!aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      111      ooofff      111333

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
SO UTHERN DISTRICT O F FLORIDA
Case No.13-24700-CIV-W ILLIAM S
W ILLIAM L.RO BERTS,II,etaI.,
Plainti
ffs,
VS.

STEFAN KENDAL GO RDY,etaI.,
Defendants.
/

O RDER
THIS M ATTER is before the Coud on Defendants Stefan Gordy,Skyler Gordy,

and Party Rock,LLC'S motionforpadialsummaryjudgmenton CountIllofthe second
amended complaint (DE 226),to which Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition (DE
243),and Defendants filed a reply (DE 260). This case involves a copyrightdispute
between Plaintiffs,m em bers ofthe recording industry and the purported owners ofthe
m usical com position Hustlin', and the Defendants, also m em bers of the recording
industry,who sellm erchandise bearing the phrase ''everyday I'm shufflin'j'- a phrase
from theirhitsong Party Rock Anthem .

ffs assed thatthey ownlthe copyrightto the m usicalcom position Hustlin'.
Plainti

(DE 158 IN 5,61).The chorus ofHustlin'consists ofthe repeated refrain ofthe phrase
''everyday l'm hustlin''and the words d'hustle''and 'hustlin'''. (Defendants'statementof
1Forthe purposes ofthis Order, the Coud assum es,w ithout deciding,that Plaintiffs are either
the Iegal or beneficial ow ners of som e portion of the copyright in the m usical com posi
tion

Hustlin'. However, ownership of the copyright in the m usicalcom position (forwhich three
registrations exist)is a serious,unresolved issue and the subjectoftwo other motions for
summaryjudgment.

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      222      ooofff      111333

undisputed facts ('iDef,SUF''), DE 226-1 !14).2 Plaintiffs contend that they have
copyrightinterests in the three-word phrase 'everyday I'm hustlin','standing alone and
divorced from the m usical com posi
tion Hustlin', and that the sale of m erchandise
featuring the w ords 'leveryday I'm shufflin'''infringes on their copyright in the m usical

composi
tion Hustlin'.3 (Def.SUF :112'
,DE 158 1162). Following the release ofthe
m usical com position Party Rock Anthem in 2011, Defendants launched a highày
successfulclothing Iine thatfeatures T-shirts and otherm erchandise bearing the phrase

''everyday I'm shufflin'.''(Def,SUF !è15).

ln moving forsummaryjudgment,Defendants are clearthatthey are ''notasking
the Coud to find thatdeveryday I'm hustlin''w ith its m elody,is notcopyrightable as itis

used the context of the disputed works fparty Rock Anthemj, music videos, (and)
perform ances butrather,thatthe sim ple slogan 'everyday I'm hustlin','totally divorced

ofaIIofthe musicalcomponents ofthe Hustlin'composi
tion,is notcopyrightable.'' (DE
226 at7). Therefore,the Coud addresses the motion within these narrow and Iimited
confines.

1.

LEG AL STANDARD

Summaryjudgmentis appropriate ''i
fthe movantshows thatthere is no genuine
dispute as to any materialfactand the movantis entitled to judgmentas a matterof
2 Unless otherwise noted, facts from Defendants'statement of materi
alfacts (DE 62)are not
m aterially disputed.
3Although Plaintiffs initially asserted thatthe sale ofthe m erchandise also constituted tradem ark

infringement,they subsequently voluntarily dismissed thatclaim with prejudice. The Court
notes that Defendants previously presented records from the U .S.Patentand Trademark Office
and the California Secretary ofState dem onstrating that'Hustlin'''has been tradem arked foruse

onclothingbya person otherthanPlaintiffs- documentsthe Courttookjudicialnotice of. (See
DE 57-1at22-23.
,DE 57-1 at31-32'
,DE 57-1at34*
,DE 143).
2

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      333      ooofff      111333

Iaw.'' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a). Underthis standard,''Eolnly disputes overfacts thatmight
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing Esubstantive) law will properly

preclude the entry ofsummary judgment.'' Anderson v.Liberty Lobby,Inc.,477 U.S.
242,248 (1986). And any such dispute is ''genuine''only d
'ifthe evidence is such thata
reasonable jury could return a verdictforthe nonmoving padya' Id. t'T he m oving pady
bears the initial burden of establishing the nonexistence of a triable fact issue.''

