Vance/Stone vs Mariah Carey, et al

Nothing dumb about it, especially when millions of dollars are at stake.

As for the SOL, the complaint mentions that the infringement is ongoing to the present day.

And it's not just the title that's in question. I read the lyrics of both songs while listening to them.

Vince Vance & The Valiants - All I Want for Christmas Is You - YouTube

Vince Vance & The Valiants – All I Want For Christmas Is You Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

Mariah Carey - All I Want for Christmas Is You (Make My Wish Come True Edition) - YouTube

Mariah Carey – All I Want for Christmas Is You Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

There's enough similarity of words and phrases to at least raise the question of infringement. I did find that Stone's rendition was more of a ballad and Carey's more rock and roll. I don't know which way a court would go.

I do know, from a little research, that the analysis of similarities and differences is incredibly complex.

This is not the first time that Carey was sued for infringement. One of the prior lawsuits is interesting because the court set out the rules by which infringement should be quantified with a lengthy commentary on the analysis by the Plaintiff's expert.

Swirsky v. Carey | Music Copyright Infringement Resource (gwu.edu)

The case was remanded and settled out of court in 2006.

LegalMetric - Litigation Analysis: California Central District Court 2:00cv09926 (archive.org)

The terms of the settlement ware apparently not made public.
 
I'm not seeing the similarity other than the concept of "I don't need any Christmas presents as long as I get you." Alas, such is hardly a unique theme in love ballads either.

Swirsky was a pretty profound loss for him. He lost via summary judgment and it was the appeal of that which came down several times against him. I suspect the settlement was more about legal fees than anything beneficial to Swirsky. That decision has been cited in tons of other (mostly music) related contemporary cases.

Arguing transitive similarity isn't new. A publisher successfully sued a publisher representing Morey Amsterdam (aka Buddy Sorrell from the Dick Van Dyke show) over Rum and Coca Cola. The song was clearly a rip off of Belasco's song but the defense tried to show that it was a derivation of a different (public domain) song. Amusingly about twenty years later, the Dick Van Dyke show had an episode about copyright infringement (Rob wrote the lyrics to a song another Army buddy (played by Greg Morris) wrote that a third buddy had claimed ownership of.

I'm still curious how the copyright claims are going to proceed five years past the limitations period. While there's no statutory limitation on Lanham act violations, laches still apply and it seems odd given how famous Carey's version was why it took over seven years to start the action.
 
flyingron said:
This is about the dumbest lawsuit I've heard of. First, titles are not protectable by copyright (they already admit the songs have different lyrics and music).
Click to expand...

Never heard of the lawsuit filed by the guy who, 30 years ago, appeared as a baby on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind album? That lawsuit, despite being universally derided as absurd, remains pending 10 months after its initial filing date.

flyingron said:
This is about the dumbest lawsuit I've heard of. First, titles are not protectable by copyright (they already admit the songs have different lyrics and music).
Click to expand...

Disagree. The complaint alleges that the Carey version of the song is an unauthorized derivative of the plaintiff's work. While I don't hear much similarity, there are some common elements.* There's no allegation that the release of a song with an identical title violates the plaintiff's alleged copyright.

flyingron said:
Second, he's about three years too late to file.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? If he were to win, he wouldn't get damages going back three decades, but he could get damages for the three years prior to the date of filing.

* - They're far more similar than Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe" and this song -
- which was the subject of a lawsuit filed about a decade ago. That suit was voluntarily dismissed four months after filing.

While these are all some good candidates, I submit this as the dumbest lawsuit ever.
 
How I figure is he filed the lawsuit last week and that is five years after the limitations period ended on copyright. You have three years from the time of discovery (and its going to be hard again to argue that a song as popular as they admit Carey's is) was not discoverable as soon as it was released.

I'll concede that the "about the dumbest" was hyperbole. But I'm still not buying this as a legitimate suit.
 
flyingron said:
How I figure is he filed the lawsuit last week and that is five years after the limitations period ended on copyright.
Click to expand...

As per the link I provided, the statute of limitations on copyright infringement is three years, but it's a rolling SOL. Why did you think "the limitations period ended" in 2017?
 
