Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Judgment: Eight Mile Style v National Party

High Court of New Zealand

25 October 2017

MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

EIGHT MILE STYLE V NATIONAL PARTY

[2017] NZHC 2603

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz

What the case is about

The key issue for determination by the Court waswhether a “sound-alike” production track, called Eminem Esque, used by the National Party in its 2014 election campaign advertising,is sufficiently similar tothe 2002music of Eminem’s hit song,Lose Yourself,so asto constitute a breach of copyright.

Lose Yourselfwas composed by Marshall Mathers III (Eminem), Jeffrey Bass and Luis Resto (all called Eight Mile Style) in 2002. The composition is regarded by Eight Mile Styleas the most valuable work in their catalogue and has only rarely been licensed for use, and never as part of a political campaign.

Eight Mile Style, [Eight Mile Style are the owners of 50 percent and exclusive licensees of the other 50 per cent of the musical work Lose Yourself.] who own the copyright in LoseYourself, sought damages against the National Party after Eminem Esque featured in Party advertisements played on television, the internet and at a Party conference in the lead up to the 2014 election.Between 20 to 30

August 2014,the advertisements, with Eminem Esque synchronised to them, were played 186 times on New Zealand television. Eminem Esquewas also played eight times during a 15 minute opening broadcast on TV1, occurring on 23 August 2014.

This proceeding is being heardin two parts. Thefirst, a hearing to determine the liability of the National Party and the quantum of damages, if any,was heldin the High Court at Wellingtonover eight days between 1 May and 12 May 2017. The second part concerns a separate hearing todetermine third party liability, if any.

This decision deals with the first hearing only, namely, the issues of liability and quantum against the National Party as the alleged publishers of the infringing work. The third-partyliability hearing awaits the outcome of this trial.

Background and legal issues

The tensions between illegitimate copying versus permissive borrowing and the resulting copyright consequences are at the forefront of this case.

Toattract copyright protection under the Copyright Act 1994 (the Act) a work must be “original.” There are three separate copyrights in Lose Yourself, namely, the original sound recording, the lyrics and the music. Copyright is a property right that exists in original works. This case concerns the copyright in the music only. The references made to Lose Yourself, therefore, are to the musical work of Lose Yourself.

The National Party deny there has been any copyright infringement because there was no reproduction or copying of Lose Yourself.

In response to the alleged infringement, the National Party challenged the inherent originality of Lose Yourself. The National Party submitted that Lose Yourselfis not an original work, or has a low level of originality, as it is substantially borrowed from other music and genres. On that basis,they argued Eminem Esquecannot have infringed Eight Mile Style’s copyright as those parts it copied weretoo generic,or non-original,to be entitled to copyright protection.Two central issues raised in evidence before the Court were whether borrowed musical elements are protected by copyright and whether an alteration in melody can avoid copying.

(a) Has EminemEsquesubstantially copied or reproduced Lose Yourself?

(b) Does Eminem Esquesound objectively similar to Lose Yourself?

(c) Is there a causal connection between Lose Yourselfand Eminem Esque?

The use of sound-alike tracks sourced from production music libraries for synchronisation with television, film or media advertisements are sold regularly on a commercial basis.

The National Party sought and received assurances from Eminem Esque’s licensors that no copyright issues arose from their use of the production trackand paid for a synchronisation licence to use the music sound-alike Eminem Esque.

The Court’s approach

The National Party’s challenge to the originality of Lose Yourself, meant before addressing Eight Mile Style’s copyright allegations, it was necessary for the Court to assess the expertevidence and argumentfrom the parties on the fundamental question of originalityand whether Lose Yourself met the threshold established in case law.

This analysis required consideration of the originality not just of the composition butalso the various elements of the composition as not every partof an originalworkwill necessarily be protected by copyright.

After reaching a conclusion on this issue the Court worked through a seriesof questions to determine whether the three elements necessary to establish copying had taken place:

After considering those issues the Court had to determine whether the publications by the National Party met the legal definition of “restricted acts” under the Act and therefore amounted to an infringement of copyright of Lose Yourself.

Finally, if the National Party had infringed copyright, the Court had to determine whetherEight Mile Style is entitled to relief and if so, what damages should be awarded?

Throughout the hearing several witnesses gave evidence on confidential agreements and commercially sensitive information in relation to artist and industry practices and licence fees

throughout the hearing. To protect this confidential information, this decision is delivered with the analysis of the confidential material being released to the parties only.

The Court’skeyrulings

Is Lose Yourself an original work capable of protection under the Act and were the elements of Lose Yourself referenced in EminemEsque also original?

The Court found that copyright does subsist in the musical work Lose Yourself as it meets the definition and low threshold of being an original work under the Act.

Although Lose Yourselfmet the low threshold of an original work under the Act, the Court was also required to determine how original the work is and whether there are features in the work that are not original. To establish infringement, there must be substantial copying of the original parts of the work. Any copying of a part of the work, which by itself has no originality, will not normally be protected.

Cull J found Lose Yourselfalso met the higher threshold of an original work in the case law. Her Honour concluded:

[154] The distinctive sound ofLose Yourselfis not limited by a “melodic”line,but is a combination of the other instruments, particularly the guitar riff, the timbre, the strong hypnotic rhythm and the recurring violin instrumentation and the piano figure. It is no coincidence thatLose Yourselfreceived the 2003 Academy Award for Best Original Song. I find that Lose Yourselfis a highly original work.

Was there copying of Lose Yourself?

The Court found Eminem Esquewas a copy of Lose Yourselffor three reasons.

