Will Loomis v. Jessica Cornish, 836 F.3d 991

Will Loomis wrote and copyrighted the song "Bright Red Chords," released on small-label albums in 2009–2010 and accompanied by a music video; documented sales were minimal (46 copies).
Loomis alleged that Jessie J and a five-person songwriting team (including Dr. Luke and Max Martin) copied a two-measure vocal melody from Bright Red Chords for the verse theme of the hit song "Domino."
Domino was produced in June 2011 by a team; the melody and lyrics were added at a Los Angeles studio; the song achieved major commercial success.
Loomis had no direct evidence of copying; his suit therefore depended on circumstantial proof of access and (less emphasized) substantial similarity.
Loomis offered two access theories: (1) intermediary transmission (e.g., an A&R rep Sunny Elle Lee, former band guitarist Casey Hooper, and others) who might have passed a copy to the Domino songwriters; (2) widespread local dissemination/saturation in Santa Barbara at times when Dr. Luke and Max Martin were briefly in town.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants for lack of admissible evidence creating a reasonable possibility of access; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding Loomis’s claims speculative and unsupported by admissible proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Access via intermediaries (corporate receipt/contacts)	Loomis: A&R rep Sunny Elle Lee and other intermediaries received copies or knew the band and could have forwarded Bright Red Chords to Domino writers	Defs: No nexus or contact between intermediaries and the Domino writers; plaintiff has no admissible evidence linking them	Court: No triable issue — mere receipt/speculation insufficient without a nexus or admissible evidence
Access via widespread dissemination / local market saturation	Loomis: Bright Red Chords saturated the Santa Barbara market (local airplay, press, promo CDs), and Dr. Luke/Max Martin were in Santa Barbara during that period, creating a reasonable possibility they encountered the song	Defs: Brief studio visitors were not participating in the local music market; no evidence they listened to local radio, read local press, or obtained Loomis’s promo materials	Court: No triable issue — bare possibility of exposure insufficient; plaintiff failed to show widespread dissemination to the relevant market participants

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (ownership and copying are elements of copyright infringement)
Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000) (access and substantial similarity required absent direct evidence)
Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entm’t Inc., 581 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2009) (methods to prove access: chain-of-events or widespread dissemination)
L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012) (market saturation in a relevant market can create reasonable possibility of access)
Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1977) (definition of opportunity to view or copy as access)
Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421 (9th Cir. 1987) (striking similarity may support inference of copying when access is lacking)
Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2006) (circumstantial proof of access/Substantial similarity framework)
Kamar Int’l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., 657 F.2d 1059 (9th Cir. 1981) (third-party possession can establish access where nexus exists)
Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003) (bare corporate receipt without nexus is insufficient to show access)
Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2003) (limited sales and distribution may preclude finding of widespread dissemination)