Guy Hobbs v. Elton John
722 F.3d 1089
7th Cir.2013Background
- Hobbs wrote and copyrighted the song "Natasha" in the U.K. after a brief romance on a Russian cruise ship and sent it to publishers including Big Pig Music, which represented Elton John and Bernie Taupin.
- Elton John/Taupin released "Nikita" (1985) through Big Pig; Hobbs later encountered the lyrics and, believing they copied "Natasha," sought compensation and then sued in 2012 for copyright infringement and related state claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the district court granted the motion, finding the identified elements either unprotectable or not substantially similar and concluding the state claims were preempted.
- On appeal Hobbs relied on a "unique combination" theory: that an original selection/arrangement of individually unprotectable elements can be protectable and that "Nikita" copied that combination.
- The Seventh Circuit assumed ownership and access but held as a matter of law the songs were not substantially similar even when Hobbs’s alleged elements are considered in combination, so dismissal was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "Nikita" is substantially similar to "Natasha" | Hobbs: combined selection/arrangement of shared elements creates substantial similarity | Defendants: shared elements are unprotectable ideas or commonplace expressions; different expressions and stories | Held: Not substantially similar as a matter of law; claim fails |
| Whether a combination of individually unprotectable elements can be protected | Hobbs: a unique selection/arrangement can be original and protected | Defendants: Peters forecloses claim where parts are unprotectable | Held: Court did not decide the doctrinal question because Hobbs lost on substantial-similarity ground |
| Whether Hobbs alleged protectable expression beyond general ideas/themes | Hobbs: repetition, specific phrases, title/name similarity and Cold War-romance theme form protectable expression | Defendants: repetitions and thematic elements are rudimentary/common in love songs and not distinctive | Held: These elements are commonplace or expressed differently; not sufficiently unique |
| Whether state-law claims survive | Hobbs: separate state-law theories (not detailed here) | Defendants: preempted by the Copyright Act | Held: District court found preemption; appellate court did not review that ruling after disposing of federal claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir.) (discusses substantial-similarity and protectability of copied parts)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Sup. Ct.) (originality may arise from selection, coordination, or arrangement of uncopyrightable facts)
- Atari, Inc. v. North Am. Philips Consumer Elecs. Corp., 672 F.2d 607 (7th Cir.) (copyright protects expression, not ideas)
- JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir.) (combination of unprotectable elements can be creative)
- Bucklew v. Hawkins, Ash, Baptie & Co., 329 F.3d 923 (7th Cir.) (minimal originality can arise from novel combination or twists of common elements)