Hines v. EMI April Music Inc.

Background

Ernie Hines sued W. Chappell Music Corp. and artists known as Jay-Z, Timbaland, and Ginuwine. Hines alleged that the defendants incorporated elements of his 1960s soul song “Help Me Put Out The Flame (In My Heart)” into “Paper Chase” and “Toe 2 Toe” without his permission. His original claims were brought under the Copyright Act. In the Third Amended Complaint, Hines added Count VII, a state-law claim for unjust enrichment.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that the Copyright Act preempted Count VII. In this context, preemption means that federal copyright law displaces a state-law claim because the claim seeks to enforce rights equivalent to copyright rights.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the Copyright Act’s two-part preemption test. First, it asked whether the claim concerned material within the subject matter of copyright. Hines’s unjust enrichment claim was based on the defendants’ alleged use of portions of “Help Me,” which the court found fell within the categories of copyrightable works.

Second, the court asked whether the claim sought to enforce rights equivalent to the exclusive rights protected by copyright law, such as reproduction, adaptation, performance, distribution, or display. The court found that this requirement was clearly met because Hines based the claim on the defendants’ alleged unauthorized use of protectable elements of his song.

The court then considered whether Hines alleged an “extra element”—an additional requirement that would make the unjust enrichment claim qualitatively different from copyright infringement. The court explained that awareness, intent, or enrichment alone generally does not provide such an extra element. Hines based Count VII on the same facts as his copyright claims and alleged no additional basis beyond enrichment and awareness.

The court rejected Hines’s reliance on Ulloa v. Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp. In that case, the unjust enrichment claim could proceed because the plaintiff had identified independent theories involving unpaid labor, a possible work-for-hire arrangement, or an implied license. The court found that Hines had not alleged an implied license, a work-for-hire relationship, or another independent basis. Hines’s time and labor in creating “Help Me” did not qualify as an extra element because those facts are common to copyright claims.

The court also held that merely labeling a claim as an alternative claim does not avoid Copyright Act preemption. Because Hines had not pleaded an independent theory, the court concluded that the Copyright Act preempted Count VII.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Count VII of the Third Amended Complaint and dismissed Count VII. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 127. The opinion does not state a disposition of Hines’s other claims in this order.