FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 9, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK 

### [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16342 N on -A rgum ent C al endar

________________________ D
. C. D o c k e t N o . 0 6

- 2 0 0 7 9

- CV

- PCH L I L ’ J O E W E I N M U S I C , I N C ., a F l or i da c or por a t i on, P la in tif f

- A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s C U R T I S J A M E S J A C K S O N , a .k .a 5 0 c e n t, S H A D Y R E C O R D S , I N C
. , a N e w Y or k C or por a t i on, A F T E R M A T H E N T E R T A I N M E N T , I N C ., a C a l i f or ni a C or por a t i on, I N T E R S C O P E R E C O R D S , I N C
. , a D e l a w a r e C or por a t i on, U N I V E R S A L M U S I C A N D V I D E O D I S T R I B U T I O N C O R P ., a C a l i f or ni a C or por a t i on, D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om t he U ni t ed S t at es D i st ri ct C ou rt f or t he S out he r n D i s t r i c t of F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 9, 2007) B ef ore W IL S O N , P R Y O R and H IL L , C i rc ui t Judg es P E R C U R I A M:2



### P l a i nt i f f , L i l ’ J oe W e i n M us i c , I nc . , s ue d de f e nda nt s C ur t i s J a m e s J a c ks on, p/ k/ a 50 C ent , S hady R ec ords, Inc. , Int er sc op e R ec ords, Inc. , U ni vers al M usi c & V id e o D is tr ib u tio n C o r p ., f o r c o p y r ig h t in f

r in g e m e n t, in v io la tio n o f 1 7 U .S .C . § 1 0 1 . P la in tif

f a s s e r te d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ r a p s o n g “I n D a C lu b ” in f r in g e s o n its copyri gh t for i t s r ap song “ It s Y ou r B i rt hd ay . ” T he di st ri ct court grant ed sum m ar y j ud gm ent for def

endant s, ho l di ng t hat pl ai nt i ff w as un abl e t o est abl i sh t hat t he “ In D a c lu b ” s o n g is s u b s ta n tia lly s im ila r to o r ig in a l, c o p y r ig h ta b le a s p e c ts o f “I ts Y our B i r t hda y . ” B a s e d upon t he w e l l

- r e a s one d a nd c om pr e he ns i ve opi ni on of t he d i s t r i c t c o u r t , w h i c h w e a t t a c h h e r e t o , w e a f f i r m. AF F I R ME D.L il’ J oe Wein’s complaint also alleg ed that De fenda nts’ DVD, “ 50 Cent: The New 1 B re e d, ” imp ro pe rl y

us e d L il’ Joe We in’ s c op y ri g hte d w or

k, “ IL ike I t, I

L ov e I t.” Th os e c la ims have be en pre viously

dismiss ed with pre

judice. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT SOUTH ERN DISTRICT OF F LORIDA CA SE N O.: 06 -2 00 79 -C IV -H UC K /SIM ON TON
L I L ’ JOE W EI

N MUSI C, I

NC., a F lorida Corporation, Plaintiff,
vs . CURTI S J AMES J ACKSON, p/k/a/ 50 CENT, SHADY RECORDS, I NC., a Ne w Yo rk Cor po ratio n, I

NT ERS CO PE R ECO RD S, IN C
. , a D e l aw ar e C o r

p o r a t i o n , U

N IV E R S A L MUSI C & VI DEO DI STRI BU TI ON CORP., a California Corporation,

De fe nd ants
. /

ORDER G RANTING

F INAL SUMMAR

Y JUDG MENT THI S MAT T E R i s befor e the Court upon De fenda nts’ Motion for Summary J udg ment [D.E. #43] , filed on S ep t em b er 6 , 2006. Plaintiff, L il’ J oe Wein Music, I nc. (“ L il’ J oe Wein”), has broug ht an ac t i o n p u rsuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq. , a sse rt ingthat th e De fe nd ants “ joi ntl y and seve rally , participated in the re production of t h e infringingworks . . . pre pare d derivative works . . . and distributed c opies or phonore cords of the copy ri gh t ed wo rks by

