Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Seventh Circuit Limits Inverse-Ratio Rule in Copyright Infringement Cases
Practical Law Legal Update 7-520-9982 (Approx. 4 pages)
Seventh Circuit Limits Inverse-Ratio Rule in Copyright Infringement Cases
by PLC Intellectual Property & Technology
| Published on 20 Aug 2012 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Peters v. West, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court decision that the hip-hop artist Kanye West did not infringe the plaintiff's copyrighted work. Notably, the court rejected the use of the inverse-ratio rule for copyright infringement to allow weaker proof for similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original based on the accused infringer's strong proof of access to the original.
Key Litigated Issues
The key litigated issue in Peters v. West was whether the district court erred in finding that the defendant's work and the plaintiff's work were not similar enough to support the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit considered whether the inverse-ratio rule applies to lower the degree of similarity necessary to show copying where there is strong evidence of that the defendant had an opportunity to copy the allegedly infringed work (access).
Background
The plaintiff, Vincent Peters, wrote, recorded and distributed a song entitled Stronger. In November 2006, while searching for an executive producer for his debut album, Peters met with John Monopoly, who is a record producer and Kanye West's close friend and business manager. Peters played Stronger for Monopoly and at the end of their meeting, left Monopoly a copy of the song. Due to financial reasons, Peters and Monopoly never worked together on Peters' album.
In July 2007, West released a song titled Stronger (Stronger KW). Monopoly was listed as West's manager on the notes to the album containing Stronger KW.
Peters believed there were several infringing similarities between his 2006 song and West's 2007 song. After registering the copyright in his song with the US Copyright Office, Peters sued West for copyright infringement in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim.
Outcome
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in its August 20, 2012 opinion. The court agreed that Peters' claim for copyright infringement fails as a matter of law because the two songs are not substantially similar.
Because Peters registered his copyright in Stronger with the Copyright Office, it was undisputed that he made a prima facie showing of his copyright ownership in the song lyrics. Therefore, the principal question was whether there was copying. In the absence of direct evidence of actual copying, the court looked to whether:
- West had access to the Peters' work.
- The two works met the necessary standard of similarity.
After reviewing its own precedent and standards other circuit courts have used to demonstrate copying in the absence of direct evidence, the Seventh Circuit clarified that the inverse-ratio rule does not apply to allow a lower degree of similarity to show copying where there is strong evidence of access.
Opportunity to Copy Peters' Song Lyrics
The court concluded that the following allegations were sufficient to support the inference that West had an opportunity to copy Stronger:
- Monopoly had access to Peters' song because:
- Monopoly actually heard the song during a meeting with Peters; and
- Peters gave Monopoly copies of the song on two separate occasions.
- West collaborated and had a close relationship with Monopoly, who could have passed Peters' song to him during the production of West's album.
Insufficient Evidence of Similarity Between the Songs
Although West had the opportunity to copy Peters' song lyrics, the Seventh Circuit held that Peters failed to show sufficient similarity between the song lyrics to support the copyright infringement claim.
Before proceeding with its analysis, the court reviewed the differences among the circuits concerning the relationship between the:
- Strength of proof of access to an original work.
- Degree of similarity between the allegedly infringing work and the original.
The court noted that some courts apply the inverse-ratio rule, where the strength of proof of similarity required to show copying varies inversely with proof of access. Under Seventh Circuit precedent, evidence that two works are very similar can suggest that the alleged infringer had access to the original. However, the court refused to adopt the inverse to that rule, that a high degree of access justifies a lower standard of proof for similarity. The court reasoned that determining access to the original is independent of determining whether an alleged infringer breached his duty not to copy another's work.
Based on this analysis, after proving access, Peters still had to point to similarities between the two songs to show that West actually copied the song lyrics. The court rejected Peters' argument that the two songs are similar based on the facts that:
- The songs have the same title, derived from a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche ("what does not kill me, makes me stronger").
- The hooks of both songs derive from the same common maxim and implement similar rhyme schemes.
- Both songs contain references to the British model Kate Moss.
Instead, the court concluded that:
- The Nietzsche aphorism is a common saying that has been repeatedly used in song lyrics during the past century.
- The argument that West's song infringes on the rhyme pattern that Peters uses misapprehends the nature of Peters' copyright, which protects actual expression, but not methods of expression.
- The lyrics that reference Kate Moss are entirely different in the two songs and referring to models as a shorthand for beauty is common.
Ultimately, the court held that because the two songs share only small, cosmetic similarities, Peters' claim for copyright infringement fails as a matter of law.
Practical Implications
The Seventh Circuit's decision is noteworthy because it clarifies the Seventh Circuit's standard for establishing copying by indirect evidence. Specifically, the court expressly rejected the application of the inverse-ratio rule to allow weaker proof for similarity based on proof of a high degree of access. Instead, the copyright owner must still separately prove that the allegedly infringing work is a copy of the original, based on the similarities of the two works, even after proof that the alleged infringer had the opportunity to copy the original.