ContinentalCas.Co.?.W endt,205 F.3d 1258,1261 (11th Cir.2000)(ci
ting Celotex

Corp.v.Catrett,477 U.S.317 (1986)). Ifthe movantestablishes the absence ofa
genuine issue ofm aterialfact,the nonm oving party m ust''go beyond the pleadings and
by herown affidavits orby the 'depositions,answers to interrogatories,and adm issions
on file'designate 'specific facts show ing thatthere is a genuine issue fortrial.'' Ce/ofex,

477 U.S.at324 (quoting FED.R.ClV.P.56(c)). Thus,dslilfthe non-movant...fails to
adduce evidence which would be sufficient ...to suppod a jury finding forthe non-

movant,summaryjudgmentmay be granted.'' Brooks ?.Blue Cross & Blue Shield,116
F.3d 1364,1370 (11th Cir.1997)(citation omitted).
ln evaluating a motion forsummaryjudgment,the Coud considers the evidence
in the record, ''including depositions, documents, electronically stored inform ation,
affidavi
ts ordeclarations,stipulations ...,adm issions,interrogatory answers,orother

materials ....'' Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c)(1)(A). The Coud ''mustview aIIthe evidence and
aIIfactualinferences reasonably draw n from the evidence in the Iightm ostfavorable to
the nonm oving pady,and m ustresolve aIlreasonable doubts aboutthe facts in favorof

the non-movant.'' Rioux v. City of Atlanta, 520 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008)
(quotation marks and citations omitted). Atthe summary judgmentstage,the Coud's
3

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      444      ooofff      111333

task is notto ''
w eigh the evidence and determ ine the truth ofthe m atterbutto determ ine

whetherthere is a genuine issue fortrial.''Anderson,477 U.S.at249.
II. DISCUSSIO N

To prevailon a claim of copyright infringement,a plaintiffmust establish:(1)

ownership ofa valid copyright,and (2)copying ofconstituentelements ofthe work that
are original.Bealv.ParamountPictures Corp.,20 F.3d 454,459 (11th Cir.1994).The
plaintiffcan prove copying through directorindirectevidence. Herzog v. Castle Rock

Entm l,193 F.3d 1241,1248 (11th Cir.1999). Because directevidence ofcopying is
rarely available,a plaintiffmay show copying by demonstrating that: (1)the Defendant
had accessto the work inquestion'
,and (2)the works are substantially sim ilar. Id.
Regardless of w hether copying is proved by direct or indirect evidence, d'the
plaintiffalso m ustestablish specifically thatthe allegedly infringing work is substantially
sim ilarto the plaintiff's work with regard to its protected elem ents.'' Leigh v. W arner

Bros.,212 F.3d 1210,1214 (11th Cir.2000),
.Lifetime Homes,Inc.v.W alkerHomes,
Inc.,485 F.Supp.2d 1314,1320 (M .D.Fla.2007)afrd,270 F.App'x 811 (11th Cir.
2008). In orderto establish substantialsimilarity,Plaintiffsm ustsatisfy:(1)an extrinsic,

objective test, and (2) an intrinsic,subjective test. See Herzog, 193 F.3d at 1257.
''Underthe extrinsic test,a courtwillinquire into whether,asan objective matter,
the works are substantially sim ilarin protected expression.'' Lil'Joe W ein M usic,Inc.v.

Jackson,245 F.App'x 873,877 (11th Cir.2007).As pad ofthe extrinsictest,the Coud
determ ines whetherPlaintiffs seek to protectuncopyrightable elem ents'
,ifso,the Coud

willgrantsummaryjudgmentforthe defendants.

