Mariah Carey Defeats Ridiculous Copyright Suit Over ‘All I Want For Christmas Is You’
from the begone-grinch dept
It appears that Mariah Carey got a very late Christmas present this year. Several years ago, Carey was sued by Andy Stone over Carey’s hit holiday song, All I Want For Christmas Is You. The whole lawsuit was a complete mess. The fact it was filed in a Louisana court made no sense. The suit referenced evidence that was apparently not included in the filing. It was filed decades after the release of Carey’s song. Oh, and the claim of copyright infringement itself appeared to be due to the titles of both songs being the same combined with a bunch of unprotectable thematic elements. Neither, of course, are protectable elements when it comes to copyright law.
The $20 million copyright suit appeared destined for failure several months ago, when the judge signaled publicly that she was leaning Carey’s way. The only real question appeared to be whether Stone was going to be forced to pay Carey’s legal fees for wasting her time with this. In her summary judgment ruling, the judge presiding over the case both finds in Carey’s favor and, indeed, orders Stone to pay her legal fees.
U.S. District Judge Monica Almadani in Los Angeles in a ruling on Wednesday said the writers of Vince Vance and the Valiants’ “All I Want for Christmas Is You” failed to show their song was objectively similar enough to Carey’s to support their copyright infringement case.
Almadani determined on Wednesday that the songs were not similar enough for a jury to find that Carey had committed copyright infringement, citing differences in their melodies, lyrics and other musical elements. Almadani also ordered the songwriters to pay part of Carey’s attorneys’ fees, finding some of their filings contained a “litany of irrelevant and unsupported factual assertions.”
While that punishment is certainly just, it remains infuriating that the legal team that represented Stone will essentially escape any consequences beyond the reputational. I can’t expect every musician out there to be well enough versed in intellectual property law to navigate what are protectable elements and what aren’t. It would be nice if such artists would marry up the importance they place on copyright law with a passion for actually understanding it, but that is wishful thinking.
Lawyers, on the other hand, have no excuse. The participation of attorneys in this stinker of a lawuit is silly. They ought to have known from the jump that this lawsuit was destined for failure. So why did they take the case on?
And why can’t there be real tangible consequences for having done so?
Filed Under: all i want for christmas, andy stone, copyright, mariah carey, vince vance
Comments on “Mariah Carey Defeats Ridiculous Copyright Suit Over ‘All I Want For Christmas Is You’”
Why plaintiff's lawyers took on the case
The author asks “why did [the plaintiff’s lawyers] take the case on?”
Uh … because they got paid to do so?
Re: What did the client tell?
The court record does not show the discussions between the plaintiff and his lawyers. But it is entirely possible that the plaintiff initially presented a case that had merit (or at least a chance of success.) It could also be that the plaintiff pressed the case against the advice of his lawyers…
Anyway, the opposing lawyers effectively defused the case, but it is not easy for a lawyer to withdraw from an ongoing lawsuit. Once you’re suckered in as a lawyer, you’re stuck unless the client releases you.
Re: Re:
Possible? Yes. Probable? Hell no. This bit from the article sinks the idea that this case had any merit:
I mean, anything and everything else about the case aside, those two factors weigh heavily against any possible merit of the case. This was a nuisance suit, likely designed to wring a high-six-figures settlement out of Mariah Carey, that got tossed in the garbage where it belongs. I imagine the lawyers who took this probably weren’t all that good if they were willing to sign their names onto this stinker, but maybe the only “lawyer” here had a fool for a client, if’n you get my drift.
Re: Re: Re:
So how long does one have to wait before the legal action becomes invalid? And what could it accomplish when the individual gets punished but the work endures because people remember it?
Re: Re: Re:2
The legal action is invalid regardless of when the suit was brought because titles aren’t subject to copyright. But the length of time for the filing indicates that the plaintiff didn’t seem to think the work was infringing for the last few decades. There’s no chance he just recently heard the work for the first time. If he always thought it was infringing, then his abstention from filing allowed for further infringement for decades, making his claim about the infringement seem even more egregious.
Re: Re: Re:3
So if you created something decades ago, forgot about it yourself, then find out somebody remembered it now, it would still be too late.
Re: Re: Re:4
Again, the legal action is invalid regardless of when the suit was brought because titles aren’t subject to copyright.
So the timeline of the suit doesn’t actually matter because it doesn’t change the lack of a case in the first place.
Forgetting or remembering doesn’t make any sense. The plaintiff didn’t claim to have forgotten his own song.
Re: Re: Re:2
There’s actually a concrete answer. Three years. That’s the statute of limitations for copyright actions.
In this case, the lawsuit could at least initially go forward despite this, because you can sue for just the last 3 years of profits and ignore everything before that.
Unless there are significant downsides to such lawsuits, it seems unlikely that any litigious rightsholders will be deterred from similar behavior.