LaGreca v. Universal Music Group

Background

Salvatore LaGreca sued Universal Music Group, alleging one count of copyright infringement involving his song, “Glow.” The opinion states that the defendant was incorrectly named as “Universal Music Group” in the complaint and case caption and identifies the defendant as UMG Recordings, Inc. The allegedly infringing song, also titled “Glow,” was recorded by Drake and Kanye West and released by the defendant on March 18, 2017.

LaGreca alleged that he developed his song beginning in 2009, released a demo in 2012, and self-released the song through the Tunecore distribution network on streaming services and in music stores in 2016. He obtained a copyright registration on March 16, 2022. The complaint did not attach audio files, but the defendant submitted copies of both songs with a declaration supporting its motion to dismiss. The parties agreed that the court could consider the songs in deciding the motion.

Legal standards and analysis

A copyright-infringement claim based on unauthorized copying requires proof that the defendant actually copied the plaintiff’s work and that the copying was unlawful because the works are substantially similar in their protectable elements. Copying may be shown through direct evidence or indirectly, including by showing that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work.

The court held that LaGreca’s access allegations were insufficient. He alleged only that the song had been placed on streaming services and in music stores, promoted through live performances, and posted on his website and social-media pages. He did not allege how often the song was streamed, purchased, or performed; who accessed it; the specific services or platforms where it was available; or a particular website, venue, or other location through which the defendant might have encountered it. The court stated that internet availability alone did not establish the wide dissemination needed to support an inference of access.

The court also held that the complaint failed to plead substantial similarity under the ordinary-observer test. The two songs had the same title and might each use the word “slow” at least once, but the court found that they had different themes and genres and did not share beats, melodies, instrumentation, or other musical elements likely to confuse an ordinary listener. The court rejected LaGreca’s arguments based on drawn-out final words, percussion and drum beats, and verse, chorus, introduction, and ending structures, characterizing those features as basic elements of an ordinary pop song.

The court separately rejected LaGreca’s theory of fragmented literal similarity, which concerns copying a portion of a work exactly or nearly exactly without copying the work’s overall essence or structure. It found that the relevant portions of the songs were sung in different keys, played at different speeds, used distinct chords and chord progressions, employed different instruments, had minimally resembling melodies, and had entirely different lyrics apart from the word “glow.”

Ruling

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court ordered the Clerk to close the case. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.