Wi
th respectto the intrinsictest,

the Coud determineswhether,upon properinstruction,a reasonable jury could find that
4

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      555      ooofff      111333

the two w orks are substantially sim ilar Id.To show substantialsim ilarity,the plaintiff
.

m ust establish that ''an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as

having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.'' The ultim ate question is

''whethera reasonablejury could find the (two works)substantially similaratthe Ievelof
protected expression.'' Oravec ?.Sunny Isles Ltpxtpry Venturest L.C.,527 F.3d 1218,

1224 n.5 (11thCir.2008).
Copyright protection does not autom atically extend to every com ponent of a

copyrighted work. See Lil'Joe Wein,245 F.App'x at877 (finding thatalthough musical
com position was entitled to copyrightprotection as a work,notevery elem ent,such as

the Iyric''Go

,it'syourbidhday''were protectable). Originality is ''
the sine qua non

ofcopyright'
,accordingly,copyrightprotection m ay extend only to those com ponents of
a work thatare originalto the author.'' FeistPubl'
ns.,Inc.v.RuralTel.Sem Co.,499

U.S.340,348 (1991),
.see also Harper& Row,Publishers,Inc.v.Nation Enter.,471
U.S.539,547-48 (''copyrightdoes notpreventsubsequentusers from copying from a
priorauthor's work those constituentelements thatare notoriginal...as Iong as such

use does notunfairly appropriate the author'soriginalcontributions.''). ''Originalj''asthe
term is used in copyright,m eans thatthe work is originalto the author,i.e.,thatitwas
independently created by him as opposed to copied from other works, and that it
possesses some m inim aldegree ofcreativity. Feist,499 U.S.at345.

'
sW ords and shortphrases'are notcopyrightable. 37 C.F.R.j 202.1(a). The
overwhelm ing authority is that shod phrases or com mon or ordinary words are not
copyrightable. Forexam ple,in Prunte v.UniversalM usic Grp., Inc.,699 F.Supp.2d

15,25-30 (D.D.C.2010),the Coud found thatthe phrases 'fire in the hole,'''so high,''
5

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      666      ooofff      111333

'getitpoppin''',''wish a m uthafugga would,''''
justrunning theirmouths,''''shootto kill1''
'I'm a maniac,''and ''that's what's up,''which were contained in the plainti
ff's m usical

compositions,were simple,shod,common phrases notsubjectto copyrightprotection.
Likewise,in Fakea//v.Pepsico;Inc.,14 F.3d 596 (4th Cir.1993),No.93-1237,1993 W L
509876,at*8 (4th Cir.Dec.8,1993),the Foudh Circuitfound thatthe phrase 'You Got

the RightOne,Uh-Huh''d'failled)to evince the requisite degree oforiginality to enti
tle it
to copyrightprotection and is a shod expression ofthe sod thatcourts have uniform ly
held uncopyrightable.'' See also Chapm an v.UniversalM otown Records Grp.,No.08

CIV.3255 (LAP),2010 W L 517480,at*4 (S.D.N.Y.Feb.4,2010)(phrase S
'Iean back''in

musicalcomposition was notsubjectto copyright).
Other couds considering sim ilar phrases and guided by Section 202.1 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, have reached the same conclusion - short, ordinary
words,phrases,orslogans,are notenti
tl
ed to copyrightprotection. See,e.g.,Edwards

v.Raymond,22 F.Supp.3d 293,298-99 (S.D.N.Y.2014)(the phrase t'caughtup''which
was the title of plainti
ffs'song 'iis not eligible copyright protection''because itwas a
com mon phrase and because it was not originalto the plainti
ffs but rather dlused in

everyday speech in a variety ofcontextsnl;Boone v.Jackson,206 F.App'x 30,33 (2d
Cir.2006) (phrase ''holla back''in musicalcomposition was a common phrase not

subjectto copyright protectionl'
,Alberto-culver Co.B.Andrea Dum on,Inc.,466 F.2d
705,711 (7th Cir.1972)(finding thatthe phrase d'mostpersonalsod ofdeodorant''was
not copyrightable because itwas S
'm erely a ishod phrase or expression'which hardly

qualifies asan 'appreciable amountoforiginaltext.''')(quoting KitchensofSara Lee,Inc.
v.M ffy Foods Corp.,266 F.2d 541,544 (2d Cir.1959)).
,Nare//v.Freeman,872 F.2d
6

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      777      ooofff      111333

907,911(9th Cir.1989)(affirming summaryjudgmentbecause i
sordinary phrases''such
as ''crawling with alligators''and ''cow path''are ''notentitled to copyright protection '
'l'
,
.

