What did Batiste v. Lewis hold?

Batiste v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2020), affirmed summary judgment for Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. The Fifth Circuit held that a music copyright plaintiff must identify specific protectable expression that survives filtration — filtering out genre conventions, standard musical devices, and unprotectable elements — before a substantial similarity comparison can proceed. A claim based on general stylistic or sonic similarity does not survive summary judgment.

Can you sue for music copyright infringement based on similar style or feel?

No. Batiste v. Lewis holds that a claim based on general stylistic similarity — a similar sonic feel, groove, or production character — does not survive summary judgment. The plaintiff must identify specific protected expression (after filtering out unprotectable elements) that appears in both works. Style, feel, and genre presence are not protectable.

What songs were at issue in Batiste v. Lewis?

Paul Batiste alleged that Macklemore & Ryan Lewis songs including 'Thrift Shop,' 'Can't Hold Us,' 'Same Love,' and 'Otherside' infringed his compositions. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Batiste had not identified specific protectable expression that survived filtration and appeared in the defendants' works.

Batiste v. Lewis (Macklemore) Musicologize

Q: What is filtration in music copyright law?

Filtration is the process of removing unprotectable elements from both works before comparing what remains for substantial similarity. Unprotectable elements include ideas, genre conventions, standard musical devices, scènes à faire, public domain material, common rhythmic patterns, and standard chord progressions. What survives filtration is the specific original expression that attracts copyright protection. Batiste v. Lewis enforces filtration as a summary judgment requirement.

A music copyright plaintiff who relies on general stylistic similarity — claiming that a defendant’s work has the same feel, groove, or vibe — will not survive summary judgment. After filtering out all unprotectable elements, the plaintiff must identify specific expression that is both (1) original to the plaintiff’s work and (2) substantially similar to specific expression in the defendant’s work. Batiste v. Lewis, 976 F.3d 493 (5th Cir. 2020), is the case that enforces this requirement at the pleading and summary judgment stage.

What happened

Paul Batiste is a New Orleans-based musician and composer. He alleged that multiple songs by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis — including “Thrift Shop,” “Can’t Hold Us,” “Same Love,” and “Otherside” — infringed his compositions. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

The core problem with Batiste’s claims was that he could not, after filtering, identify what specific protected expression had been copied. His expert testimony and his own characterization of the similarities operated at the level of general style and feel. The works shared a certain sonic character — hip-hop influenced productions with New Orleans musical sensibility — but sonic character is not copyrightable. What he had to show, and could not show, was that the specific protected expression in his registered compositions appeared in the defendants’ songs.

The filtration requirement at summary judgment

Filtration is the step that requires courts to separate the unprotectable from the protectable before comparing what remains. The elements that must be filtered out include: ideas, genre conventions, standard musical devices, scènes à faire, public domain material, common rhythmic patterns, and standard chord progressions. What survives filtration is the specific, original expression that the plaintiff’s work contributed — the particular combination of choices that distinguishes it from the background of available musical material.

In Batiste, the Fifth Circuit found that after filtering, Batiste had not identified any specific protected expression that appeared in the defendants’ works. The similarities he pointed to — rhythmic feel, production character, general harmonic approach — were either genre conventions or public domain devices. None of them traced to specific expression that he had created and the defendants had copied.

The case makes filtration into a pleading-stage and summary judgment stage requirement, not merely a trial question. A plaintiff who cannot identify protectable expression after filtering does not get to submit the question to a jury. The failure occurs before the extrinsic test even runs, because there is nothing protectable left to compare.

What this means for plaintiffs

A copyright complaint that alleges stylistic similarity — “the defendant’s work sounds like mine” — is not sufficient to survive summary judgment after Batiste. The plaintiff must be able to identify, with specificity, what protected expression was copied. That requires filtering out the genre conventions, the public domain material, and the standard musical devices, and then pointing to the residue of original creative expression that appears in both works.

That identification requires musical analysis, not just listening. Genre conventions and public domain devices sound like music. Filtering them out requires knowing what they are and being able to distinguish them from original creative choices. That is the forensic musicology task: to perform the filtration analysis rigorously and identify, in technical musical terms, what the plaintiff’s original expression actually consists of and where it appears in the defendant’s work.

The connection to other cases

Batiste connects to the broader filtration jurisprudence in Gray v. Perry (unprotectable ostinato) and Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin (building blocks not protectable). All three cases enforce the same core principle: copyright protects specific original expression, not style, feel, or genre presence. Batiste does this at the Fifth Circuit level and at the pleading stage, making it the procedural chokepoint case for claims that cannot survive disciplined filtration.

The musical analysis is mine. Legal advice is your attorney’s.