Clanton v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Background

Solomon Clanton, professionally known as “Slugga,” alleged that defendants UMG Recordings, Inc., Gamebread, LLC, Tauheed Epps, professionally known as “2Chainz,” and Kiari Cephus, professionally known as “Offset,” infringed his copyright in the song “Proud.” Clanton alleged that he recorded and released his song in 2015 and later registered the sound recording with the United States Copyright Office.

The complaint alleged that 2Chainz’s song, also titled “Proud,” was performed publicly no later than March 2018 and shared similarities with Clanton’s song. The alleged similarities included a hook using substantially similar words and cadence, call-and-response techniques, a 2/4 time signature, an organ opening, and music videos containing a media clip and spoken introduction. Clanton also alleged that the defendants had access to his song because it had been posted on the internet and social-media platforms. He sent UMG a cease-and-desist letter in October 2019.

UMG, Gamebread, and 2Chainz moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. Cephus joined the motion. The opinion addresses the motion brought by those defendants; the text does not state a separate disposition for the other defendants named in the caption.

Access to the Work

Copyright infringement requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original elements. For purposes of the motion, the court assumed that Clanton owned a valid copyright in his song, so ownership and validity were not at issue.

The court explained that copying may be shown through direct evidence or through circumstantial evidence that the defendant had access to the work. Access may be inferred from a specific chain of events showing how the defendant could have obtained the work, or from facts showing that the work was widely disseminated.

The court held that Clanton’s allegations did not plausibly show wide dissemination. The complaint alleged that the song appeared on a mixtape posted to several hip-hop websites and was posted on YouTube, but it did not allege the number of views, listens, or accesses during the relevant period. The court stated that simply posting a work on the internet is not enough, by itself, to show wide dissemination or a reasonable possibility that a particular defendant encountered it.

The court also rejected Clanton’s reliance on statements that the song had received specific numbers of views by November 2020. Those allegations appeared in his opposition brief rather than the complaint, and the court stated that they could not be used to amend the complaint. In addition, the alleged infringement began no later than March 2018, so views accumulated more than two years later did not show dissemination at the relevant time.

Striking Similarity

Clanton argued that the songs were so strikingly similar that access could be inferred without separate evidence. The court rejected that argument. It found that the principal similarity was a lyric expressing the idea of trying to make one’s mother proud, spoken in approximately the same cadence. The songs did not share other lyrics, and the other alleged similarities—call-and-response, a 2/4 time signature, and an organ opening—were common musical features or were too general to establish that independent creation was impossible.

Protectable Expression

The court separately considered whether the alleged similarities involved copyright-protected expression. It held that the phrase “I’m tryna make my momma proud” lacked the minimal creativity required for copyright protection. The phrase expressed a commonplace idea in ordinary language, without unusual word choice, metaphor, figurative language, or an unconventional arrangement. Copyright does not protect ideas, themes, or commonplace expressions.

The court also rejected Clanton’s argument that the combination of similarities was protectable. It characterized the organ opening, time signature, and spoken introduction as minor, unprotectable similarities. It stated that time signatures and instrument choices are basic building blocks of music, and that the music-video similarities were irrelevant because Clanton registered a sound recording and alleged infringement of that recording, not of a music video.

Disposition

Judge Liman granted the motion to dismiss. The court found that there were no actionable similarities between the compositions as a matter of law, concluded that amendment would be futile, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion and the case.