Jackson v. Destiny's Child

Background

Jouan Jackson proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he owned copyrights in a “Photofinish” song collection, including “Assumptions Day,” “Made A Champion,” “That A Be Cool,” and “Niche J. Dime.” He claimed that Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter, Kelly Rowland, Rodney Jerkins, Fred Jerkins III, Vincent Herbert, Latavia Roberson, Letoya Luckett, Beyoncé Publishing, Inc., Parkwood Entertainment, LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, Columbia Records, and the Estate of Lashawn Daniels infringed those works.

Jackson alleged that he submitted a demo to people connected to Rodney Jerkins in 1997 and that a track from the demo was later recorded by Destiny’s Child. He identified “Say My Name” and other songs and albums as allegedly infringing works. He also alleged infringement involving songs by Kelly Rowland and Beyoncé and said that an artificial-intelligence application and a later musicologist’s report helped him identify similarities. He requested an injunction, actual and statutory damages, profits, attorney’s fees and costs, destruction of unauthorized copies, and interest.

Court’s analysis

Because Jackson was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the Court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, sought relief from an immune defendant, or failed to state a legally sufficient claim. The Court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual detail to make entitlement to relief plausible.

The Court first addressed claims based on an alleged copyright in the musical compositions. Relying on its analysis in a prior related proceeding, the Court concluded that Jackson had not alleged facts showing that he owned a registered copyright in the musical compositions in the Photofinish collection. The Court stated that the registration materials showed only a lyrics-only copyright. It therefore dismissed the musical-composition infringement claims for failure to state a claim.

The Court next addressed the lyrics-only copyright claims. It assumed, for purposes of the order, that at least some claims might be timely and that New York was a proper venue. The Court nevertheless found that Jackson’s comparisons of his lyrics with the defendants’ works did not show that any defendant actually copied his work or that the works were substantially similar. To the extent the alleged similarities involved common words, phrases, or themes, the Court stated that those elements were not copyrightable. The Court dismissed the lyrics-only infringement claims for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It denied further leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The Court warned that further vexatious, frivolous, or otherwise nonmeritorious copyright litigation could lead to restrictions on Jackson’s ability to file new federal copyright actions in that court without prior permission. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson fee-free status for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.