- Trademark law is not intended to stifle competition - November 14, 2024
- U.S. ruling a step forward in litigating AI copyright disputes - August 26, 2024
- McDonald’s loses Big Mac TM battle (but probably not the war) - July 10, 2024
By Tony Poland, LegalMatters Staff • A recent copyright infringement claim targeting Mariah Carey’s iconic song All I Want for Christmas is You demonstrates the need for stronger deterrents for questionable lawsuits, says Toronto intellectual property lawyer John Simpson.
Singer and songwriter Andy Stone filed a US$20-million lawsuit claiming he co-wrote a song with the same name five years before Carey’s 1994 megahit. Also named in the statement of claim are Carey’s writing partner Walter Afanasieff and Sony Music.
Although the songs are different musically and lyrically, Stone claims the defendants “knowingly, wilfully, and intentionally engaged in a campaign” to infringe on his copyright for “commercial gain, personal profit and unjust enrichment.”
Song has been streamed more than one billion times
Stone, who performs under the name Vince Vance, says he recorded his version in 1989 and it received “extensive airplay during the 1993 Christmas season,” one year before the release of Carey’s chart topper, which has gone on to be streamed more than one billion times on Spotify.
According to the statement of claim, Stone contacted the defendants last year but “was unable to come to any agreement over usage” of the song.
“The obvious thing that would jump out to many people about this latest lawsuit is why is it only being brought now? The song is famous and came out in 1994,” says Simpson, principal of IP and new media law boutique Shift Law Professional Corporation.
The merits of the case aside, he says the lawsuit would likely be unsuccessful in this country because of the passage of time.
“In Canada, you need to bring a copyright infringement claim within three years of the date when it ought to have come to your attention,” Simpson tells LegalMattersCanada.ca. “That does not mean when you became aware of the alleged infringement, but when it ought to have come to your attention. So, if this guy said, ‘Hey, I only heard All I Want for Christmas is You a couple of years ago,’ even if he could prove that, I don’t believe that would suffice.”
Celebrities targeted in copyright infringement lawsuits
He says U.S. celebrities have increasingly become the subject of copyright infringement claims in recent years.
“More and more, famous artists have become the target of these lawsuits and I believe part of that is becausejuries in the U.S. have awarded some obscenely large amounts in musical copyright cases,” says Simpson. “The increase in lawsuits is not a coincidence because these decisions are generally made by juries and you never know what you’re going to get with a jury.
- Important to keep an eye to the future in co-branding deals
- Non-fungible tokens the next trademark challenge on the horizon
- Adidas loses battle of the stripes in trademark infringement lawsuit
“Juries are more willing than judges to award huge sums of money,” he adds. “That’s partly what’s behind these suits, totally aside from any merit whatsoever.”
A celebrity lawsuit also makes for sensational headlines, Simpson notes.
“Coverage of the Mariah Carey lawsuit appeared on many different news sites within a day or two of being filed. That just speaks to the public’s fascination with copyright infringement claims,” he says.
‘There is that scent of scandal’
“The most valuable claims typically concern copyright in famous works whether they are movies or songs. That is what grabs the public’s interest. They are fascinated by creativity and who was first. There is that scent of scandal, that someone stole somebody else’s work.
“That’s why this case is getting attention. But from a legal perspective, it isn’t worth talking about,” Simpson adds.
He says it is not unusual for a lawsuit aimed at a celebrity to be an attempt at “a shakedown.”
“It is only in recent years where claimants have realized how much money can be made in settlements for these lawsuits,” Simpson says. “Someone brings these outrageous claims and hopes to get compensated through a settlement. Or they might get lucky and it goes to court where they get a jury that doesn’t pay much attention to issues such as limitations that a judge would.”
There may be instances where it makes more financial sense to settle a case, even if it is unfounded, rather than pay to litigate it, he says.
‘People may believe they can make some quick money’
“Some people may believe they can make some quick money,” Simpson says. “The reason why there might be a settlement is because even though the celebrity knows there is no way the plaintiff can win, perhaps there is enough of a chance that the case will proceed so they believe it is better to just pay them something to make him go away.
“It is really unfortunate because I believe it is a misuse of the justice system, to say the least.”
He says if you pursue a lawsuit in court in Canada and lose, you could be ordered to pay legal costs to the winning side.
“That’s the only guardrail to deter specious claims. That is the basic disincentive to pursuing bogus claims, but the reality is that only happens when you go to court. If there is a settlement it is usually on a without costs basis,” Simpson says. “Unfortunately, cost consequences are clearly not sufficient to deter questionable lawsuits. There are really no meaningful deterrents.”