sale or othe r tr ans fer of owne rs hip .” Com pl. ¶ 1 9
. Sp e c if

ic a ll y , L il ’ Jo e We in

c la im s th a t D e f

e n d an ts ’ rap song “In Da Club” infring es on L il’ J oe Wein’s c opy rig ht f or its ra p song “It s Yo u r B i rt h d ay .” 1 B e c a us e L il’ Joe We in i s una ble to e sta

bli shthat th e “ In D a

Clu b” is s ub sta

nti a lly si mi lar t o
o ri gi n al , copy

rig htable aspe cts of “Its Your B irthday ,” De fenda nts are e ntitled to final summaryLuke per formed both a s a solo act a nd as a me mber of the g roup, “2 L ive Crew.” 2 2 judgme nt. I. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Luther Campbell (“ Campbell”), pr ofe s sionally known as L

uke, is the cre dited author of 2 the song“Its Your B irthday .” Campbell De cl. ¶ 4
. T h e l y rics to “Its Your B irthday” include the phrase “G o

_

_ _ _ _ , it’s y our birthday” re peate d with various prope r name s used in succe ssion. Although the re is some c on fu s i o n as t o t he exact date of the song ’s cr eation, it appea rs that Ca mp b e ll w r o te it in M ar c h o r Ap r il of 1994. See Weinberg er D ep. at 80:23-90:14. The song
wa s first rele ased on July 7, 1994 on the L

uke re cord, Fr e ak

for Life
. See D e f

. ’ s E x. 1 9 , Report of Judi th Finell, at 1 . “Its Your B irthday” later appea red on se vera l albums relea sed by Campb e ll’ s r e c or d c omp any , L uk e Re c or ds , w hic h h ave so ld in e xce ss o f 1 ,5 00 ,0 00 c op ie s. Weinberg er D ecl. ¶

20. Campbell has stated that the phra se, “‘ Go _____, it’s y our birthday ’ wa s a cha nt that was used a

nd hear d in the clubs and on ra dio prior to the cr eation of the song [si c] “It’s Your B irthday .” Campbell De cl. ¶ 4. L il’ Joe We in i s a

F lor ida c or po ratio n e ng a g e d in

the mus ic pu bl is hi ng bu sin e ss. Com pl. ¶ 2. L il’ J oe Wein acquir ed the c opy rig hts at issue in thi s ca s e at a b an k rupt cy sale a rising f rom the insolvency

of Campbell, L

uke Rec ords, and Jamdat Publi shing, a n entity owned by Campb e ll. L il’ Joe We in t he n b e c ame the re g ist e re d o wn e r o f mu si cal compos iti on c op y ri g hts for the song“Its Your B irthday” under the United St at es C opy

rig ht Office , Copy

rig ht PA 877- 745 i s s u ed August 4, 1997 (“745 Copy rig ht”). Id. ¶14. In addition, L il’ J oe Wein is the reg istered owne r of musica l composition copy rig hts for th e s o ng “Its Your B irthday (B onus Remix )” unde r the United St ates Copy rig ht Office , Copy

rig ht PA 1-072-403 issued Marc h 10,Th e re is n o s ub sta nti ve dif fe re nc e be tw e e n th e dif

fe re nt v e rs ion s f

or the purp os e s o f t

his 3 litigation. L ikewise, unless other wise spec ified, discussion of “Its Your B irthday” or “ In Da C l u b ” r e f e r t o a l l v e r s i o n s o f

th e s o n g s , r e s p e c t i v e l y.

3 2000 (“403 Copy

rig ht”). Id. ¶ 15.