Syrus v.Bennett,455 F.App'x 806,809 (10th Cir.2011)(phrases $'Go Thunder''and
'Let's Go Thunder'were notentitled to copyrightprotection,even though they appeared

in plaintiff's originalcomposition, because they were ordinary phrasesl;Salinger v.

Random House,Inc.,811 F.2d 9O,98 (2d Cir.1987)($
'(A)cliche oran dordinary'wordcom bination by itself willfrequently failto demonstrate even the m inim um Ievel of

creativity necessaryforcopyrightprotection.'').
This is notto say thata work thatdoes include 'ordinary''phrases is notentitled
to copyrightprotection. As the Second Circuitsuccinctly explained:

Copyright protection is available for the association,
presentation, and com bination of the ideas and thought

which go to make up the (author's)Iiterary composition.Or
as we have recently stated,tdW hatis protected is the m anner
of expression, the author's analysis or interpretation of
events,the w ay he structures his m aterialand m arshals his
facts, his choice of words and the em phasis he gives to

padiculardevelopments.'The ''ordinary'phrase may enjoy

no protection as such, but its use in a sequence of
expressive words does notcause the entire passage to Iose
protection.And though the d'ordinary''phrase may be quoted
without fear of infringem ent, a copier m ay not quote or
paraphrase the sequence of creative expression that
includes such a phrase.
Salinger, 811 F.2d at 98 (internalci
tations om ittedl;see also Peter Letterese And

Assocs.,Inc.v.W orld Inst.OfScientology Enter.,533 F.3d 1287,1306 (11th Cir.2008)

(the inclusion ofuncopyrightable shod phrases 'does notthereby cause the passage in
which they are used to Iose protection of its copyrightable elem ents- the original

sequence ofthoughts,choice ofwords,em phasis,and arrangement.'').
7

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      888      ooofff      111333

Itis indisputable thatthe m usicalcom position Hustlin'is an original, creati
ve w ork

subjectto copyrightprotection. Norcan itbe disputed thatthe lyrics ofHustlin',intheir
entirety,separate and apartfrom the m usic, are subjectto copyri
ghtprotection. See,

e.g.,Leadsingen Inc.v.8MG Music Pub.,512 F.3d 522,527 (9th Cir.2008)(finding
song Iyrics, in their entirety,were subject to copyright protection and infringement
occurred when Iyrics were replicated verbatim ,in theirentirety,on karaoke machinesl;

Strafchborneo v.Arc M usic Corp.,357 F.Supp.1393,1405 (S.D.N.Y.1973)('
sEc ords
and m usic have been integrated in a single work, the copyright of such work as a
m usicalcomposition willprotectagainstunauthorized use ofthe words orIyrics alone,

as wellas againstunauthorized use ofthe m usic alone orofa com bination ofm usic and

words.''). The question presented,however,is notwhetherthe I
yrics of Hustlin',as

arranged in theirentirety,are subjectto copyrightprotection. The question is whether
the use ofa three-word phrase appearing in the m usicalcom position,divorced from the
accom panying m usic,m odified,and subsequently printed on m erchandise,constitutes
an infringementofthe m usicalcom position Hustlin'. The answer,quite sim ply,is thatit
does not.

