Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc.
808 F.3d 1031
5th Cir.2015Background
- Guzman wrote and copyrighted the Tejano song Triste in the 1970s; his band Los Duendes recorded and performed it locally in Corpus Christi through at least the 1970s, with disputed frequency thereafter.
- Hacienda Records produced a 1990 recording of Cartas by the Hometown Boys; Cartas shares near-identical opening lyrics with Triste but differs musically and was commercially unsuccessful.
- Guzman sued Hacienda alleging copyright infringement (copying) and a DMCA §1202(a) claim based on false identification, asserting Hacienda had access to Triste and that the works were strikingly similar.
- At a three-day bench trial the district court credited Hacienda’s witnesses, found Guzman’s evidence of radio play and live-performance circulation unreliable, and ruled Guzman failed to prove access or striking similarity.
- The district court also declined Guzman’s proposed “sliding scale” rule (less access required when similarity is high) and denied the DMCA claim for lack of requisite intent; Guzman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hacienda had "access" to Triste before recording Cartas | Guzman: Radio play and local live performances in Corpus Christi plus Garcia’s presence in the scene created a reasonable possibility of access. | Hacienda: Trial testimony was inconsistent; no corroborating evidence of significant dissemination; Garcia credibly denied knowing Triste. | Court: Affirmed district court — credibility findings supported conclusion that access was speculative, not reasonably possible. |
| Whether Triste and Cartas are "strikingly similar" so access need not be shown | Guzman: Opening lyrics are virtually identical and thus sufficiently striking. | Hacienda: Lyrics are common phrases set to different music; experts identified routine genre similarities and material musical differences. | Court: Affirmed — similarities were not sufficiently unique/complex to infer copying absent access. |
| Whether the court should apply a "sliding scale" reducing access burden when similarity is high | Guzman: Strong similarity warrants lowering access proof. | Hacienda: Sliding-scale inappropriate here; credibility and factual findings control. | Court: Declined to adopt sliding-scale as circuit law and refused to apply it in this case. |
| DMCA §1202(a) claim (false CMI with intent to induce/conceal infringement) | Guzman: Remand requested if access finding reversed. | Hacienda: No intent shown and access lacking. | Court: Waived by failure to brief distinct arguments; affirmed district court judgment given access ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (bench-trial credibility findings receive great deference; clear-error standard explained)
- One Beacon Ins. Co. v. Crowley Marine Servs., Inc., 648 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal issues de novo)
- Positive Black Talk, Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2004) (elemental test for copying: factual copying and substantial similarity; striking-similarity doctrine discussed)
- Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2007) (access requires a reasonable possibility, not mere speculation)
- Peel & Co., Inc. v. Rug Market, 238 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2001) (discusses reasonable-possibility access standard and limits on speculative access showings)
- Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) (striking similarity requires uniqueness or complexity such that copying is the only plausible explanation)