This is fascinating. Some of the lawsuits in copyright infringement of music can be rather preposterous, in my opinion as a musician, given the limitations of the musical spectrum, regardless of how diverse it can appear. There is also the fact that inspiration will come from so many sources. Some famous lawsuits (which went ways which sometimes suprised me) include:
  • George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" v. the Chiffon's "He's So Fine"
  • Robert Plant & Jimmy Page for Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" v. Spirit (which opened for the band with an instrumental)
  • Robin Thicke & Pharrel Williams (Blurred Lines) v. Marvin Gaye (Got to Give It Up)
Sonically, the inclusion of bells and piano is almost as synonymous as red, green and white. It's certainly different because of the times, technology and instruments. Lyrically, the expression is not original but one will instantly notice that similarity along with the fact that it comes in the resolution portion of the chorus, where many song titles will appear.

Interesting that the plaintiff alleges he only became aware of the song almost 27 years after it was released. It's a bare complaint so details sometimes can be omitted but it's also interesting that no attempt was made to establish exactly what was so similar between the songs that led to the plaintiff concluding that it is clearly a derivative work. Plaintiff's counsel simply assumed it was derivative, sent a letter to Mariah Carey's counsel to discuss how to treat it as a derivative work. I'm guessing Carey's counsel just treated it like a trolling claim and moved on, uninterested in a settlement.

The real issue here may be that Vince Vance's song was first comer and had established some connection with that likely often used phrase. If Mariah Carey didn't have as deep pockets as she may appear to have, would there be a legal issue? Right now I haven't heard many comparisons except for this comparison of musical composition and arrangement. It's reasonably accurate in my opinion but the conclusion really summarizes it for me , including the fact that apparently Vince Vance had known about this issue 12 years ago and seems apartmently annoyed that there are some similarities. But it's rather clear to me that, if you start protecting these common themes, words, associated sounds, then songwriters should be terrified of creating new music. And quite frankly, as Slate calls "the most Christmassy chord of all" would actually be associated with the originators and then, they too, should demand royalties from all others who use that musical variation in conjunction with the typical Christmas motifs and phrases that have become so commonly used.
 
adjusterjack said:
There's enough similarity of words and phrases to at least raise the question of infringement. I did find that Stone's rendition was more of a ballad and Carey's more rock and roll. I don't know which way a court would go.
Click to expand...
Jack - I completely appreciate from where you're coming. There is certainly a whiff of inspiration and a song title that might be more readily associated with Vance, whose version I happen to like better. I'm guessing it is also his top hit and bread and butter.

This article resonated with me after I heard the verdict in the Marvin Gaye v. Robin Thicke et. al. controversy. The Blurred Lines of Copyright Infringement

The Gaye family based its case on shared "elements" in both songs, as well as Pharrell Williams' admissions that he was inspired by Gaye and that the song captured the "feel" of Gaye's earlier tune. The trial court allowed the case to go to the jury and included an instruction that "substantial similarities" between elements of the two songs was evidence of infringement.

There are several fascinating musical analyses:
 
army judge said:
It never ends...
https://www.kxxv.com/news/national/paramount-sued-over-top-gun-copyright-claim
...
Click to expand...
I do think this one is quite different and distinguishable, though. This seems to be a copyright renewal question. More details are posted by the Washington Post - the question being whether the sequel is a derivative work of the first, which it certain appears to be. As a result, there might be a question here. Essentially, the copyright holder intended to recover their rights to the original Top Gun story in 2018 (35 year rule.)

According to the suit, the Yonays sent a cease-and-desist letter in early May to which Paramount responded that the film had been sufficiently completed by Jan. 24, 2020, and was not derivative of Yonay's article. The Yonays counter that the film is a derivative of the 1983 article and that "Top Gun: Maverick" didn't wrap until May 2021, over a year after the rights expired.
 
I watched Top Gun a couple of nights before I went to the movies to see Maverick. As good as Maverick was, it was a rehash of the first movie with a few differences thrown in to keep the viewers happy.
 
Michael Wechsler said:
According to the suit, the Yonays sent a cease-and-desist letter in early May to which Paramount responded that the film had been sufficiently completed by Jan. 24, 2020, and was not derivative of Yonay's article. The Yonays counter that the film is a derivative of the 1983 article and that "Top Gun: Maverick" didn't wrap until May 2021, over a year after the rights expired.
Click to expand...

Right or wrong, I appreciate Paramount taking the matter before the court.

Courts were created, among other things, to adjudicate and settle these disputes.
 
adjusterjack said:
I watched Top Gun a couple of nights before I went to the movies to see Maverick. As good as Maverick was, it was a rehash of the first movie with a few differences thrown in to keep the viewers happy.
Click to expand...

As times change, I suspect the populace changes.

The major changes I observed in the 2022 Top Gun appeared to illustrate/showcase/parade DIVERSITY.

Otherwise, same old same old, once more once.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top