## Facts

- A pro se hip-hop songwriter and producer submitted 38 songs to a music-industry promotional program affiliated with a major record company for professional feedback.
- He later alleged that two major record companies and numerous artists copied elements of his songs and distributed infringing works.
- The alleged overlaps were primarily brief, commonplace phrases (e.g., conversational expressions) and generic hip-hop subject matter (sex, drugs, partying, street life), along with shared titles or themes.
- The plaintiff asserted direct and contributory copyright infringement under the Copyright Act.
- By the time of dispositive motions, the primary appearing defendants were UMG Recordings, Inc. and Warner Music Group Corp.; many other named defendants were dismissed or never appeared.
- The summary-judgment record included recordings and lyrics of the works, multiple amended complaints, and an “expert report” submitted by the plaintiff.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence could permit a reasonable jury to find substantial similarity between defendants’ songs and protectable elements of the plaintiff’s copyrighted songs.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s expert report and other summary-judgment submissions were admissible or should be stricken for noncompliance with governing procedural rules.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s ancillary motions (including contempt and judicial notice) had legal or factual merit.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to UMG and Warner on all remaining copyright infringement claims.
- The court held that no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity in protectable expression between the plaintiff’s songs and defendants’ works.
- The court denied the plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court granted defendants’ motion to strike the plaintiff’s expert report and other improper filings, including a contempt motion found frivolous.
- Judgment was entered for the appearing defendants, effectively ending the case as to them.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects original expression, not ideas, general concepts, or common thematic material.
- Unprotectable material includes stock phrases, titles, and scènes à faire—standard elements that naturally flow from a genre or common theme.
- To establish actionable copying, a plaintiff must show substantial similarity between protectable elements of the works, not merely overlap in short phrases, topics, or overall genre.
- At summary judgment, the nonmovant must present competent, rule-compliant evidence; filings that are procedurally improper or consist largely of legal argument may be stricken.

## Conclusion

The court rejected infringement claims based on scattered, generic lyrical overlaps and genre conventions, holding that the plaintiff failed to show substantial similarity in protectable expression and that his noncompliant expert and ancillary filings could not create a triable issue.


Prunté v. Universal Music Grp., Inc., 699 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2010)