3 De fe nd ant, Cur

tis Jac ks on , p/k /a 50 Ce nt ( “ Jac ks on ” or “ 50 Ce nt” ), is a

re c or din g art ist who re sides in Connecticut. Id. ¶ 3 . D e fe ndants , Sh a dy Re c or ds (“ Sha dy” ), Inte rs c op e Re c or ds , Inc. (“ I n t er s cope” ), and U niversal Music & Video Distribution Corp. (“Unive rsal”) , are companies involved in the r eco rd p ro d u ction and distribution business. Id. ¶¶ 4- 7. 50 Ce nt i s the a uth or of the so ng“ I n Da Club ,” wh ic h a pp e ars on the a lbum Get Rich or DieTryin’ , which
wa s r e le a se d o n F e br

ua ry 6, 20 03 . Jac ks on

De c l. ¶ 3. Th a t so ngop e ns wi th t he ly ri c s: Go , go , go , go G o , g o , g o s h aw ty It ’ s yo ur b i rth d ay We gon’ party

like it’s y o birthday We gon’ sip Bac ardi like it’s y our birthday And y ou know we don’ t give a f— I t’s not y our birthday
. Id. ¶ 4. 50 Cent aver s that cer

tain of those ly

rics ar e his orig inal cre ati on, while others a re “ phrase s [he ha d] he ard

a t hi p h op nightc lub s, str e e t pa rt ie s a nd oth e r h ip h op e ve nts fo r man y y e ars pr ior

to 1994.” Id. ¶ 6 . I nd e e d, De fe nd ants se t f or th n ume ro us ins tanc e s p re -d a tin g the c re a tio n o f “ I ts Your B irthday” whe re similar e x pressions of “ Go _____, it’s y our birthday” we re use d. L il’ J oe Wein has initiated t h i s l i t i gati on pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. , claiming that the words a

nd rhy thms of “In Da Club” infring e upon L il’ J oe Wein’s copy rig ht to “I ts Your B ir thd ay .” In th e ir

Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt, De fe nd ants argue that L il’ Joe We in’ s cla im for c opy rig ht infring ement must fail bec ause (1 ) t he phra ses at issue ar e not orig inal to L il’ J oe Wein’s songs, ( 2) the phra ses at issue ar e not copy rig htab l e, and (3) L il’ J oe Wein’s and4

Def endants’ w orks ar e not substantially simil ar. II. Discussion A. Stand ard of Review Summary judgme nt is appropriate if the plea dings, de positions, and affidavits show that the re is n o g e nu ine iss ue of mate ri a l f

a c t, a nd tha t th e mo vi ng pa

rt y is e nti tle d to jud g me nt a s a mat ter of law. F e d. R. C iv. P. 5 6( C) ; Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). An issue of fa ct is “mater ial” i f i t i s a l eg al eleme nt of the cla im under applica ble substantive law which mig ht affe ct the outcome of the ca se. Anderson v. L i b erty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1 98 6) ; Allen v. Tyson Foods , 121 F.3d 642, 646 ( 11th Cir. 199 7 ). An i ssue of fa ct is “g enuine” i f th e r e c o r d

t ak e na s a

w h o l e c o u l d

l e a d a r a t i o n a l tr i e r

o f f a c t t o f i n d f o r t h e n o n - m o v i n g p arty. Allen, 121 F.3d at 646

. On a mot ion for summary judgme nt, the Court must vi ew a ll the evi d en ce an d all fac tual infere nces dr awn ther efr om in the light most favorable to the nonmov in g p art

y , a nd de te rm ine wh e the r t

hat e vid e nc e c ou ld r e a so na bly su sta in a

jur y ve rd ic t. Celotex , 4 77 U. S. at 32 2- 23 ; Allen, 121 F.3d at 646. Whil e the bur den on the movant is g reat, the opposing pa rty has a duty

to present
a ff ir mativ e e vid e nc e in o rder to defeat a pr op e rl y su pp or te d mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252. A mere “scinti lla” of e vidence in favor of the non-moving party , or evidenc e that is mere ly

