Katy Perry is appealing the Court decision of the ‘Dark Horse’ case which costed $2.8 million. It was held that she infringed the copyright of one Marcus Gray with regards to Perry allegedly copying the underlying beat that was used in his 2008 song ‘Joyful Noise’.
Copyright rights prevent the unfair use of someone else’s creative efforts and as Marcus Gray’s song was published in 2008 before Katy Perry’s song, he would have the copyright rights for the beat that was used in the song. Therefore, it was held that Katy Perry has infringed his copyright as the jury believed there were sufficient similarities between the two beats and therefore believed that Katy Perry had infringed his copyright rights.
However, artists can appeal a decision if they believed the right verdict wasn’t obtained and have evidence to suggest why the matter should be appealed. This appeal concerns a lack of evidence and the lack of availability and access to Marcus Grays song to infringe his copyright rights.
Katy Perry is trying to overturn the original verdict or grant a new trial. On the grounds that it was a gross miscarriage of justice which is harsh to both creators and the music industry.
The basis of their claim states that the song ‘Joyful Noise’ has received low exposure and that no one within this digital age. Where there are billions of recordings and songs could have possibly concluded that the song ‘Joyful Noise’ was so well known that the people working on ‘Dark Horse’ would have heard their song. As well as this the similarities between the alleged infringing beat is commonplace within the industry. They are also alleging that Marcus Gray lacks copyright registration for Ojukwu’s beat which is the infringing section of the song.
The verdict of the previous case was worrying because of the wider implications it has on the music industry as to the creativity of artists and the ability to use similar beats and chord progressions on songs. What this means is that even if you created the same chord progression or beat and was unknowingly infringing someone’s copyright then you could be liable. Which would be unfair to someone who unintentionally came up with the same chord progression or beat by themselves and lead to unnecessary litigation. The issue risen from this is that how do you know if someone has listened to the other artists song if the artist is unheard off?
Written by Owen White Third Year Law Student at Solent University