As setfodh above,the phrase ''everyday I'm hustlin''divorced from the m usical
com position Hustlin',Iike the phrases ''you gotthe rightone,uh-huhj''''holla back,''Sfwe
9et it poppin',''and 'scaught up''is d'a shod expression of the sort that couds have
uniform ly held uncopyrightable.'' See Fakea//, 1993 W L 509876,at *8.
,Salinger,811

F.2d at98 (d$(A)n 'ordinary'word-com bination by itselfwillfrequently failto demonstrate
even the minimum Ievelofcreativity necessary for copyrightprotection.nl;O'
Brien v.
Chappel & Co., 159 F.Supp. 58,59 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) (1tIt is well established that
8

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      999      ooofff      111333

copyright or literary rights do not extend to w ords or phrases isolated from their

context.').
M oreover, Defendants have set fodh unrebutted evidence that the term s
'hustling''or''hustlin'''have been used in num erous songs priorto Plaintiff's creation of
Hustlin'and thatat Ieastone song pre-dating Hustlin'has the exactIyric S
'everyday I'm

hustlin''in it. (See DE 226 at4-5.
,Def.SUF.!118.
,DE 226-3 IN 6-11).Specifically,Dr.
M unro states that severalsongs released priorto Hustlin,contain Iyrics such as 11
We
hustlin'every G od dam ned day,''''I'm hustlin',''''I'm Iivin'everyday Iike a hustle'',and

'Every day I'm hustlin',every nightl'm hustlin'''. (See Exped Reportor Dr.Pamela
Munro,DE 226-3 at66-67 % 12). Likewise,Dr.Munro's repod identifies atIeastseven
songs, released prior to Hustlin',share the title ''Hustlin'''. (/d.).Such repods are
appropriate considered by the Coud in evaluating the extrinsic test for substantial

similarity. See Lil'Joe W ein Music,245 F.App'x at877,879 (considering defendants
evidence regarding the use ofthe phrase priorto plainti
ff's use and concluding that''the

disputed phrase is unprotectlalble because ituses a common musicaland Iyricalphrase
thathas been use in otherpriorworks.''l,
'see also Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.v.Jostens,

/nc.,155 F.3d 140,144 (2d Cir.1998)(phrase thatenjoyed robustexistence in public
dom ain prior to plaintiff's use in a song title and Iyrics was not entitled to copyright

protectionl;Boonet206 F.App'x at33 (affirming districtcoud's finding thatd'holla back''
was not protectable and discussing undisputed evidence subm itted by defendants that

thidysongs had used ''holla back''around thesame time as plaintiff'ssong).
Couds regularly - without exped assistance - determ ine that specific shod
phrases m ade up ofcom m on and ordinaryterm s are notentitled to copyrightprotection.
9

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      111000      ooofff      111333

See Chapman,No.08 CIV.3255 (LAP),2010 W L 517480,at*4 (phrase '
llean back''in
musicalcomposition was notsubjectto copyrightl'
,PredaforInt'l,Inc.v.Gamo Outdoor
USA, lnc.,No.09-CV-00970-PAB-KMT,2014 W L 321069,at *3 (D.Colo.Jan.29,
2014)(phrase l
iunsurpassed performance''standing alone,was notentitled to copyright

protectionl;Moody v.Morris,608 F.Supp.2d 575,579 (S.D.N.Y.2009) aff'
d,407 F.
App'x 434 (Fed.Cir.2011)(finding thatthe trademarked phrase 'W here W ords Come
Alive'
'was notentitled to copyrightprotection because ''itis axiom atic thatwords,shod

phrases, titles, and slogans are not subject to copyright, even

they can be

trademarkedv''l,
'Davis v.W altDisney Co.,393 F.Supp.2d 839,847 (D.Minn.)aff'd,

430 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.2005)(the term d'Eadh Protector''was notcopyrightablel;Reece
v.Marc Ecko Unltd.,No.10 CIV.02901 JSR DF,2011 W L 4112071,at*9 (S.D.N.Y.
Aug.19,2011)reportand recomm endation adopted,No.10 CIV.02901 JSR,2011W L
4069637 (S.D.N.Y.Sept.9,2011)(finding that'sdDipism'is as much an unprotectible
word (even if itis nota word found in the dictionary)as $Dip'''and thatal
though the
words 'dip' and 'dipism ' are not them selves protectable, the plaintiff's adwork,

containingthose words,was).
M oreover, Plaintiffs do not assed that the phrase 'everyday I'm hustlin'''

originated with them . (See genera//y DE 243). In Lil'Joe W ein,the Eleventh Circuit,in
concluding thatthe phrase was a com m on,unoriginal,and noncopyrightable elem entof
the com position,considered the factthatthe plaintiffhad failed to offerany evidence to

suggestthatthe phrase '$Go

,it's yourbidhday'
'was originalto his com position. Lil'

