Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LINA IRIS VIKTOR, a/k/a NATASHA ELENA
COOPER,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No.: 1:18-cv-01554 (KBF)
ECF Case

- against KENDRICK LAMAR, a/k/a KENDRICK LAMAR
DUCKWORTH; SOLANA IMANI ROWE, a/k/a
SZA; TOP DAWG ENTERTAINMENT LLC;
INTERSCOPE RECORDS; UNIVERSAL MUSIC
GROUP RECORDINGS, INC. a/k/a UMG
RECORDINGS, INC.; RADICALMEDIA LLC;
DAVE MEYERS; DAVE FREE; FREENJOY, INC.;
BUF, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-8,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
(212) 790-4500
Attorneys for Defendants Kendrick Lamar Duckworth p/k/a Kendrick Lamar;
Solana Imani Rowe p/k/a SZA; Top Dawg Entertainment LLC; Interscope Records;
UMG Recordings, Inc.; Dave Friley; Dave Meyers; BUF, Inc.; and Freenjoy, Inc.

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 2 of 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 3
LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................................. 14
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 15
I.

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISGORGE DEFENDANTS’ PROFITS
FROM THE SINGLE OR ALBUM, IF ANY, BECAUSE NO NONSPECULATIVE EVIDENCE COULD DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL NEXUS
BETWEEN THE PROFITS AND THE ALLEGED USE OF THE ARTWORK
IN THE VIDEO ............................................................................................................... 15

II.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INTEGRITY RIGHT AND REPUTATIONAL
DAMAGES SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW ............................. 19

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 20

i

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 3 of 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...........................................................................................................14, 15
Arnstein v. Porter,
154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946).....................................................................................................19
Bd. of Managers of SoHo Int’l Arts Condo. v. City of N.Y.,
No. 01 Civ. 1226, 2005 WL 1153752 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2005) ...........................................20
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................14
Complex Sys., Inc. v. ABN Ambro Bank N.V.,
No. 08 Civ. 7497, 2013 WL 5970065 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2013) ..................................... passim
Davis v. The Gap, Inc.,
246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001).....................................................................................................16
Effie Film, LLC v. Pomerance,
909 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)......................................................................................15
Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp.,
566 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................16
Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. BGC Partners, Inc.,
No. 10 Civ. 128, 2013 WL 1775437 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2013) ..............................................17
Jetmax Ltd. v. Big Lots, Inc.,
No. 15-cv-9597, 2017 WL 3726756 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2017)..............................................14
Mackie v. Rieser,
296 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................16, 17, 18, 19
Robbins Music Corp. v. Weinstock,
107 F. Supp. 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) ..........................................................................................15
Straughter v. Raymond,
No. 08 Civ. 2170, 2011 WL 3651350 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011) ...........................................15
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC,
127 F. Supp. 3d 156 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)......................................................................................15
Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc.,
321 F. Supp. 2d 993 (E.D. Wisc. 2004) ...................................................................................15
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co.,
433 U.S. 562 (1977) .................................................................................................................19
STATUTES
17 U.S.C. § 106A .......................................................................................................................3, 20
17 U.S.C. § 106A(a)(3)(A) ............................................................................................................20
ii

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 4 of 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
17 U.S.C. § 106A(c)(3) ..................................................................................................................20
17 U.S.C. § 504(b) .........................................................................................................................15
OTHER AUTHORITIES
H.R. Rep. 101-514, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6915 ...............................................................................20
5 William F. Patry, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT § 16:28 (2018) ...........................................................20
RULES
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .......................................................................................................................1, 14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................14
Fed. R. Evid. 201 .....................................................................................................................14, 15
Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................15
Fed. R. Evid. 201(d) .......................................................................................................................15

