Before filing their claim, Plaintiffs retained an expert musicologist to review both works and provide a determination as to whether Defendants’ work was substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ source work, and Plaintiffs included a summary of the expert’s findings in their Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The Court, after oral argument, granted Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ case. In doing so, the Court stated in its order that it was excluding Plaintiffs’ expert testimony. The Court first considered the issue of the intended audience of the song, and rejected Plaintiffs’ contention that their intended audience was music producers. In considering the issue of “substantial similarity,” the Court declined to address the extrinsic, or objective, analysis, and instead limited its review to the intrinsic, or subjective, analysis.
Copeland wants the Appeals Court to review the original order and overturn the decision and allow for a new judge to hear the case. Check out the exclusive court documents of the NEW lawsuit.