Vincent Peters v. Kanye West
692 F.3d 629
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Vince P wrote and recorded Stronger (VP) in 2006 and sought an executive producer; he met John Monopoly, Kanye West’s friend, who might fund via a label but funding never materialized.
- Monopoly heard VP’s song and later helped set up a November 2006 meeting; VP left a CD with Monopoly including Stronger (VP).
- In July 2007 Kanye West released Stronger (KW); VP alleges similarities between KW and VP and suspects Monopoly passed VP’s song to West.
- VP registered Stronger (VP) with the Copyright Office and sued West in the Northern District of Illinois; the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo, accepts VP’s ownership prima facie, but holds VP failed to show copying by West and thus no infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VP has valid ownership and protectable expression | VP owns the lyrics and claims protectable expression in the song. | West’s defense relies on lack of protectable expression for the copied elements. | VP ownership established; protectable expression insufficient to prove infringement. |
| Whether West had access and copied VP’s work | Monopoly had access and relayed VP’s song to West, enabling copying. | Access alone does not prove copying without substantial similarity. | Access established; copying not proven. |
| Whether Nietzschean hook, title, and Kate Moss references are protectable | These elements show substantial similarity. | Common phrases and references are not protectable expressions. | Not protectable; insufficient to establish infringement. |
| What is the proper framework for proving copying in this circuit | Adopt hybrid tests (access plus probative similarity). | Uniform framework varies; require actual copying with substantial similarity. | Court rejects inverse-ratio rule; requires actual copying and substantial similarity; not met here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (copyright requires original expression; registration evidence)
- JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007) (proof requires ownership plus copying via substantial similarity)
- Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Jostens, Inc., 155 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1998) (protectable expression not extended to mere ideas or general themes)
- Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) (inverse relationship between access and similarity discussed; not adopted as rule)
- Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997) (similarity evidence can indicate access; requires copy proof)
- Arc Music Corp. v. Lee, 296 F.2d 186 (2d Cir. 1961) (rejection of strict inverse-ratio rule)
- Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (inverse-ratio approach criticized)
- Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992) (probative similarity and access concepts discussed)
- Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003) (access plus improper appropriation framework)