556 F.Supp.3d 322
S.D.N.Y.2021Background
- Plaintiff Solomon Clanton (artist “Slugga”) wrote and published a song titled “Proud” in 2015 on a mixtape and various hip‑hop websites and on YouTube; he registered the sound recording in July 2021.
- Defendant Tauheed Epps (“2Chainz”) released and publicly performed a different song also titled “Proud” by March 2018; several defendants are credited as authors.
- Clanton alleges 2Chainz’s song copies the principal hook—notably the lyric cadence “I’m just tryin’ to make my ma‑ma/momma proud”—and shares features like call‑and‑response, a 2/4 time signature, an organ opening, and similar video devices.
- Clanton sent a cease‑and‑desist to UMG in October 2019; defendants did not respond.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to plead (1) plausible access and (2) actionable similarity/protectable expression; the Court granted dismissal with prejudice, concluding no protectable similarity as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Access | Song was publicly posted on mixtape sites and YouTube and thus widely disseminated; access can be inferred. | Mere posting online is insufficient; plaintiff pleads no facts showing widespread dissemination or a chain linking defendants to the work. | No plausible inference of access: internet posting alone is inadequate and plaintiff gave no specific dissemination metrics or chain of events. |
| Striking similarity (no access) | Works are strikingly similar in hook cadence and other elements, so copying may be inferred without access. | Similarities are common musical/lyrical elements and do not preclude independent creation. | Not strikingly similar: shared hook phrase and generic musical features do not preclude independent creation. |
| Protectability / Substantial similarity | The hook lyric and combination of musical elements are original and protectable; combined elements show infringement. | The disputed lyric is a short, conventional phrase and other similarities are unprotectable building blocks of music. | The hook phrase lacks the minimal creativity required for copyright protection; other elements are unprotectable, so no substantial similarity as a matter of law. |
| Amendment / futility | (Implicit) Plaintiff should be allowed to amend. | Court may dismiss with prejudice if no legally cognizable claim can be pleaded. | Dismissal with prejudice: further amendment would be futile because the works themselves establish lack of actionable similarity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (originality is required for copyright)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: factual plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility and pleading requirements)
- Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46 (access proved by chain of events or wide dissemination)
- Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (compare protectable elements for substantial similarity)
- Knitwave, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (elements of proving copying)
- Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464 (striking similarity concept)
- May v. Sony Music Entertainment, 399 F. Supp. 3d 169 (distinguished; example where adapted phrase survived motion to dismiss)