Sinclair's Admr. v. Ill. Cent. R. R.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• emphasizing the difference between a track with only singing and one with a substantial rap component in rejecting substantial similarity
• finding no substantial similarity in part because “the Challenged Song contains significantly sparser instrumentation backing the singers’ vocals than does the [p]laintiffs’ Song”
• granting motion to dismiss where court found that the phrase “caught up,” was not protectable even though it was used in both the title and chorus of both songs
• dismissing claim for lack of substantial similarity because “the [p]laintiffs’ Song is in significant part a rap song[, and] [t]he Challenged Song has no rapping; [the artist] sings all of the lyrics”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).