colora ble o r n o t s i gn ificantly

probative is not enoug h. Id. ; se e als o Mayfiel d v. Patterson Pump Co. , 101 F.3d 1371, 1376 ( 11th Cir. 1996) (conc lusory alleg ations and conje cture cannot be the basis for de nying summar y judgme nt). Under these standa

rds, cour ts have “ regularly

g rante d summary

judgme nt in copy

rig ht
case s where it is clear that the pla intiff cannot m ak e out t he ele ments of the cla im” of copy rig ht inf ri n g ement. Siskind v. Newton-John , 1 9 8 7 W L 1 1 7 0 1 a t* 4 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. M ay 2 2 , 1 9 8 7 )
. In5

approvingof the use of

summary judgme nt in copy

rig ht case s, the Second C i rcuit has noted that the re medy

“sig nal[s] an important deve lopment in the law of c opy rig ht, permitting co u rt s to put ‘a swif t end to meritless litigation’ an d to avoid leng thy and costly

trials.” Hoehling v. Univ ersal City Studios, Inc. , 618 F.2d 972, 977 ( 2d Cir. 1980) B. St anda r d forEst abl ishi ng C opy r igh t I nfri nge m e nt L il’ Joe We in m

us t pr ov e tw o e le me nts in o rd e r t o e sta bli shits pr im a fac ie claim for copy rig ht infri ng ement: (1) that it owns a valid copy rig ht in “I ts Your B irthday ,” and ( 2) that Def endants c opied cons tituent elements of the c opy rig hted work that are orig inal. Calhoun v. Lill enas Publ’g , 298 F.3d 1228, 1232 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Fe ist Pu bl’ns , I

nc . v . R ural T

e l. Serv. Co. , 4 99 U. S. 3 40 , 3 61 (1 99 1) ). I f L il’ Joe We in d oe s n ot have di rect pro of of c op ying , it
mus t e sta bli shtha t D e fe nd ants ha d a c c e ss t o “ I ts Y our B ir thday ,” and

that “ In D a

Clu b” is s o substantially

simil ar to “ I ts Your B irthday” that “a n aver ag e lay o b s erve r would re cog nize the alleg ed copy

as havingbeen a

ppropriate d from the ori gi n al work.” Original Appalachian Ar two rk s, In c . v . To

yLof t , 6 84 F .2 d 8 21 , 8 29 (1 1th Cir . 1 982). L il’ Joe We in h a s sh ow n th a t it has a v alid copy

rig ht in “I ts Your B irthday .” Howe ver, it has submitted no evidenc e of dire ct
co p yi n g. De fe n d an t s d o n o td i s p u t e t h at t h ey h adac ce s s t o t h e i m m en s el y p o p u l ar s o n g. Th e re f o r e , th e d e t e r

m i n a t i v e i s s u e b e f

o r e th e C o urti s w h e th e r th e tw o w o r

k s ar e s u b s ta nti a lly simil ar. C. Sub stantial Si m ilarity In o rd e r t o e sta

bli shsu bs tanti a l si mil ari ty , L il’ J oe W ein mu st s a tis fy a tw o- pr on g e d te st: (1)a n extrinsi c, objec tive test, and (2) an intrinsic, subjective te st. Herzog v

. Ca s t l e Roc k Entm’t , 1 9 3 F. 3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 5 7 ( 1 1 thC i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( ci t i n g Beal v. Param ount Pictures , 806 F. Supp. 963, 967 (N.D. G a. 1992), a

ff 'd , 2 0 F
. 3 d 4 5 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) )
. “ U n d e r th e e xtr i n s i c t e s t , a c ou rtwi ll6

inquire into whether , as an obje ctive matter , the works a re substantially simil ar in prote cted
e xpre ssi on .” As a

pa rt of thi s te st, the Court

wi ll d e te rm ine wh e the r L il’ Joe We in s e e ks to protec t only

uncopy rig htable ele ments; if so, the court will g rant summary judgme nt for defe ndant. Id. Under