Joe Wein,245 F.App'x at 879-880 (distinguishing from a case where the plaintiff
affirmatively asseded he was ''
the creator of a common hip-hop chant''l'
,see also
1O

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      111111      ooofff      111333

Prunte,699 F.Supp.2d at27 (noting thatPlaintiffdid notcontend thatthe phrase ''getit
poppin''' originated with him and finding that dlget it poppin''' is not protectable by

copyrightl'
,Currin v.Arista Records,Inc.,724 F.Supp.2d 286,292-93 (D.Conn.2010)
(finding the term ''frontin'''was a non-protectable element ofplaintils'song because
evidence was presented showing term was used in hip-hop priorto plaintiffs'use and

plainti#sdid notpresentevidence thattheiruse ofthe term ''
frontin'''wasoriginall.4
Even ifthe phrase 'deveryday I'm hustlin'''were copyrightable,Plaintiffs stillfail
the intrinsic test. The average Iay observer would not confuse t-shids bearing the
phrase 'everyday l'm shufflin''' with the m usical com position Hustlin' nor, without

reference to Party Rock Anthem and Hustlin',would an average Iay observerrecognize
the m erchandise as having been appropriated from Hustllh'. See LII'Joe W elh,245 F.
4 Plainti
ffs assert that defendants have failed to provide sufficient evidence of prior usage,
contending: ''Defendants have not presented any other prior usage ofthe phrase. See, e.g.,

Tufhmerica,Inc.v.Diam ond,968 F.Supp.2d 588,604 (S.D.N.Y.2013)(issue is notwhether
'say w hat' is a com m on phrase now butw hether itw as a com m on phrase at the tim e ofthe

recordingl.''(DE 243 at2). Notwithstanding that'e.g.'is appropriate when numerous authori
ties
support the proffered proposition and Plainti
ffs have offered no such other authori
ties,
Tufhm erica, Inc. v. Diam ond is inapposite. First,that coud explicitly stated that the issue of

whether 'say what''was a common phrase subject to copyright protection should not be

resolved on a m otion to dism iss,w hich w as before thatcoud,but rather at a Iaterstage in the
proceeding where evidence regarding its usage could be presented. Second, the court in
TufAm erica,w as addressing the phrase ''say what''in the context of Iicensed m usic sam pling,
not,as the Coud does here,in the contextofcopyrightseparate and apad from the m usic and
the sound recording. Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that because Dr.Ferrara conducted a prior
ad search in three other cases not before the Coud, but did not do so here,som e adverse

inference should be drawn. (See DE 243 at 2).This argum ent is unavailing. Dr. Munro
presented unrebutted evidence ofpriorusage of'hustlin''d'hustling''and d'everyday I'm hustlin'n.

To the extentthatPlainti
ffs contend Mr.Ricigliano's report(DE 226-3 at86-89)creates a
genuine issue of m aterialfact on this point,it does not. M r. Ricigliano does notdispute that
songs identified exist and contain the Iyrics identified by Dr. M unro. Rather, M r. Ricigliano
attem pts to distinguish those songs on the basis that they are m elodically different. M r.
Ricigliano contends thatDr.M unro's reportavoids or ignores the com bination oflyric,m elodic

(pitch/rhythm)and instrumentalsimilarities between Hustlin and Party Rock Anthem. (Id.j.But
thatis notthe question before the Coud.As explained supra,the Coud is not concerned with
the tw o m usicalcom positions! butwith whetherm erchandise bearing the ,phrase ''everyday I'm
shufflin,,, can constitute an infrlngem enton the m usicalcom position Hustlin . Itcannot.
11

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      111222      ooofff      111333

