## Facts

- Daniel Marino, a songwriter and musician, claimed he co-authored an early song version (“Club Girl”) that later became Usher’s commercially released “Bad Girl” on the album *Confessions*.
- Marino alleged defendants failed to credit him and excluded him from royalties, asserting he was a co-author and co-owner of the relevant musical composition.
- Marino sued alleged collaborators James Samuel “Jim” Barton and William “Bill” Guice for direct copyright infringement and sued Usher and affiliated labels/publishers for direct and vicarious infringement based on exploitation of “Bad Girl.”
- Defendants disputed Marino’s claimed ownership and maintained the downstream exploitation was authorized through agreements derived from Barton/Guice.
- The district court resolved the merits on summary judgment on May 21, 2014; later proceedings addressed attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions tied to litigation conduct by Marino’s counsel.

## Issues

1. Whether Marino produced sufficient evidence that he was a co-author and co-owner of the protectable copyrighted work embodied in “Bad Girl.”
2. Whether, given the ownership showing, Marino could maintain direct infringement claims against Barton and Guice and direct or vicarious infringement claims against the remaining defendants.
3. Whether defendants were entitled to attorney’s fees and related relief after prevailing, and whether sanctions were warranted for litigation misconduct.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed Marino’s copyright infringement and related claims.
- The court held Marino failed to establish co-authorship/co-ownership of the protectable work at issue, defeating his infringement theories.
- Because Marino could not show infringement of a right he owned, his vicarious infringement theories against downstream industry defendants also failed.
- In subsequent orders, the court awarded defendants attorney’s fees and costs, finding the suit objectively unreasonable and concluding fee-shifting served compensation and deterrence.
- The court also imposed sanctions and initiated disciplinary consequences against Marino’s counsel based on conduct that unreasonably multiplied proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff asserting co-authorship must show an independently copyrightable contribution and a shared intent to merge contributions into a unitary work.
- Absent proof of ownership, copyright infringement claims fail; secondary liability theories (including vicarious liability) fail without a viable underlying infringement of the plaintiff’s rights.
- Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, including where claims are objectively unreasonable and deterrence is warranted.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and inherent authority, a court may sanction attorneys for unreasonable and vexatious conduct that increases litigation costs.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for defendants because Marino did not prove co-authorship or ownership of the copyrighted work underlying “Bad Girl,” eliminating the foundation for direct and vicarious infringement claims; it later granted substantial fee-shifting and imposed sanctions based on the case’s objective unreasonableness and counsel’s misconduct.


Marino v. Usher, 22 F. Supp. 3d 437 (E.D. Pa. 2014)