Simultaneous Independent Creation

[douglasssmith]

How does the law handle a situation where two composers create and copyright essentially the same tune independently within two years of each other -- and it can be shown that the creation was almost certainly independent? Does the law say no harm, no foul and no one gets damages because the creation was independent? Or must the second person pay the first because the first was damaged, even if the damage was completely innocent?

No live case here. Just curious based on how a 60-year-old similar situation was handled.

 

[adjusterjack]

All you had to do was a google search to find plenty such cases to learn from.

copyright song case where songs were almost identical at DuckDuckGo

 

[Taxing Matters]

No live case here. Just curious based on how a 60-year-old similar situation was handled.

Bear in mind that copyright law has changed significantly in the last 60 years. So how it may turn today may be different than 60 years ago.

 

[zddoodah]

How does the law handle a situation where two composers create and copyright essentially the same tune independently within two years of each other

What do you mean by "create and copyright"? "Copyright" isn't properly used as a verb. When folks use it as such, they are typically talking about the act of registering a copyright. However, registration isn't a prerequisite to the existence of a copyright.

I have never heard of a situation in which two authors have created "essentially the same tune independently" and think it so unlikely that it's really not worth pondering too much. That said, independent creation is a defense against a claim of infringement.

Does the law say no harm, no foul and no one gets damages because the creation was independent?

Yes.

Just curious based on how a 60-year-old similar situation was handled.

Huh? What situation?

Bear in mind that copyright law has changed significantly in the last 60 years. So how it may turn today may be different than 60 years ago.

The 1976 Copyright Act (which went into effect on January 1, 1978) brought significant changes, mostly procedural but also relating to the term of copyright. Other than some time frames, not a lot has changed since then (a couple acts to lengthen the term of copyright), and the 1976 Act didn't change anything about the common law doctrine of independent creation.

 

[douglasssmith]

As usual, thanks to all for your feedback.

I specifically didn't mention the old case, because I was more interested in the legal reasoning behind the hypothetical situation I proposed rather than analyzing how the old case was adjudicated. That is, damages due no matter what vs. no damages if no wrongdoing. The old case was just a trigger. Given a particular situation, I realize that specifics would matter, not the least of which would be how similar and how similar for how many bars. I get that. And yes, I'm interested in the logic of today, not the logic of the past.

But just FYI, here are two links that describe the old Telstar case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar_(instrumental)
http://www.joemeekpage.info/essay_07_E.htm

 

[zddoodah]

But just FYI, here are two links that describe the old Telstar case:

It's worth pointing out that the Telstar case involved a French plaintiff and a UK defendant. Copyright laws vary from country to country, and I can't speak intelligently about if and to what extent either French or UK courts recognize the doctrine of independent creation (or did in the 1960s). That said, the Telstar case appears to have been an excellent case of true independent creation. In the lawsuit relating to his song "My Sweet Lord," George Harrison argued independent creation, but that claim was refuted by evidence that Harrison must have been familiar with the Chiffons' song "He's So Fine."

 

[quincy]

Any copyright infringement case filed against an independent creator of a work will fail, even if a plaintiff can prove substantial similarity to their own work, if the defendant can prove their work was independently created. The Copyright Act will consider both works original until determined otherwise.

It of course can be extremely difficult for any author of a similar work, who is challenged in court by a copyright holder, to prove their work is not a derivative of a previously published work. The degree of similarity matters. Access to the other author’s work also will be one of the factors considered, as will evidence of first publication.

Registration of a work with the Copyright Office prior to publication is wise and advised.