App'x at 880. Notably,nowhere do Plaintiffs address substantial sim ilarity in their
briefing. Indeed, Plaintiffs' briefing m akes clear that their argum ent regarding the
m erchandise is predicated entirely on their position thatthe m usicalcom posi
tion Party

Rock Anthem infringeson the musicalcomposition Hustlin'.(See DE 243 at6 (''Itisthe
com m ercialsuccess ofthe infringing song,PRA,that allows LM FAO to m arkett-shids

with 'everyday I'm shufflin''on them at all,specifically based on the Iine taken from

Hustlin'''j. Butthe question before the Courtis notwhetherthe t-shidscan be traced to
Party Rock Anthem ,butwhetherthey,standing alone,constitute an infringem enton the
copyrightto the m usicalcom position Hustlin,5 No reasonabl
e jury,properly instructed,
.

could conclude thatthe m usicalcom position Hustlin'and the Defendants't-shids and
m erchandise are substantially sim ilar.
M oreover,Plaintiffs have not putforward,nor has the Coud been able to find,
any statutory basis orprecedentsupporting the conclusion thata shod,m odified,setof
words1 such as ''everyday I'm shufflin'''printed on merchandise can infringe on the
copyrightfora m usicalcom position w hich features the Phrase ''everyday I'm hustlin'.'

Indeed,anothercourt,considering Iyrics from a copyrighted song reproduced verbatim

on a class ring, persuasively rejected the proposition that a m usical composition
copyrightholder's rights extend as faras Plaintiff's argue here:
Plainti
ff in essence contends that none of its Iyrics m ay
appear in com m ercial settings without its perm ission,
regardless of the content of those Iyrics. But if Iwere to
acceptplaintiff's position,every unoriginalphrase,once used
in a m usicalcom position would allow the copyrightholdera
5The Coud does notdeterm ine whetheror notthe sale ofsuch m erchandise m ight be properly
considered in a dam ages calculation i
f Plaintiffs prevailon their copyright infringem ent claim s
relating to the m usicalcom position Party Rock Anthem .
12

 !aaassseee      111:::111333-­-­-cccvvv-­-­-222444777000000-­-­-KKKMMMWWW                  DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt      333333111                  EEEnnnttteeerrreeeddd      ooonnn      FFFLLLSSSDDD      DDDoooccckkkeeettt      000999///111555///222000111555                  PPPaaagggeee      111333      ooofff      111333

m onopoly overthe cliché's use regardless ofthe contextin
which it is used in the song or in the allegedly infringing

material. (Plaintifrs) copyright (in a musicalcom position)
does notgrant itsuch an expansive m onopoly overm aterial
in the public dom ain.

Acuff-Rose Music,Inc.?.Jostens,Inc.,988 F.Supp.289,295 (S.D.N.Y.1997)afrd,
155 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 1998),
'see also O'
Brien, 159 F. Supp.at 59 (''The plaintiff
apparently thinks thathe can getsole rights to the use ofthe phrase dnightand noon'no
matterin w hatcontextthe phrase is used.Such a com m on phrase in and ofitselfis not

susceptible ofcopyright nor ofappropriation by any individual.'). Consequently,the
Courtfinds thatthe phrase '
deveryday I'm shufflin'r''printed on t-shirts,standing alone,
and divorced from any m usicalcom position,does notconstitute an infringem enton the
m usicalcom position Hustlin,6
.
111.

CONC LUSIO N
Accordingly,it is hereby O RDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants'm otion

forpadialsummaryjudgmenton CountIII(DE 226)isGRANTED.

DONE AND ORDERED i
n chambers in Miami,Flori
da,this / dayof
Septem ber,2015.
KAT EEN M .W ILLIAM S
UNITED ST TES DISTRICT JUDGE

6 As M r. John Lennon observed: 'Everybody's hustlin'for a buck and a dim e ...AIIIcan tell

you is it's aIIshow biz.' Big Seven Music Corp.v.Lennon,554 F.2d 504,505 (2d Cir.1977)
(quoting J.Lennon,''Nobody Loves You (W hen You're Down and Out)''(1973),recorded on the
album '$
W aIIs and Bridges.'').
13