976 F.3d 493
5th Cir.2020Background
- Paul Batiste, a New Orleans jazz musician, sued Macklemore & Ryan Lewis alleging digital sampling of snippets from eleven of his songs across five Macklemore tracks.
- Batiste’s case relied on an expert report by Archie Milton that the district court found ghost‑written by Batiste; the court excluded Milton’s report.
- Batiste attempted to resubmit the excluded report signed as his own; the district court denied leave to supplement because he failed to disclose himself as an expert and missed scheduling deadlines.
- After exclusion of the expert evidence, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants for lack of evidence of factual copying (no proven access or striking similarity).
- The defendants obtained attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and the district court ordered Batiste and his counsel jointly and severally liable; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the merits and the fee award but held it lacked jurisdiction to review sanctions against counsel because counsel did not appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to supplement summary‑judgment opposition with the restyled expert report | Batiste argued the court should have allowed the late submission and that Rule 15 liberal leave standard applied | Defendants argued the resubmission violated the scheduling order, Rule 16 good‑cause deadline, and the report was unreliable | Denied: District court did not abuse discretion; Rule 16 governs scheduling and Batiste offered no good‑cause explanation |
| 2. Whether summary judgment was improper because defendants copied Batiste’s recordings (access or striking similarity) | Batiste argued widespread dissemination, a chain‑of‑events linking his recordings to defendants, and circumstantial signs (missing Pro Tools files) supported access; he also argued sampling need not show similarity for sound‑recording claims | Defendants argued there was no evidence they ever heard or used Batiste’s recordings and that the works were not strikingly similar | Affirmed summary judgment: No genuine dispute of material fact on factual copying—no probative evidence of access or striking similarity |
| 3. Whether plaintiffs need not prove similarity to establish infringement of sound recordings (i.e., Bridgeport rule) | Batiste urged that any unauthorized sampling of a sound recording constitutes infringement and similarity need not be shown | Defendants relied on the conventional two‑step test (factual copying and substantial similarity); distinguished Bridgeport as noncontrolling | Court did not adopt Bridgeport; even accepting Bridgeport’s approach, Batiste failed on factual copying so claim fails |
| 4. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees and holding counsel jointly liable | Batiste argued fees were unwarranted absent proof of frivolousness or bad faith and that sanctions against counsel lacked required findings | Defendants argued fees were proper under § 505 considering objective unreasonableness, litigation misconduct, and deterrence; counsel’s sanctions were separate and sanctionable | Fee award affirmed as within district court discretion under § 505; court lacked jurisdiction to review sanctions against counsel because counsel did not appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (establishes copyright infringement requires ownership and copying)
- Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Recs., Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (access plus probative similarity can infer factual copying)
- Peel & Co. v. Rug Mkt., 238 F.3d 391 (reasonable opportunity to view/hear standard for access)
- Eng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (definition of actual copying and proof requirements)
- VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F.3d 871 (sampling and distinction between composition and sound‑recording copyrights)
- Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (Sixth Circuit’s bright‑line rule that any sampling is infringement)
- Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (differences between protection for composition and for sound recording)
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (prevailing‑party fees and nonexclusive factors for awarding fees)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (discretionary, particularized fee inquiry and factors like frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness)
- Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147 (reciting three elements: ownership, factual copying, substantial similarity)