the extrinsic test, ex pert testimony is ap p ro p ri ate. Id. Un de r t he int ri ns ic test, a co u rt will determine whe ther, upon prope r instruction, a re asonable jury would find that the works a

re substantially

simil ar. Beal , 806 F. Supp. at 967. Cop y ri g ht p ro te c tio n “ may

e xten d onl y to th ose c omp on e nts of a wo rk that are or ig ina l to the author.” Fe ist , 499 U.S. at 361. Although “ I ts Yo u r Bi rt h day” is entitled to copy rig ht protec tion as a work, not e very el em en t is protectible pe r se . Rogers v. Koons , 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1992). “[C] opy rig ht does not preve nt subsequent users f rom co p y i n g from a pr ior author ’s wo rk t h o s e constit uent eleme nts that are not or igina l . . . as long as such use does not unfairly app ro priate the author’s or igina l contributions.” Harper &Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nat io n E nte r. , 471 U.S. 539, 547-48 (1985). The question of substantial simil arity can be de c ide d a s a

matte r o f l aw o n a

mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt ei th er whe re the “ sim ila ri ty
conce rns only

noncopy rig htable ele ments of a plaint iff’s wor k, or whe n no rea sonable trier of fac t could find the works substantially s i m i l ar . ” Las sin v . I sla nd De f J am Mu sic , No. 04-22320- C I V at 6 (S
. D. Fl a. Au g. 8 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( q u o t i n g W alker v . Time Life Films, Inc. , 784 F.2d 44, 48 ( 2d Cir . 1 98 6) ). “ [W]he re we c omp are [wo rk s] t hat con tain bo th p ro te c tib le and un pr ote c tib le
e le me nts , o ur

ins pe c tio n mu st b e ‘m or e dis c e rn ing ’; we must att emp t to extr a c t th e un pr ote c tib le elements fr om our consider ation and ask whether the p r o te c ti b lee le m e n ts , s ta n ding alone , are substa n t i al l y

s i m ilar.” Knitw aves, I nc. v. Lollytogs Ltd. , 71 F.3d 996, 1002 ( 2d Cir. 1995) (empha sis in original, c itations omi tted). “ T h e copie d elements of a work must be orig inal and nontrivial to constitute improper appr opriation.” J e an v. B ug

Music , 2002 WL287785 at *5USENET is an online for um for “use rs to discuss, rea d about, or post messag es on a 4 particula r topic,” Ellison v. Robertson , 357 F.3d 1072, 1074 ( 9th Cir. 2004). 7 (S.D.N.Y. F eb. 27, 2002). “ Orig inal, as the ter m is used in copy

rig ht, means only

that the work
wa s in de pe nd e ntl y

c re a te d b y

the a uth or (a s o pp os e d t o cop ie d f ro m ot he r w or ks ), and that it possesses at lea st some minim al deg ree of cr eativity .” Fe ist , 499 U.S. at 345. “A s ign a tu

r e an d lo n g - s ta

n d in g f e a tu r e o f li v e p e r f

o r ma n c e r a p mu s ic is th e hip hop chant. The chant is a f

orm of audie nce e ng ag ement stag ed by the per former (m c, dj or rappe r) wh o p ro vid e s a

fa mil iar p hr a se or

saying , o ft e n in

c a ll a nd re sp on se fo rm a t, d e sig ne d to
e ne rg ize , in c lu de, affi rm and e ng a g e the a

ud ie nc e .” Re po rt

of Tr ic ia Ros e a t 2. B oth

Campb e ll and Jackson state that they had hea rd the disputed phra se of “ Go _____, its y our birt h d ay ” and that i t wa s a co mmon hip-hop chant. Numer ous postings on USENET, pre- dating the re lease of 4 “Its Your B irthday ,” include seve ral uses of the phra se “G o [name], i t’s y our birthday .” L ikewise, De fenda

