## Facts

- William L. Dawson owned a valid copyright in his choral arrangement of the public-domain spiritual “Ezekiel Saw De Wheel” and had sold many copies.
- Gilbert M. Martin created a separate choral arrangement of the same spiritual and granted Hinshaw Music, Inc. exclusive rights to publish, distribute, and sell it, agreeing to indemnify Hinshaw for infringement losses.
- Dawson sued Martin and Hinshaw under federal copyright law, alleging Martin’s arrangement copied protected elements of Dawson’s arrangement.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Dawson proved ownership and Martin’s access, but held Dawson failed to prove substantial similarity and entered judgment for defendants.
- Dawson appealed, challenging the substantial-similarity analysis and the observer standard applied to choral sheet music.

## Issues

1. Whether Dawson proved infringement circumstantially through ownership, access, and substantial similarity between the two choral arrangements.
2. Whether the intrinsic “ordinary observer” inquiry should be conducted from the viewpoint of the general public or the work’s intended audience in a specialized market for choral music.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed judgment for Hinshaw and Martin.
- The court accepted that substantial similarity analysis has an objective “extrinsic” component and a subjective “intrinsic” component.
- The court recognized that the intrinsic inquiry may properly consider the “intended audience” where the work is marketed to a specialized class (such as choir directors and trained musicians).
- Even using the intended-audience viewpoint, the court found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that the works were not substantially similar in protectable expression.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement by showing (1) ownership of a valid copyright, (2) the defendant’s access, and (3) substantial similarity.
- Substantial similarity involves an extrinsic comparison that filters unprotectable material (including public-domain source elements and conventional techniques) from protectable expression, followed by an intrinsic comparison of the overall expressive effect.
- Only original, protectable aspects of an arrangement (e.g., specific harmonizations, voicings, and other creative choices) can support infringement; similarity attributable to common source material or standard devices is insufficient.
- The intrinsic similarity inquiry ordinarily asks whether the relevant observer would perceive appropriation of protected expression; in specialized markets, that observer may be the intended audience rather than a lay listener.
- Appellate review of intrinsic similarity findings after a bench trial is deferential; absent clear error, the trial court’s assessment of the works stands.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that although Dawson proved ownership and access, he failed to prove substantial similarity in protectable elements between two arrangements of the same public-domain spiritual, and it affirmed judgment for the defendants while recognizing that the intrinsic test may turn on the intended audience in specialized music markets.


Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990)