere

allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for

purposes of summaryjudgment.” Nelson v. Pima Community

College, 83 F.3d 1075, 1081–82 (9th Cir. 1996).

2 We do not have the packaging from Part of Me in the appellate record,

but the Internet Movie Database indicates that at least 59 individuals

appeared in the movie, that at least 34 individuals received production

credit, and that many others worked on the project. See

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2215719/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast (last

checked August 25, 2016).

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 10 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 11

Loomis also argues that Sean Walsh, Bonnie McKee, Sam

Hollander, and Tucker Bodine could have served as conduits

between Bright Red Chords and the Domino songwriters. 

But Loomis did not raise these arguments before the district

court in his opposition to summary judgment, so they were

waived. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc.,

948 F.2d 536, 546 n. 15 (9th Cir. 1991) (“It is well

established that an appellate court will not reverse a district

court on the basis of a theory that was not raised below.”). 

Loomis conceded, in any event, that he did not have any

admissible evidence to support these access theories.

B. Widespread Dissemination

A copyright plaintiff, alternatively, may establish a

reasonable possibility of access by “showing that the

plaintiff’s work has been widely disseminated.” Art Attacks

Ink, 581 F.3d at 1143. “The evidence required to show

widespread dissemination will vary from case to case.” L.A.

Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841, 847

(9th Cir. 2012). In most cases, the evidence of widespread

dissemination centers on the degree of a work’s commercial

success and on its distribution through radio, television, and

other relevant mediums. See, e.g., Rice v. Fox Broadcasting

Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2003); Art Attacks Ink,

581 F.3d at 1144–45; Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 483.

We have also recognized a doctrinal variant that focuses

on saturation in a relevant market in which both the plaintiff

and the defendant participate. In L.A. Printex, we held that a

triable issue of access existed where (1) the plaintiff’s fabric

design had saturated the fabric market for apparel vendors in

Los Angeles over a four-year period, and (2) the defendant

routinely participated in the Los Angeles fabric market during

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 11 of 13
12 LOOMIS V. CORNISH

that period. 676 F.3d at 848. This, we held, created “a

‘reasonable possibility’ that Defendants had an opportunity

to view and copy L.A. Printex’s design.” Id.; see also Peel &

Co., Inc. v. Rug Market, 238 F.3d 391, 397 (5th Cir. 2001)

(holding that plaintiff raised a triable issue of access as to

whether its rug design “was widelydisseminated among those

involved in the United States rug trade”).

Loomis submits that this case is similar. He argues that

Domino songwriters Dr. Luke and Max Martin were in Santa

Barbara for the Teenage Dream sessions at a time when Santa

Barbara was saturated with Bright Red Chords. Loomis

testified that the band was receiving “tons of airplay” on local

radio stations at that time, and that Mix Magazine, Billboard,

and the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper had carried

stories about the band’s achievements. Loomis also testified

that he had deposited promotional copies of Bright Red

Chords at Playback Studios in the weeks leading up to the

Teenage Dream sessions, and that the studio kept copies of

Mix Magazine and the Santa Barbara Independent in the

break room. 

The fact that Dr. Luke and Max Martin spent ten days

recording an album for a major national recording artist in

Santa Barbara during a period when the local music scene

was saturated with Bright Red Chords does not raise a triable

issue of access. Unlike the defendants in L.A. Printex, Dr.

Luke and Max Martin were not participating in the relevant

market – the Santa Barbara local music scene – during their

brief stay in Santa Barbara. Their production responsibilities

had nothing to do with listening to local radio, reading local

press, or scouting local bands, and there was no evidence that

they undertook any other activity in that market that created

a reasonable possibility of access to Bright Red Chords. 

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 12 of 13
LOOMIS V. CORNISH 13

Although there was a bare possibility that they heard Bright

Red Chords on the radio, or that they read about Loomis and

the Lust in a magazine in the break room of Playback Studios,

or that they picked up one of Loomis’s promotional CDs

while at Playback, that is not enough to raise a triable issue of

access. See, e.g., Nimmer, supra at § 13.02[A] (explaining

that “evidence showing that Gloria Estefan was present in a

room with 15,000 records, including one containing

plaintiff’s song” was insufficient to demonstrate access

(discussing Palmieri v. Estefan, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1382, 1383

(S.D.N.Y. 1995))).3

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff’s arguments in this case tell a story that, if

adequately substantiated, might have survived summary

judgment. The problem is that it was not supported by

potentially admissible evidence. At bottom, the record

consists primarily of Loomis’s speculations of access

unsupported by personal knowledge. The other evidence did

not fill the breach. The district court did not err in granting

summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

3

In his reply brief, Loomis argued that evidence of Bright Red Chords’s

dissemination in retail chains and evidence of its multi-media publicity

campaign raised a triable issue of access. Loomis waived this argument

by failing to make it in his opening brief. See Cruz v. Int’l Collection

Corp., 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th Cir. 2012). Even if it were otherwise,

Loomis’s argument is belied by the fact that he was only able to document

46 sales of Bright Red Chords. See Rice, 330 F.3d at 1178 (holding that

because the plaintiff’s video “only sold approximately 17,000 copies

between 1986 and 1999,” it could not be considered “widely

disseminated” despite some evidence of national publicity).

 Case: 13-57093, 09/02/2016, ID: 10110913, DktEntry: 66-1, Page 13 of 13