nts make re fer ence to many additional song s an dbooks, dated a fter “ I ts Your B ir thd ay ” but be fo re “ I n Da Club ,” that us e va ri a tio ns of

the “ bir thd ay ” phra se wi tho ut l ic e ns e from L il’ J oe Wein. The De fenda

nts also s et fo rt h sever al spec ific examples of the use of the phra se bef

ore the cr e a tio n o f “ I ts Y our B ir thd ay .” F ir st, the De fe nd ants c ite the 19 93 fi lm W ho’s the Man? , s t arring D r. Dre and Ed L over ( “L over” ), two notable MTVpersona lities at the time. SeeDef
. Ex . 20. Ed L over, who play s an inept bar ber in the movie, g ives a c ustomer a p ar t i cu l ar ly awf ul hairc ut. I n an ef

fort to assuag e the distresse d customer, L over co m p ar es him to the famous ac tor Wesley Snipes. L over the n raps, “ Go Wes l ey , go W es l ey , g o g o g o Wesley , it’s y our birthday .” L ov e r s tate s th a t th e li n e “ w a s im p r o v is e d d

ur in g th e f

il mi n g an d w a s b a s ed on a c hant commonly

hear d at the time in nightc lubs and on the ra dio.” L over D ecl. ¶ 6.L i l ’ J o e W e i nc o n t e n d s th a t“ T h e B i rth d ay J am ” f a i l s t o p r o v e th a t“ It s Y o ur B i rth d ay” 5 is not original be cause the cr eator of the for mer wa s a par

ty to an exclusive song writing a g re e me nt w ithLuk e Re c or ds a t th e tim e he a lle g e dly c re a te d it . L il’ Joe We in a rgue s th a t it ow ns the ri g hts to “ Th e B ir thd ay Jam, ” the re fo re . T his argume nt i s in a pp os ite wi th r e sp e c t to whether the phra se at issue is orig inal in “I ts Your B irthday .” 8 Se c on d, De fe nd ants make re fe re nc e to t he so ng“ Th e B ir

thd ay Jam” by the Mia mi B a ss D J ’ s . T h e s o n g , r e l e a s e d o nJ un e 1 4 , 1 9 9 4 , c o n t a i n s th e l yr i c s , “ G o g r a n d d a d , It s yo ur b i rth d ay. Go g randda d, I ts y our birthday . . . Go g randma , I ts y our birthday . Go g randma , I ts y our birthday .” SeePl.’s Ex . 1. Def endants c oncede that they do not know whe t h er the song was
c re a te d b e fo re or

a ft e r “ I ts Y our B ir

thd ay ” wa s c re a te d. Ho we ve r, be c a us e “ Th e B ir

thd ay Jam”
was re lease d publicly

befor e “Its Your B irthday ,” it appea rs to have be en indepe ndently cre ated. 5 Finally , in a supplemental filing , Def endants set f

orth a songpublish ed o n M ar ch 1, 1993 : “ B o un c e ( I ts Y o ur B ir th d ay ) , ” b y th e In c r e d ib le Cr e w . T h e s o n g c o n ta in s th e ly rics “g o, g o , go, g o,” and “ Go [name], and “it’s y our birthday .” De fenda nts assert that the song incorpora tes ly rics and r hy thms that are identica l to “Its Your B irthday .” L il’ J oe Wein disputes the re l evanc e of this evidenc e. With respect to W ho’s the Man? , L il’ Joe Wei n c on te nd s: (1 ) that the De fe nd ants fa il to de sc ri be ho w the lin e is s po ken in te rm s of rhy thms, m el o d i es and rhy

thmatic place ment and the nature of its similarity to the song s at issue in t h i s case ; (2) that the ly rics ar e har dly

