Or maybe it’s my problem.
After the judge in Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You” infringement case not only dismissed Vince Vance’s copyright infringement claim at the summary judgment stage, but the ruling also laid the foundation for possibly awarding nearly $200,000 in legal fees that I’m guessing the plaintiff was not factoring when he embarked on this journey.
Plaintiffs don’t wade so far out without a bit of encouragement. Various players implicitly take your hand and walk you out to deep waters.
Decisions like the one made this week by the Ninth Circuit will lead to more drownings. If you’d care to read it:
I’m bewildered. I’m thinking about the imperiled Vince Vance, whom I consider deluded and misled, as well as defendants in recent high-profile infringement cases, Mariah Carey, Ed Sheeran, Pharrell Williams, and countless others who’ve had to defend against barely plausible claims in an overly indulgent system. Sheeran missed his grandmother’s funeral because he had to sit in a New York courtroom where a ludicrous verdict against him and “Thinking Out Loud” was a distinct possibility.
Our 9th Circuit vs 2nd Circuit analysis digs into how these jurisdictional differences affect outcomes.
Copyright, and from what I can tell, trademark law too, are where innocent until proven guilty is turned on its head. And the Ninth Circuit is more concerned with ensuring the accuser gets their day, not merely in court, but before a jury of their peers. The jury will not be Sam Smith’s peers. They were not Ed Sheeran’s peers. They will understand a fraction of what substantial similarity is.
Something is wrong with all of this.
