By: Faith Magiera

EDited by: chloe shah and claire quan

Sampling in the music industry is no new phenomenon. Songs on the radio today often use old beats or melodies and repurpose them in order to create a new song. To pair with the prevalence of sampling is also the increase of copyright claims based on the use of original songs in other works. [1] In a May 2024 Supreme Court ruling in WARNER CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC., ET AL. v. NEALY, questions about intellectual property law were answered while also raising new questions about the future of the statute of limitations regarding copyright cases. [2] This case builds on the recent focus on intellectual property and ownership in the arts, as we see artists like Taylor Swift grapple with reclaiming their creative works while also navigating questions about the statute of limitations and the underlying worth of originality in creative works. [3] While the increase in copyright lawsuits includes more than the sampling issue underlying Warner v. Nealy, the idea that the Supreme Court is addressing issues surrounding intellectual property adds to the burgeoning importance of copyright law in creative works. [4]

The case begins with the story of how the joint music venture, Music Specialist Inc., came to be. Tony Butler and Sherman Nealy created the company in 1983 and began to craft a portfolio under the umbrella of the company, with the joint venture ending soon after a small portfolio was created. [5] Nealy subsequently went to jail for 2 periods, one spanning 1989-2008 and one spanning 2013-2015. [6] While Nealy was in jail, Butler licensed some of the works with Warner Chappell Music, Inc., which eventually led to a famous, media-publicized, and licensed Flo Rida song “In the Ayer” that sampled one of their pieces, “Jam the Box.” [7] Nealy argued that, as the agreement to sample his portfolio occurred without his knowledge, he had grounds to sue for copyright infringement. [8] In order to prove his standing based on the Copyright Act after so much time has passed, he had to assert that he “commenced [the lawsuit] within three years after the claim accrued.” [9]

The majority opinion, authored by Elena Kagan and decided in a 6-3 margin, sided with Sherman Nealy. [10] The reasoning of the opinion was based on the use of the discovery rule as underlying the statute of limitations for copyright law. Under the discovery rule, a claim can be filed within three years of the person offended learning about the infringement, which is commonly used in medical malpractice cases. [11] While its use here can be questioned and is questioned later in the dissenting opinion, Warner Chappell did not object to the use of the discovery rule governing the case in any of their briefs. [12] As Nealy proved that he did not learn of the infringements until 2016, the majority opinion holds not only that Nealy can recover all the copyright damages, but also that the court does not have to decide “whether a copyright claim accrues when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered an infringement, rather than when the infringement happened” because the “issue is not properly presented here.” [13] The end decision of the case, while ruling in favor of the defendant because of the idea that a “judicially invented damages limit” would be the reasoning to withhold awarding damages to Nealy, it also fails to address whether the discovery rule should be applied at all. [14]

The dissenting opinion, authored by Gorsuch and joined by Alito and Thomas, takes issue with the use of the discovery rule without detailing why it is applicable. [15] In the main thesis of the dissent they state that “Rather than address[ing] that question [of the application of discovery rule], the Court takes care to emphasize that its resolution must await a future case.” [16] This reasoning in the dissent refers specifically to the “without deciding” clause in the second sentence of the majority opinion, as the opinion signals from the very start that while there are greater questions about the statute of limitations regarding the Copyright Act, they will ultimately not be addressed in this decision. [17] The dissent additionally takes issue with the fact that “the Act almost certainly does not tolerate a discovery rule.” [18] Through stating that the discovery rule cannot be used in this context as it does not fall under the special circumstances that usually govern applications of the discovery law, Gorsuch ends the opinion by asserting that this case followed faulty logic by “answer[ing] a question …that almost certainly does not [matter].” [19]

Concluding this story about creativity and intellectual property law by pointing out the importance of the dissent shows that while this case may be a win for additional copyright claims and protections around old pieces of artwork, there is also an open path for the reinvestigation of what constitutes a good copyright claim. Consequently, it becomes important to tune into these rulings as the Supreme Court continues to grapple with questions that will impact creativity in the arts for years to come, especially as they relate to the discovery rule and statute of limitations in the future.

Notes:

Wang, Amy X.. 2020. “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.” Rolling Stone. January 9, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/?sub_action=logged_in.
Brittain, Blake. 2024. “US Supreme Court Rules against Warner Music in Copyright Damages Case.” Reuters. May 9, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-warner-music-copyright-damages-case-2024-05-09/.
Milano, Brett. “How Taylor Swift Changed the Copyright Game by Remaking Her Own Music.” Harvard Law School. April 3, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/.
Wang, “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.”
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 2 (2024)
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § 507.
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
“Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” 2018. Justia. September 14, 2018. https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/statutes-of-limitations-and-the-discovery-rule/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20the%20discovery%20rule.
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 4 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 4 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 6 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 1 (2024)
Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. 3 (2024)

Bibliography:

Brittain, Blake. 2024. “US Supreme Court Rules against Warner Music in Copyright Damages Case.” Reuters. May 9, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rules-against-warner-music-copyright-damages-case-2024-05-09/.

Milano, Brett. “How Taylor Swift Changed the Copyright Game by Remaking Her Own Music.” Harvard Law School. April 3, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/how-taylor-swift-changed-the-copyright-game-by-remaking-her-own-music/.

“Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule in Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.” 2018. Justia. September 14, 2018. https://www.justia.com/injury/medical-malpractice/statutes-of-limitations-and-the-discovery-rule/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20the%20discovery%20rule.

Wang, Amy X.. 2020. “How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits.” Rolling Stone. January 9, 2020. https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/music-copyright-lawsuits-chilling-effect-935310/?sub_action=logged_in.

Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al. v. Nealy et al., 601 U.S. (2024)