discerna ble to the ordinar

y listener without sp ec ialized lis tening equipment; and (3) that there was a n issue of conte sted fac t as to whether the film was in circ ulation or distribution such that it could b e co n s i d ere d the source or inspiration for “Its Your B irthday .” The Court disag ree s. L il’ J oe Wein’s own expert, Judi th Fine l l (“Finell”), states that eve ry element of simil arity that exis ts betwee n “In Da Club” a nd “I ts Your B irthday ” i s p resent in W ho’s theSee, e .g. , Roge r Eber t, Y o! MTV Duo W

raps Up a Star-Making Comedy , Chi. S un- 6 Times, Apr. 23, 1993, (Wee kend Plus) at 42; J anet Ma slin, Rev iew/Film: Dialing 911? Don’t Bother , N.Y. Times, Apr il 23, 1993. 9 Man? . F ine ll r e a c he d a

sim ila r c on c lus ion

wi th r e sp e c t to “Th e Birt hday Jam, ” fi nd ingthe on ly differ ence to be the use of differ ent p roper names. The Court, without the assistance of a ny specia liz ed listening equi p m en t , viewed the seg ment of W ho’s the Man? and

ha d n o d if

fi c ult y dis c e rn ingthe ly

ri c s. Mo re ov e r, L ov e r’ s d ecl arat io n only se rv e s to c on fi rm

the ly ri c a l c on te nt. Finally , the Court takes judicial not i ce , o n t h e basis of se vera l newspape r ar ticles discussing the fi lm, that W

ho’s the Man? re c e ive d w ide c omm e rc ia l di str ibutio n. B y arguin g that

the fi lm 6 could not have s erve d as the sourc e or inspiration of “I ts Your B irthday ,” L il’ J oe Wein misses the point. Defe ndants do not contend that L il’ J oe Wein infring ed on anothe r’s c opy ri gh t , but simply that the phra se at issue wa s a common hip-hop cha nt at the time. I ts presenc e in W ho’s the Man? serve s to bolster that notion. L il’ J oe Wein offe rs no ev i d en ce to sug g est that “Go ______, its y our birthday” wa s orig inal to “Its Yo ur B irthday .” Of particula r note is the fa ct that the author of the wor

k, Campb e ll, him se lf

a dmi ts that he did

no t c re a te the phra se , b ut bo rrowe d it fr om p op ula

r c ha nts
a t th e tim e. L il ’ J oe Wei n th us fa ils to m e e t Fe ist ’s essential r equire ment that an ele ment be “indepe ndently

cre ated.” L il’ J oe Wein argues th at even if those ly rics we re not orig inal, the ly rics in combination with the rhy thms, beats, a

nd melodies are in fac t orig inal. This argument is belied by

the testimony

of L il’ J oe Wein ‘s own expert, Judi th Finell. Althoug h she does
re c og nize sim ila

ri tie s b e tw e e n “ I ts Y our B ir thd ay ” and

“ In D a Clu b, ” she saw th os e same simil arities in W

ho’s the Man? and “T he B irthday J am.” L il’ J oe W ei n d i dnot submit any
e vid e nc e re futin g De fe nd ants ’ a rgume nt t hat “ B ounc e (I t’s Y our B ir thd ay )” inc or po ra te s th os e“F or the uninitiated, much of r ock music sounds the same, a nd a hasty

compar ison . . . 7 could re sult in a finding of superf icial similarity .” Tisi v. Patrick, 97 F. Supp. 2d 539, 543 (S .D .N .Y . 2 00 0) . T he same c ou ld b e sa id a bo ut t he hip -h op mus ic a t is su e in t his c a se . A s in Tisi , “ [a] c los e r r e vie w o f t he tw o c omp os iti on s r e ve a ls, ho we ve r, tha t th e y are sig nif

ic antl y 10 exa c t s ame s im il ar it ie s . F urth e r mo r e , F in e ll f

a il e d to e xp r e s s an y o p in io n a s to th e o r ig in a lity of L il’ Joe We in’ s u se of

the c on te ste d p hr a se . A c c or din g ly , b e c a us e the “ bir

thd ay ” phra se wa s a common, unorig inal, and noncopy rig htable ele ment of the song , it is not entitled to copy rig ht protec tion. Othe r c ourt s d e a lin g wi th c ommon phra se s o r c ha nts have re a c he d s imi lar c on c lus ion s. See, e .g. , Jean , at *5 -6 (f ind ingtha

t th e a seq uen ce of thr e e no te s and ly ri c s la c ke d r e qu isi te
or ig ina lity

