I choose the case Tuff ‘N’ Rumble v. Profile Records 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The complaining work was by the Honey Drippers “Impeach the President” the Defending work was by Run DMC “Back from Hell.” Firstly, in terms of lyrical context the songs are very different. The song “Impeach the President” is talking about the corruption in the White House and that Nixon should be impeached. “Back from Hell” is about different convicts life in jail. The only way the lyrics are similar is if they are comparing Nixon to someone who deserves to be in prison. Also, the instrumental sound didn’t sound similar for “Impeach the President” the music is much slower and for “Impeach the President” it is faster and more upbeat.
The plaintiff claimed that “certain drum tracks” from “Impeach the President” were copied from the work of “Back from Hell.” The court did not find infringement because the offended party has exhibited neither that it claims a substantial copyright nor that respondents occupied with unapproved replicating. Also, Tuff ‘N’ Rumble Management neglected to deliver skilled proof that respondents took an interest in unapproved duplicating of “Impeach the President.” therefore they were unable to show actual copying or unlawful appropriation.
No, I don’t believe there was any infringement, it’s hard to believe that this case even made it as far as it did. One of the comments stated that this was “most speculative infringement claim ever to progress to district court review that matured to the publication of a full-blown judicial opinion.” This case showed that the offended party couldn’t build up the fundamental components of its case of copyright encroachment.