Cope v. Dua Lipa, et al.

2:22-cv-01616 (E.D. La. 2022)

Comment by Charles Cronin

Having heard portions of the songs (see above) at issue in this case, the reason that the Complaint’s claim of musical similarity is hopelessly weak — basis for dismissal of the case — is readily apparent. As so often the case in an era in which pop songs are cobbled together by illiterate musicians, and massaged into marketable works by sound engineers, many songs sound similar simply because they employ similar synthesized sounds, pre-fabricated percussion tracks, and perhaps a common word (“lyric”) or two. These elements, however, warrant little if any protection as protectable musical expression. Plaintiffs should have realized that when the the only assertion of substantial musical similarity their lawyer could muster in the complaint is the following conclusory statement, with nary a word supporting it: “’Levitating’ is substantially similar to ‘Live Your Life.’ Given the degree of similarity, it is highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently from ‘Live Your Life’.”

—–

Complaint: PDF

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss: PDF

See also Larball v. Dua Lipa, wherein a different set of plaintiffs sued Dua Lipa over the same song, “Levitating.”