First, Cull J determined Eminem Esquehas substantially copied Lose Yourself. Thedifferences between the two works are minimal; the close similarities and the indiscernible differences in drum beat, the “melodic line” and the piano figures, makeEminem Esquestrikingly similar toLose Yourself. Eminem Esquesubstantially reproduces the essence of Lose Yourself.The partsof Eminem Esqueused in the National Party’s campaignadvertisements also substantially reproduce Lose Yourself.

Second, Eminem Esqueis objectively similar to Lose Yourselfas there are minimal discernible differences.The inquiry into objective similarity is a test of hearing and ear recognition; Eminem Esquesounds like a copy and is a copy of Lose Yourself.Eminem Esquewas designed to “sound like” Eminem and Lose Yourselfas production music and a sound-alike track.

Finally, there is a causal connection between Lose Yourselfand Eminem Esque. It was no coincidence that the works sounded the same and the undeniable inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the composer of Eminem Esquehad Lose Yourselfin front of him at the time of composition. The similarities between the works overwhelmingly support a finding of copying. The original title Eminem_abbr; the title of Eminem Esque; and the fact that Eminem Esqueis a sound-alike track, reinforces the finding that there is a causal connection between the two works, supporting a finding of copying.

Did the copying constitute a breach of the Act?

The Court found the National Party committed three restricted acts amounting to copyright infringement.

The National Party communicated a copy of Lose Yourselfto the public without licence; authorised the copying of Lose Yourself; and authorised the use and/or deployment of the relevant advertisements and opening broadcast.

Was Eight Mile Style entitled to damages?

The Court found Eight Mile Style is entitled to damages on a “user principle” basis in the sum of NZ$600,000, with interest, from 28 June 2014.

This sum was determined underthe user principle, beingthe hypothetical licence fee that would reasonably have been charged for permission to use a copy of Lose Yourselfin the National Party’s campaignadvertising.

The relevant factors considered in assessing this hypothetical licence fee included that Eight Mile Style have retained exclusive control of licensing andrarely grantpermission to use Lose Yourselfin advertising; the purpose for use in the present case was politicaluse in an

unassociated country, which is not what Eminem or Eight Mile Style would endorse; the use was confined over 11 days, with 186 television viewings, as well as beinguploaded to the internet; and the National Party wanted the sound of Lose Yourselfor an equivalent.

Although copyright infringement did occur, the National Party’s actions were taken after receiving professional, commercial and media advice and were not reckless or contumelious of the rights of the copyright owner. No additional damages are awarded.


Original version of media release
Judgment: Eight Mile Style v National Party
[This judgment of the High Court includes links to audio and video files that were adduced in evidence by the parties during the hearings. They are made available to assist in understanding the judgment. The re-use, capture, storage, re-editing or redistribution of this footage in any form is not permitted.]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell: On National’s Rampant Pandering To The Farming Vote

What on earth has happened to the political parties n the centre-right? Once upon a time in the US, the party of Lincoln was a respectable political party before it devolved into the cult of Trump. Here at home, the National Parry used to be able to manage and administer the economic orthodoxy in a reasonably competent fashion. Now it can barely do simple addition and subtraction. Something must have gotten into the water, and not simply out on the farm... More>>

 

Winston Peters Speech: The Gathering Storm Clouds: Ihumatao

Frequently around New Zealand you hear people say that politicians are all the same. It’s a convenient way to dismiss any careful investigation of the truth of that statement. New Zealand First since its inception has been committed to ‘one law ... More>>

ALSO:

National Agriculture Policy: Will Restore Farmer Confidence And Pride

A National Government will reduce regulatory burden and give farmers confidence for the future. Leader of the National Party Judith Collins and Agriculture spokesperson David Bennett announced National’s Agriculture policy in Gisborne today. “Agriculture ... More>>

ALSO:

Shaw: Wealth Tax Not A Bottom Line For Green Party But They Will Push For It

Green Party co-leader James Shaw says one of his senior MPs misspoke under pressure when she said a wealth tax was one of the party's bottom lines. More>>

ALSO:

Government: More Border Exceptions For Critical Roles

The Government has established class exceptions for border entry for a limited number of veterinarians, deep sea fishing crew, as well as agricultural and horticultural machinery operators. “Tight border restrictions remain the backbone of the Government’s ... More>>

ALSO:


Gordon Campbell: On Last Night’s Leaders Debate

Do political debates change voter intentions, and cause voters to switch sides? According to a 2019 Harvard Business School study conducted across 61 elections in nine countries involving 172,000 respondents, the answer would seem to be a resounding ... More>>

ALSO:

Dunne Speaks: The Election Campaign Just Grinds Slowly On And On

With just over three weeks until the General Election, the release of the first major pre-election opinion poll this week confirmed what was already being reported about this year’s campaign. Although the gap between Labour and National has narrowed ... More>>

Electoral Commission: Candidate And Party Lists Released

17 registered political parties and 677 candidates will be contesting the 2020 General Election Nominations have now closed and the Electoral Commission has released the electorate and party list candidates for 2020 online at vote.nz . Advance voting ... More>>

National: Plan To Restore NZ’s Prosperity

National’s Economic and Fiscal Plan carefully balances the need to invest in infrastructure and core public services while also reducing tax pressure on Kiwi families and businesses. National Leader Judith Collins and Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith unveiled National’s ... More>>

ALSO:

NZ First: Party List

New Zealand First has a proven twenty-seven-year history of bringing balance and common sense to our government. Amid the continued setbacks of COVID-19 restrictions, New Zealand First has once again sustained its profile by selecting a strong team ... More>>


 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 


 

InfoPages News Channels