); Acuff-Rose M

usic, Inc. v . Jostens, Inc

. , 155 F.3d 140, 144 ( 2d Cir. 1 9 98) (f inding that a pr ior -u se d p hr a se wa s n ot d e se rv ingof c op y ri g ht p ro te c tio n) ; B o o n e v . J a c k s on , 2005 WL 1560511 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2005). As in those ca ses, Def endants he re ha

ve shown that the disputed phrase i s unprotectible be cause it uses a common musical and ly rica l phrase that has been use in other prior wo rk s . L il’ J oe Wein points to Positive Black Talk Inc. v . Cash Money Rec ords, 2003 WL1921999 (E.D. L a. Apr il 21, 2003), wh ich re fused to g rant summary jud g me nt b a se d u

po n d e fe nd ant’ s c la ims that th e phrase a t is su e wa s a c omm on hip -h op c ha

nt. Th e re , h ow e ve r, the pla int if f a c tua lly a sse rt e d th a t he wa s th e c re a tor of the c omm on

c ha nt. He re , to the c on tr ary , th e a uth or of the phra se in que sti on

c on c e de s th a t he bo rr ow e d it fr om h is
e xpe ri e nc e s at hip -h op e ve nts and nightc lub s. B e c a

us e L il’ Joe We in’ s a c tio n s e e ks on ly to pr ote c t un

pr ote c tib le mate ri a l, i t f

a ils the e xtri ns ic te st. To the extent the Defe ndants eve n conce ded t h at it did copy the “birthda

y ” phra se portion of the song , L il’ J oe Wein s t i l l fails the intrinsic test. Outside of that limited “birthday phrase ,” there are virtually

no simil arities betwe en the c ontested works. Indeed, L il’ J oe Wein does not 7differ ent. Even to one unverse d in the g enre , the two song s can be hear d to be quite dissimil ar.”

Id. 11 alleg e that any

aspec t of “In Da Club” infr inges u p o n “Its Your B irthday” other than the initial “birthday” sec tion. Once those non-p ro t ectible elements are remove d, no simil arities re main. Moreove r, t he disputed phra se, althoug h prominently place d at the beg inning of “In Da Club,” repr esents only

approximately

eleve n seconds of

a thre e-minute, thirtee n-sec ond song
. See, Jean , at *5 (finding that in ma king a deter

mination of whether the copying is so t ri v i al as t o be considere d demi nim is , the Court should consider the am o unt of the copy rig hted work that was
c op ie d) . It is , th e re fo re , th e fi nd ingof the Court

that L il’ Joe We in f

ails the int

ri ns ic te st a s w e ll b e c a u s e th e “ av e r a g e l ay o b s e r v e r ” w o u l d

n o tc o n f u s e th e tw o w o r

k s . N o r e a s o n a

b l e j u r y, proper ly instructed, could c onclude that L il’ J oe Wein’s and the D efendants’ c ompositi ons are substantially

simil ar. III. Conclusion For all of the for eg oing r easons, having c onsidered the parties’ submissi ons and being duly advised in the pre mises, Defe ndants’ Motion for Summary J udg ment is hereby GRANTED a

nd the complaint i s DIS MI SSED. All pending motions are here by DENI ED AS MOOT. DONE A ND ORDERED in Chamber s, Miami, Florida, this October 27, 2006.

______________________________ Paul C. Huck Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge Copies fu rnished to: All Counsel of Record