iii

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 5 of 25

Defendants respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion for
partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure barring
Plaintiff from recovering (i) any profits that Defendants may have received from the recording of
the song All The Stars (the “Single”) by Kendrick Lamar Duckworth p/k/a Kendrick Lamar
(“Lamar”) and Solana Imani Rowe p/k/a SZA (“Rowe”), and/or the album embodying the Single,
Black Panther: The Album (Music From And Inspired By) (the “Album”); and (ii) any damages
that Plaintiff allegedly has sustained to the integrity of her work and her reputation as an artist.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff’s lawsuit is the epitome of litigation overreach. Not only does Plaintiff seek to
impose liability based on renderings of traditional African motifs that differ from hers, but she
also tries to lay claim to profits from the Single and Album, despite the fact that these musical
works do not make use of – and otherwise lack any connection to – her paintings (the
“Artwork”), and have achieved their success due to myriad factors having nothing to do with her.
Plaintiff turns a blind eye to the tremendous success and popularity that Lamar and Rowe
enjoyed well before the Single’s release; the fact that the Single already was at the top of the
charts before the release of the video for the Single (the “Video”) upon which she bases her
claims; the groundswell of public interest in the Black Panther motion picture (the “Film”)
before and after the Single’s release; the prominent use of the Single in the Film’s closing
credits; and numerous other facts foreclosing Plaintiff’s position that the profits generated by the
Single and Album are attributable to the alleged 19-second use of the Artwork toward the end of
the Video. 1 Plaintiff also goes so far to seek an award of integrity right and reputational
damages, even though the copyright laws afford her no such remedies. Thus, separate and apart
from the shortcomings in Plaintiff’s liability case, which Defendants will address at a later stage,
her damages theories fail as a matter of law. 2 Accordingly, the Court should grant this motion.
1

The release dates of the various works are: January 4, 2018 (the Single); February 6, 2018 (the Video); February
9, 2018 (the Album); and February 16, 2018 (the Film). See infra at 9-13.

2

Defendants also will address at a later stage Plaintiff’s effort to recover profits, if any, generated by the Video,
which, like the Single and Album, owes its success to multiple considerations unrelated to her.

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 6 of 25

First, even assuming Plaintiff were able to show that the Video infringes the Artwork
(and she is not), she would not be entitled to disgorge any of Defendants’ profits from the Single
or Album because she cannot show – as the Copyright Act requires – that any such profits “are
attributable to the infringement”. Because the Single and Album are audio-only works that make
no use of the Artwork, any profits that they generate are indirect profits. In order to recover such
profits under the Act, Plaintiff must establish a causal nexus, not a remote or speculative
connection, between them and the alleged use of the Artwork in the Video. Plaintiff cannot
possibly meet this burden because of the virtually endless permutations of factors unrelated to
the alleged use that might explain why millions of people have decided to stream or buy the
Single or Album, including the following:
(i) the worldwide popularity of Lamar, his music, and earlier videos; (ii)
the worldwide popularity of Rowe, her music, and earlier videos; (iii) the
numerous accolades, including a Pulitzer Prize, and dozens of Grammy
and other nominations and awards that Lamar has garnered; (iv) the
numerous accolades, including a large number of Grammy and other
nominations and awards that Rowe has received; (v) the music and lyrics
embodied in the Single; (vi) Lamar’s vocal performance embodied in the
Single; (vii) Rowe’s vocal performance embodied in the Single; (viii) the
Film’s pre-release buzz and subsequent success and cultural impact; (ix)
the use of the Single in the Film’s closing credits; (x) the music and lyrics
embodied in any one of the 13 tracks on the Album in addition to the
Single; (xi) the recorded performances embodied in any of those tracks;
(xii) the popularity of the various musical artists on the Album other than
Lamar and Rowe; (xiii) the extensive admittedly non-infringing content in
the 19-second scene at issue, and in the other 3 minutes and 35 seconds of
the Video; (xiv) preorders of the Single and Album and other purchases of
the Single predating the Video’s release; and (xv) basic musical curiosity.
Common sense and logic dictate that the alleged 19-second use of the Artwork in the Video is far
more speculative (and, in any event, no less speculative) a reason for people’s decisions to
stream or buy the Single or Album than any one, or any combination of, the above factors. Any
attempt by Plaintiff to tie such decisions to the alleged use is especially suspect due to the added
uncertainty as to whether people who play the Video actually watch it instead of just listening to
the audio, and, if they do watch, whether they do so until the final minute when the alleged use
2

