Dawson v. Hinshaw Music Inc.

905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P possesses a valid copyright of an arrangement of the spiritual 'Ezekiel Saw De Wheel.' In 1980, Martin composed an arrangement of the spiritual. That same year, Martin granted D the exclusive rights to publish, distribute, and sell his arrangement. Martin agreed to indemnify D for any loss resulting from infringement of copyright. P brought suit against Hinshaw and Martin (Ds), alleging copyright infringement. The district court held that P can establish a prima facie case of infringement by showing possession of a valid copyright, Ds' access to P's work, and substantial similarity between the works. The district court found that P established (a) the validity of his copyright and (b) Ds' access to his arrangement. P must establish substantial similarity of both the ideas of the two works and the expression of those ideas. Expert testimony is admissible for proof under the first prong which courts have referred to as an 'extrinsic' or 'objective' inquiry. The district court admitted expert testimony on P's proof that the idea of Martin's work was substantially similar to the idea of Dawson's work. The court concluded that 'the pattern, theme, and organization of P's arrangement is unique among any other arrangement of this spiritual.' The court found 'there are substantial similarities between the arrangements regarding this unique pattern.' The court ruled against P on the second prong. P had not shown that the expression of ideas in Ds' work was substantially similar to the expression of ideas in P's work. The court applied the ordinary observer test, sometimes referred to as an 'intrinsic' or 'subjective' test, inquiring into the 'total concept and feel' of the works without the aid of expert testimony. The court interpreted the ordinary observer test to be an ordinary lay observer test, which imposed upon P the obligation to prove to a lay observer that the expression of ideas in the works was substantially similar. found that, as an ordinary lay observer, with nothing before him other than the sheet music, he could not determine that the two works were substantially similar. The court held for Ds claiming the works were not substantially similar. P failed to show that an ordinary lay observer would find the works similar. P appealed.