Eric Smith, et al. vs. Amanda Jiroux, et al.

Comment by Charles Cronin

This dispute is unusual in that that the defendant doesn’t deny she copied from the plaintiffs’ song, but claims that the plaintiffs licensed her use of the copied material. If the complaint’s (linked below) allegations are true, the defendant and her manager deliberately disregarded the wishes of the plaintiffs with respect to use of their song. And if the complaint’s allegations are true, it correctly characterizes the defendant’s framing of the question of the legality of her manager’s conduct as “crafty” — with dubious defenses based on assertions of compulsory and implied licenses. From a quick comparison of the works at issue it is obvious that the latter song isn’t a “cover” version of the former. There is no suggestion of parody or criticism in the defendant’s use of the music of the opening of the plaintiffs’ song; it appears the defendant was simply capitalizing upon the well-known expression of another to enhance the popularity and profitability of her own work. Not surprisingly — and for once, sensibly — the parties settled this dispute in February 2017.

***

Complaint: PDF

Answer: PDF