Last week, a judge dismissed what is almost certainly the last of Vince Vance’s misguided “All I Want For Christmas Is You” lawsuits.
No surprise there. I’ve explained multiple times why the case was fundamentally flawed from the outset. The dismissal is the right outcome. AND YET I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the plaintiff might get hit with six figures in legal fees. Or at least, I’m left thinking something else still needs to be addressed.
Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You” quite absolutely does not infringe Vince Vance’s track of the same name. The two works share a title and some familiar holiday sentiment, but those are not protectable elements. Beyond that, the songs diverge significantly — both musically and lyrically. Their similarity ends where the copyright begins, and the details have been covered on Musicologize more than enough. Right and wrong here is clear enough in my eyes.
Carey is now pursuing nearly $200,000 in attorney’s fees, and the judge has imposed sanctions — a rare and telling move, referring to “needless expenses responding to frivolous legal arguments and unsupported factual contentions.” Yes, I think I saw both.
Mariah Carey, of course, can afford to defend herself, but the court obviously questions why she—or Ed Sheeran, or any other high-profile artist—should be forced to absorb the stress, cost, and reputational burden of baseless claims? Needless to say, litigation is no picnic. It’s invasive, expensive, and emotionally exhausting. Even with the early dismissal, I’m actually a little surprised Carey’s legal costs weren’t even higher and it’s a testament to an efficient (but very expensive) legal team and the judge who rightly issued summary judgment. The plaintiff (from memory, I’ll look it up later) demanded something like 20 million dollars. Such a demand deserves a robust defense.
But the fact that this got as far along as it did — and that a poorly premised case like Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud vs Let’s Get It On” went all the way to a jury trial — raises uneasy questions for me.
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exists for a reason. It allows courts to sanction parties who file frivolous lawsuits: claims with no legal foundation, no credible evidence, and no business clogging up the system or racking up bills. I’m not a lawyer of course, I’m a musicologist, but none of this is murky. The challenge isn’t in understanding the rule — it’s in considering where the issues lie and applying the rule consistently. That certainly doesn’t happen.
I must admit that I was initially pleased to see the headline: “Mariah Carey asks for legal fees in ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ case.” I’d been bugged by this case since the start, long ago, and my first thought was “…and she should get them!” As many times as I’ve called this case “silly,” I naturally wanted to blame someone for what I considered its wastefulness. But I’m reviewing the situation.
No part of me imagines that Vince Vance is anything but sincere in believing he was wronged. I’ve said it so many times, partly because I think it’s counterintuitive: my clients are invariably sincere, and their attorneys want the straight scoop. I haven’t met a dishonest one yet. So I have to wonder if it’s being oversimplified — that the breakdown isn’t just between claimant and attorneys, and awarding legal fees is at least more punitive than preventative. We don’t need a scapegoat. Isn’t there a whole system letting too many shaky cases through the gate? Is it too complicated to ask why?
Again, kudos where due; this one was cut relatively short, and Carey walked away with summary judgment. It could’ve been worse, but she still evidently paid a six-figure bill. And Sheeran was far less lucky; despite the weakness of the case against him, he endured a full jury trial and missed his grandmother’s funeral to do it. That trial never should have happened. The evidence didn’t warrant it. And the process dragged on, and sorry, but these were extended partly by expert opinions with which I could find little agreement. To some extent, these plaintiffs were put up to it.
And do you know what? Right after I finish typing this, I will be responding to a music professor who somehow believes I’m wrong, “All I Want For Christmas Is You” and “Thinking Out Loud” are both infringing, and Carey and Sheeran both got away easy! What are we supposed to do about that? The music professor is wrong. But imagine you’re my sincere, righteous, and very deluded plaintiff; you go to the nearby university’s music program and get yourself an expert and a musicologists report. (Vince Vance got two. I think?) Opinions will be opinions, and far be it from me to not luxuriate in open-minded indulgence of sketchy ideas when I can, but where a cash register is going ka-ching every six minutes, there’s gotta be a counterbalance. Opinions get too much oxygen sometimes. These opinions were wrong. Quite frankly, a lot of musicologists don’t know what they’re talking about.
At the very least, let us be reminded that we musicologists, and experts generally, are central to all of this. We are not attorneys, but we often serve as the keystone in these cases. When a forensic musicologist weighs in, it needs to be from a place of truth over gamesmanship or partisanship. Copyright litigation demands intellectual honesty from experts tasked with guiding courts through complex musical questions.
And we’re not lawyers! A vigorous legal defense, or offense, is every artist’s right. That’s an attorney’s calling. But a vigorous expert opinion had better be built first on clarity, discipline, and fidelity to the facts.
That’s how we avoid wasting time and money and protect the system’s integrity. And especially protect our clients. I don’t know if Vince Vance owes Mariah Carey $185,000 or whatever the amount is, but I am inclined to think that several people owe them both an apology.
