Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order vacating the jury's damages award for copyright infringement and granting judgment as a matter of law to Katy Perry and other defendants. Plaintiffs, Christian hip-hop artists, filed suit alleging that a repeating instrumental figure in one of Katy Perry's songs copied a similar ostinato in one of plaintiffs' songs.
The panel held that copyright law protects musical works only to the extent that they are original works of authorship. In this case, the trial record compels the panel to conclude that the ostinatos at issue consist entirely of commonplace musical elements, and that the similarities between them do not arise out of an original combination of these elements. Therefore, the jury's verdict finding defendants liable for copyright infringement was unsupported by the evidence.
Court Description: Copyright. The panel affirmed the district court’s order vacating a jury’s award of damages for copyright infringement and granting judgment as a matter of law to Katheryn Hudson (pka Katy Perry) and other defendants. Christian hip-hop artists Marcus Gray (pka Flame), Emanuel Lambert, and Chike Ojukwu claimed that an ostinato, or repeating instrumental figure, in Hudson’s song “Dark Horse” copied a similar ostinato in plaintiffs’ song “Joyful Noise.” The panel held that copyright law protects musical works only to the extent that they are “original works of authorship.” The panel concluded that the ostinatos at issue here consisted entirely of commonplace musical elements, and the similarities between them did not arise out of an original combination of these elements. Consequently, the jury’s verdict finding defendants liable for copyright infringement was unsupported by the evidence because plaintiffs failed to put forward legally sufficient evidence GRAY V. HUDSON 3 that Joyful Noise and Dark Horse were extrinsically similar works with respect to any musical features protectible under copyright law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.