Swirsky v. Carey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court erred in discounting expert's testimony regarding structural similarities between two choruses
• holding that seven notes of the first measure of a song’s chorus were sufficient to find substantial similarity
• noting that “[m]usic . . . is not capable of ready classification into only five or six constituent elements,” but “is comprised of a large array of elements”
• finding challenge to the denial of a motion to reconsider moot given the court’s decision to reverse the grant of summary judgment
• distinguishing between non- copyrightable “chord progressions” standing alone and a copyrightable “chorus,” which involves these progressions “in combination with rhythm and pitch sequence[s]”
• acknowledging that a single musical note lacks copyright protection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).