The Copyright Act protects creators of different types of expressive works. For music specifically, the Act recognizes two distinct rights: in compositions (including music and lyrics) and in sound recordings. The rights are distinct, and generally sound recording rights are more limited. In a recent case, Richardson v. Kharbouch (N.D.Ill. 2024), a hip-hop artist learned that the difference between the two can make a big difference in enforcing one’s rights.
In 2012, Eddie Lee Richardson—then just sixteen years old and an aspiring music producer—composed an original piece of music named “Hood Pushing Weight” or HPW. He loaded a recording to a music distribution site, SoundClick.com. About six months later, Karim Karbouch released what became a hit single, “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” (AWAN). AWAN became a popular, lucrative song for Karbouch.
Richardson claimed that AWAN “sampled” major portions of HPW. He registered the copyright in the sound recording – but not the composition – for HPW and filed suit. He even obtained an expert opinion that AWAN’s musical melody was copied from HPW. But as he soon learned, his registration of the sound recording right was not sufficient to save his suit.
Generally, to show copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. However, the analysis for sound recordings is different. Critically, the copyright in the sound recording covers only the recording itself, but not the underlying music, lyrics, words, or other underlying content embodied in the recording.
Furthermore, Section 114 of the Copyright Act limits the rights in a sound recording. The exclusive right of reproduction is limited to the right to duplicate the sounds in a form “that directly or indirectly recapture[s] the actual sounds fixed in the recording.” The right to prepare derivative works is limited to works “in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality.” Id. And, while the owner of the musical composition copyright has the exclusive right to public performance of the work by any means, the sound recording owner only has the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.”
The key common aspect of these statutory provisions is that the rights in sound recordings are limited to direct duplication of the actual sounds affixed in the recording, in other words, copying of the actual recording itself. The Copyright Act goes on to expressly state that “exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording . . . do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.” Thus mere imitation of a sound recording is not an infringement, while imitation of a musical composition might well be.
It is here that Richardson’s case faltered. While he had evidence that the accused AWAN song had similarities to his HPW song, because he had only registered rights in the sound recording, that did not suffice to show infringement. Rather, he had to show that Karbouch had copied portions of the actual recording to create AWAN. This he could not do, and so summary judgment was entered against him.
The lesson is clear: understanding the different scope of rights afforded by the Copyright Act is crucial to obtaining maximum protection. The Copyright Office does permit registration of copyrights in both musical compositions and sound recordings in a single application. Had Richardson done so, his lawsuit might have turned out differently.
In 2012, Eddie Lee Richardson—then just sixteen years old and an aspiring music producer—composed an original piece of music named “Hood Pushing Weight” or HPW. He loaded a recording to a music distribution site, SoundClick.com. About six months later, Karim Karbouch released what became a hit single, “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” (AWAN). AWAN became a popular, lucrative song for Karbouch.
Richardson claimed that AWAN “sampled” major portions of HPW. He registered the copyright in the sound recording – but not the composition – for HPW and filed suit. He even obtained an expert opinion that AWAN’s musical melody was copied from HPW. But as he soon learned, his registration of the sound recording right was not sufficient to save his suit.
Generally, to show copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. However, the analysis for sound recordings is different. Critically, the copyright in the sound recording covers only the recording itself, but not the underlying music, lyrics, words, or other underlying content embodied in the recording.
Furthermore, Section 114 of the Copyright Act limits the rights in a sound recording. The exclusive right of reproduction is limited to the right to duplicate the sounds in a form “that directly or indirectly recapture[s] the actual sounds fixed in the recording.” The right to prepare derivative works is limited to works “in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality.” Id. And, while the owner of the musical composition copyright has the exclusive right to public performance of the work by any means, the sound recording owner only has the exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.”
The key common aspect of these statutory provisions is that the rights in sound recordings are limited to direct duplication of the actual sounds affixed in the recording, in other words, copying of the actual recording itself. The Copyright Act goes on to expressly state that “exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording . . . do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.” Thus mere imitation of a sound recording is not an infringement, while imitation of a musical composition might well be.
It is here that Richardson’s case faltered. While he had evidence that the accused AWAN song had similarities to his HPW song, because he had only registered rights in the sound recording, that did not suffice to show infringement. Rather, he had to show that Karbouch had copied portions of the actual recording to create AWAN. This he could not do, and so summary judgment was entered against him.
The lesson is clear: understanding the different scope of rights afforded by the Copyright Act is crucial to obtaining maximum protection. The Copyright Office does permit registration of copyrights in both musical compositions and sound recordings in a single application. Had Richardson done so, his lawsuit might have turned out differently.