Fogerty & Fantasy (was: self plagiarism)

> The issue in the Fogerty case boiled down to whether or not Fogerty could
> use his own voice. The holder of the copyright on the CCR songs (Fantasy
> Records in Berkeley) was trying to prevent him from doing so because his
> "sound", meaning his voice, on his solo recordings was similar to his
> "sound" on the CCR recordings.

The question in Fantasy v. Fogerty, 654 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Cal. 1987) did not relate to the qualities of Fogerty's voice. It was limited to whether Fogerty's song "The Old Man Down The Road" was a derivative work based upon his earlier song "Run Through the Jungle." Fogerty had assigned the copyright to Fantasy, in return for a percentage of sales and other royalties.

The legal issue was whether this limited retention of rights (making Fogerty a "beneficial owner") also entitled Fogerty to claim co-ownership of copyright, which would immunize him from a suit for infringement for creating a derivative work based upon that work. The court concluded that it did not; Fogerty was still subject to suit (although apparently a jury ultimately determined that, as a factual matter, "The Old Man Down The Road" was not derived from "Run Through the Jungle").

Incidentally, I've been told that the Supreme Court has granted Fogerty certiorari, and will hear the case. This is technically true (see Fogerty, v. Fantasy, 113 S. Ct. 2992 (1993) (cert. granted). However, I believe that the issue to which certiorari applies is not the copyright issue discussed in 654 F.Supp 1129, but rather is the rather technical civil procedure ruling of the Court of Appeals in Fantasy v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524 (9th Cir. 1993), dealing with the circumstances under which a court may strike a pleading; apparently there is a split among the circuits on this point. Those of us copyright nerds hoping for an interesting Supreme Court copyright ruling are likely to be disappointed. :-)

Terry Carroll
<tjc50[_at_]juts.ccc.amdahl.com> Received on Tue Sep 28 1993 - 17:46:02 GMT