On October 16, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant (Karim Kharbouch) after finding that the Plaintiff (Eddie Richardson) provided insufficient evidence of infringement based solely on sound recording copyright protection. In its decision, the Court of Appeals emphasized the difference between sound recording copyright protection versus musical composition copyright protection.
In the district court, Eddie Richardson, a hip-hop producer, sued Karim Kharbouch for copyright infringement, alleging that Kharbouch’s song “Ain’t Worried About Nothin” (“AWAN”) illegally used Richardson’s beat from “Hood Pushin Weight” (“HPW”). Richardson had registered a sound recording copyright for HPW after discovering its similarity to AWAN, but did not obtain a musical composition copyright. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kharbouch, finding insufficient evidence of infringement based on sound recording copyright for HPW, and denied Kharbouch’s request for attorney’s fees, awarding only costs.
Sound recording copyrights provide protection for the actual sounds fixed in a recording (i.e., the specific digital audio as captured and stored). Alternatively, musical composition copyrights protect the underlying music and lyrics, including the creative content that can be performed or reproduced in different ways. In making its decision, the Court of Appeals expressly did not consider the protections under musical composition copyrights in this appeal because the Richardson only registered a copyright for the sound recording of HPW, and not for its musical composition.
To prove infringement of a sound recording copyright, the plaintiff must show that the defendant duplicated the actual digital sounds, not merely imitated them. The district court found that Richardson’s evidence, primarily the similarity between the tracks and expert testimony about common industry practices, was insufficient. The plaintiff’s expert did not opine that AWAN sampled HPW’s digital track, and failed to provide direct or indirect evidence of duplication, such as admissions, production details, or expert analysis of digital sampling.
The Appeals Court further clarified that they “express[ed] no view on whether any amount of digital sampling, however slight, is sufficient to establish a claim for copyright infringement.”
This Appeals Court decision clarifies that sound recording copyrights offer narrow protection limited to only actual duplication of the recorded sounds is actionable, while further clarifying that imitation of the musical composition is not protected by sound recording copyrights. For future cases, plaintiffs must present concrete evidence of digital sampling or copying, such as production records, expert analysis, or admissions to support a claim under sound recording copyrights. The ruling aligns with other circuits and legislative history, reinforcing that copyright law does not bar independent creation of similar-sounding works.
Copyright owners should carefully document the creation and development process, and further to obtain copyright registration of both sound recordings and musical compositions to maximize protection. In infringement cases, plaintiff’s will want to present evidence of actual duplication, not just similarity, when attempting to protect works under sound recordings. This decision may make it harder for copyright owners to prevail in cases based solely on similarity, shifting focus to technical evidence and production details.
