## Facts

- Richard Morrill wrote and recorded “Who’s Got My Lightah” (1996) and later re-recorded it as “Who’s Got My Lighter” (2009).
- Morrill alleged that, while working as Gwen Stefani’s hairdresser in the late 1990s, he played “Lightah” for her.
- Stefani and collaborators released “Spark the Fire” in 2014.
- Morrill claimed “Spark the Fire” copied protected elements from his songs, focusing on:
  - Pronouncing “lighter” and “fire” as “light-ah” and “fi-ah,”
  - Using those pronunciations as line-ending rhymes,
  - Alleged similarities in words, pronunciations, rhythmic patterns, and vocal tones.
- The parties submitted competing expert analyses; Morrill’s expert asserted copying based on combined vocal/rhythmic/lyrical similarities, while defendants’ expert characterized the overlap as commonplace, unprotectable, or used differently.
- After discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no reasonable jury could find actionable substantial similarity in protectable expression.

## Issues

1. Whether “Spark the Fire” is substantially similar to protectable elements of Morrill’s songs under the Ninth Circuit framework for copyright infringement.
2. Whether the “light-ah/fi-ah” pronunciation, related rhyme pattern, and other asserted similarities are protectable expression or unprotectable ideas, common stylistic/linguistic devices, or standard musical techniques.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Stefani and the other defendants.
- The court held Morrill failed, as a matter of law, to show substantial similarity in protectable expression between the works.
- The court concluded the “-er” to “-ah” pronunciation and line-ending rhymes relied on routine linguistic and songwriting practices rather than original, protectable authorship.
- After filtering out unprotectable elements, the court found no triable issue of objective substantial similarity for a jury.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright infringement requires substantial similarity in protectable expression, not merely similarity in ideas, general style, or common musical/linguistic devices.
- Courts must filter out unprotectable elements (including commonplace components and short phrases) and evaluate similarity only in the remaining protectable selection, coordination, or arrangement, if any.
- Common pronunciation conventions associated with established vernacular speech patterns and ordinary rhyming practice are generally unprotectable as routine stylistic techniques.
- Expert testimony cannot create a triable issue if the identified similarities are predominantly unprotectable or, once filtered, do not show objective substantial similarity in protectable expression.

## Conclusion

The court disposed of the infringement claims at summary judgment because the asserted similarities centered on common linguistic and songwriting techniques, and the works were not substantially similar in protectable expression after excluding unprotectable elements.


Morrill v. Stefani, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (C.D. Cal. 2018)