Marcus Gray et al. v. Katy Perry et al. was a copyright infringement lawsuit against Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson ("Katy Perry"), Jordan Houston ("Juicy J"), Lukasz Gottwald ("Dr. Luke"), Karl Martin Sandberg ("Max Martin"), Henry Russell Walter ("Cirkut"), Capitol Records and others, in which the plaintiffs Marcus Gray ("Flame"), Emanuel Lambert ("Da' T.R.U.T.H.")
"[4] On March 16, 2020, Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately found that Gray et al. had failed to satisfy the extrinsic test for substantial similarity, overturning a previous jury verdict which had sided with the plaintiffs.
[10] They also asserted reputational harm for "Joyful Noise" being falsely associated with anti-Christian witchcraft, paganism, black magic, and Illuminati imagery evoked by the "Dark Horse" song.
In response, the plaintiffs pointed to evidence showing that prior to the creation of "Dark Horse", videos of "Joyful Noise" had amassed nearly four million online views on YouTube and Myspace, and enjoyed popularity and acclaim in the Christian music industry.
While the court agreed that mere posting of a video on online platforms was insufficient to show access,[18] it sided with the plaintiffs, reasoning that, although the plaintiffs had not shown evidence of commercial success, they had demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to access because "Joyful Noise" achieved critical success, including a Grammy nomination, and was readily available and viewed millions of times on YouTube and Myspace.
"[20] The court mentioned that for the purposes of summary judgment, only the extrinsic test[21] was important because the subjective question of intrinsic similarity must be left to the jury.
[11] On July 29, 2019, a nine-person federal jury, consisting of six women and three men, found that Perry, Dr. Luke, Max Martin, Cirkut, Sarah Hudson, who only wrote the lyrics, and Juicy J, who only wrote the rap, were guilty of infringement, along with Capitol Records, Warner Bros. Music Publishing, Kobalt Publishing, and Kasz Money Inc.[25][28] The defendants had testified that they had never heard "Joyful Noise", or of the plaintiffs, before the lawsuit.
[14] The plaintiffs responded that the song was widely distributed, with millions of plays on YouTube and Spotify, and reminded the jury that Perry, herself began her career from the Christian Music World.
"[30] The jury disagreed, finding that the bumping beat and riff at the heart of "Joyful Noise" were original enough to be copyrighted, handing the victory over to the plaintiffs.
[38] The motion for a new trial highlighted that Plaintiffs' counsel and witnesses, Dr. Todd Decker, engaged in misconduct by perversely influencing the jury though his improper and highly prejudicial testimony.
[41] The plaintiffs disputed the motion based on lack of sufficient ground for a new trial since the clear weight of the evidence fully supported the jury's findings on liability.
[41] They made reference to Rule 59 and the remittitur standard reiterating that the court has the discretion to grant a new trial "if the verdict appears ... to be against the weight of the evidence",[42][43] and only if of the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
[4] Finally, the court opined that the musical elements of the ostinato in "Joyful Noise" were not "numerous enough and arranged in a sufficiently original manner to warrant copyright protection.
[20] Perry's lawyers had referred to the Ninth Circuit's influential en banc opinion in favor of Led Zeppelin, as part of their appeal to Judge Snyder.
[52] Following the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, the court said that the plaintiff's claim was based on minimally original musical expression that acquires only "thin" protection.
[59] Plaintiffs rebutted arguing that "Joyful Noise" was a joint work of authorship since, and that Ojukwu retained a 50% ownership stake in the song created with his beat.
[5] The defendants contended that the jury's finding of 22.5 percent of net profit[33] derived from "Dark Horse" being attributable to the use of plaintiff's ostinato reflected "pure speculation unsupported by evidence".
[5][66] The court held that a new trial would have been allowed, as the jury disregarded the weight of the evidence,[67] highlighting that it was Katy Perry's star power and Capitol's marketing efforts, and not the similarity to plaintiffs' ostinato, that made "Dark Horse" a commercial success.
[68] Adam Neely, a jazz musician in New York, highlighted the dangerous precedent of allowing exclusive rights over building blocks of musical compositions.
[69][70][71] Since the verdict on "Blurred Lines" there was an emergence of lawsuits focusing on commonplace musical elements in combination; and the decisions in Zeppelin and Perry et al., have been received as a move in the right direction by many litigators and musicians.
[51] Christine Lepera, the lawyer for Katy Perry said that the chilling effect created by "the 'Blurred Lines' curse" in the music industry had been lifted with this verdict.