## Facts

- Boyd Jarvis wrote and recorded “The Music’s Got Me” (1982) and registered a copyright in the musical composition (including arrangement); a record label owned the sound recording copyright.
- Robert Clivillés and David Cole created “Get Dumb! (Free Your Body)” (1989), released by A & M Records/Vendetta in multiple formats, including as a B-side on a Seduction single.
- Defendants digitally sampled portions of “The Music’s Got Me,” including a bridge section and a distinctive keyboard riff, using actual clips of Jarvis’s recording in “Get Dumb!”
- Jarvis sued for infringement of the musical composition copyright, infringement of the sound recording copyright, and related state-law claims (e.g., unjust enrichment/misappropriation).
- Defendants filed multiple motions, including to strike portions of counsel’s affidavits and for summary judgment on liability, damages, and certain parties/claims.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on infringement of Jarvis’s musical composition copyright based on admitted digital sampling.
2. Whether Jarvis had standing to sue for infringement of the sound recording copyright when the sound recording was owned by a record label.
3. Whether Jarvis’s state-law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.
4. Whether Jarvis could pursue actual damages and/or infringer’s profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), and what damages theories could be resolved on summary judgment.
5. Whether Seduction could be held liable for infringement based on “Get Dumb!” appearing as a B-side to a Seduction release.
6. Whether portions of affidavits submitted by Jarvis’s counsel should be stricken under Rule 56 standards.

## Decision

- Denied summary judgment on the musical composition infringement claim, finding triable issues on actionable copying/substantial similarity and related matters.
- Granted summary judgment for defendants on the sound recording claim because Jarvis did not own the sound recording copyright and therefore lacked standing.
- Granted summary judgment for defendants on the state-law claims as preempted by the Copyright Act.
- Granted partial summary judgment limiting certain actual-damages theories as inadequately supported, but allowed Jarvis to pursue infringer’s profits attributable to the infringement under § 504(b).
- Granted summary judgment dismissing Seduction for insufficient evidence of participation in, control over, or legal responsibility for the sampling.
- Granted in part the motion to strike argumentative or non–personal-knowledge portions of counsel affidavits submitted in opposition to summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A copyright registration for a musical composition is prima facie evidence of ownership; admitted sampling of protected musical elements can support an infringement claim even where the taking consists of short, exact fragments.
- Musical composition and sound recording copyrights are distinct; a plaintiff must prove ownership of the particular copyright asserted to have standing to sue.
- Copyright Act preemption applies when (1) the work falls within the subject matter of copyright and (2) the state-law claim asserts rights equivalent to the exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106, without a qualitatively different extra element.
- Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), a plaintiff may seek actual damages and infringer’s profits; the plaintiff must show gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement, after which defendants bear the burden to prove deductible costs and apportionment.
- Summary judgment evidence must be based on personal knowledge and admissible facts; attorney affidavits containing argument or unsupported assertions may be stricken.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Jarvis’s musical composition sampling claim to proceed but dismissed the sound recording and state-law claims, narrowed actual-damages theories while preserving a profits claim under § 504(b), dismissed Seduction for lack of involvement, and struck improper portions of counsel affidavits under Rule 56 evidentiary standards.


Jarvis v. A & M Recs., 827 F. Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1993)