## Facts

- Vincent Peters, a hip-hop artist, wrote, recorded, and distributed a song titled “Stronger” in 2006.
- Peters sought a record deal and contacted John Monopoly, a music-industry figure alleged to be a close friend and business manager of Kanye West.
- Peters sent Monopoly multiple songs, played “Stronger” for him in person, and gave him a CD containing the track; a proposed producing relationship did not proceed due to lack of label funding.
- In July 2007, Kanye West released his own song titled “Stronger,” which became a commercial success.
- Peters alleged West copied protected elements of Peters’s song, pointing to similarities including:
  - both songs’ use of a hook derived from the aphorism commonly attributed to Friedrich Nietzsche (“what does not kill me makes me stronger”);
  - a lyrical reference to Kate Moss; and
  - use of a similar three-line rhyme pattern in parts of the lyrics.
- After unsuccessful efforts to contact West through representatives, Peters registered his copyright and sued for infringement.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding the works were not substantially similar as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged copying of protectable expression through substantial similarity between the two songs.
2. Whether the asserted commonalities (a well-known aphorism, a rhyme scheme, and a reference to a public figure) are protectable expression or unprotectable elements such as ideas, stock devices, or methods.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- Even assuming access and accepting the pleaded allegations as true, the alleged overlaps were not sufficient to support a finding of infringement.
- The court treated the Nietzsche-derived phrase as a widely used, unprotectable element in popular music.
- The alleged shared three-line rhyme pattern was characterized as a compositional method not protected by copyright.
- The shared reference to Kate Moss was deemed unprotectable in itself and, in context, a commonplace trope; any resemblance was minor and cosmetic.
- The court concluded no reasonable factfinder could find substantial similarity in protectable expression based on the pleaded similarities.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright infringement requires ownership of a valid copyright and copying of original constituent elements, commonly tested by substantial similarity in protectable expression.
- Copyright does not protect ideas, common phrases, or stock elements (including scenes-à-faire and genre conventions).
- A rhyme scheme or similar structural technique is a method of composition and, by itself, is not protected expression.
- Use of a person’s name, without more, is not protected by copyright.
- A court may dismiss at the pleading stage when, comparing the works, the alleged similarities are legally insufficient to establish substantial similarity in protected expression.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the complaint alleged only unprotectable or trivial similarities between the songs and therefore failed to state a plausible claim of substantial similarity in protectable expression, warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).


Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2012)