Remixer loses appeal over ownership of ‘Happier’ song

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips cemented a previous victory in a highly publicized copyright infringement case at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which music producer Marshmello and pop rock band Bastille's lead singer were accused of plagiarizing their hit song "Happier."

Ten days after the oral argument, 9th Circuit Judges Sandra S. Ikuta, Kenneth K. Lee and Danielle J. Forrest issued a unanimous decision Thursday rejecting Russian DJ Arty's appeal in its entirety, granting summary judgment in favor of Marshmello and Bastille lead singer Dan Smith.

"We are pleased with the 9th Circuit's well-reasoned decision, and grateful that the court agreed that Arty did not have the right to bring the lawsuit in the first place," said partner and entertainment litigation practice leader Robert A. Jacobs of Manatt.

Christopher Comstock, better known as Marshmello, and Smith were also represented by Emil Petrossian, Prana A. Topper, Benjamin G. Shatz, Noro Mejlumyan, Veronica Hartling and Maura K. Gierl.

The lawsuit was filed by Richard S. Busch of King & Ballow on behalf of Artem Stoliarov, the real name of the plaintiff, DJ Arty. Busch was unavailable for comment on Friday.

Arty alleged in a 2019 complaint that the song "Happier" by Marshmello and British band Bastille was "note for note" plagiarism of his remix of "I Lived" by OneRepublic. Artem Stoliarov v. Marshmello Creative LLC et al., 2:19-cv-03934-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal., filed May 6, 2019).

The lawsuit discussed the definition of "underlying musical composition," and Arty's attorneys argued that despite not owning or having rights to the original composition, the remix was an entirely different matter.

Marshmello's attorneys pointed out that Arty's contract read, "I acknowledge and agree that the services rendered (or to be rendered) by remixer hereunder do not entitle remixer or me to any ownership or financial interest in the underlying musical composition," thus disclaiming any right to the remix as well.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez in Los Angeles granted the defendants' summary judgment motions in full last year. But shortly afterward, Stoliarov appealed the loss to the 9th Circuit. In its unanimous decision, the circuit panel said, "because Stoliarov has not demonstrated that the remixer declaration is ambiguous, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendants on Stoliarov's infringement claim."

Jacobs said Friday, "The decisions of the 9th Circuit and the trial court below help clarify the unique copyright ownership issues that arise with remixes of preexisting songs; how the questions of causation and damages associated with live performances of allegedly infringing songs should be addressed; and the manner in which personal jurisdiction should be evaluated when plaintiffs seek to apply the copyright act to non-U. S. defendants."

The decision specifically points out that the panel did not answer who actually owns the original melody, original artist OneRepublic or remixer Arty: "We decline to address the question of who owns the drop melody, because that issue is not directly addressed by the remixer declaration and is not before us."