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 7 of 25

occurs. No amount of evidence that Plaintiff may seek to adduce could demonstrate otherwise.
Plaintiff, thus, has no non-speculative grounds that allow her to recover Single or Album profits.
Second, Plaintiff has no right to recover damages for supposed harm to the integrity of
her work and her reputation as an artist. As a threshold matter, longstanding Second Circuit law
forecloses Plaintiff from obtaining any such recovery. In addition, the only conceivable
authority for integrity right or reputational damages – the moral rights provisions in 17 U.S.C. §
106A – is inapplicable here because Plaintiff does not and cannot allege, as these provisions
require, that Defendants have used or done anything to the actual Artwork. To the contrary, the
premise of Plaintiff’s lawsuit is that Defendants copied the Artwork, not that they used the
Artwork itself. Plaintiff, therefore, has no basis for recovering reputational damages.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s Purported Claim and Unsupportable Damages Theories
According to Plaintiff, she first put Defendants on notice of her purported claim on
Saturday, February 10, 2018. 3 (Amended Complaint (“AC”) (Dkt. 30) ¶ 59) Although Plaintiff
does not indicate in her pleading when she first sought to enlist The New York Times in her
efforts, the newspaper ran an article about her purported claim the very next day. (Id.) On
February 20, 2018, nine days after The New York Times article ran, Plaintiff filed suit.
As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Video “is 3 minutes 54 seconds long, and consists of a
number of distinct scenes featuring different settings, costumes, and lighting.” (AC ¶ 42)
Plaintiff maintains that one such scene – “[s]tarting at around the 2:59 mark [and lasting]
approximately 19 seconds” (id. ¶ 56) – features “an unauthorized copy” of the Artwork. 4 (Id. ¶
2; see also id. ¶¶ 56-58) This supposed 19-second use of the Artwork – which people who play
the Video may or may not see, depending on whether they actually watch it instead of simply
listening to the audio, and, if they do watch, whether they do so past the 2:59 mark – is the crux
3

This was four days after the Video’s release. (AC ¶ 41)

4

The titles of the paintings comprising the Artwork are Constellations I, Constellations II, and Constellations III.
(AC ¶ 1)

3

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 8 of 25

of Plaintiff’s purported claim (id. ¶¶ 2, 56-58), and the basis upon which she seeks, among other
forms of relief, disgorgement of indirect profits, if any, generated by the Single and Album, and
damages for the purported harm that the alleged infringement has caused to the integrity of her
work and to her reputation. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 67, 73, 79; AC at 19, ¶ C (requesting profits “indirectly
attributable” to the alleged infringement, and actual damages for the supposed harm to
“[Plaintiff’s] reputation”))
With respect to the indirect profits from the Single and Album (if any), Plaintiff appears
to maintain that they are attributable to the supposed infringement simply because the Video
allegedly “promotes” the Single and Album. (Id. ¶ 43) However, as demonstrated below, even
assuming the Video promotes the Single and Album, this fact does not establish that any such
profits are attributable to the supposed 19-second use of the Artwork in the Video – as required
for Plaintiff to disgorge them. Indeed, there are literally endless reasons having nothing to do
with the Artwork why millions of people decided to stream and/or purchase the Single and
Album. Thus, any argument by Plaintiff that the supposed 19-second use of the Artwork in the
Video is the sole reason – or even a reason – why these millions of individuals did what they did
is pure speculation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attempt to disgorge profits generated by the Single
and Album is wholly improper.
Finally, no amount of evidence will allow recovery of integrity right or reputational
damages because Plaintiff has no legal right to them. Her request for such damages is improper.
Some of the Myriad Reasons Why People May Stream or Buy the Single or Album
Lamar’s Extraordinary Achievements and Popularity
Lamar is among the most successful and acclaimed musical artists of his generation. His
major label debut release, good kid, m.A.A.d city, is part of the Library of Congress’s permanent
collection. (See accompanying Declaration of Maura K. Gierl (“Gierl Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exh. 1)
Earlier this year he received the Pulitzer Prize for music for his third major label release, DAMN.
(Id. ¶ 3, Exh. 2) The Pulitzer Board described DAMN. as “a virtuosic song collection unified by
its vernacular authenticity and rhythmic dynamism that offers affecting vignettes capturing the
4

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 9 of 25

complexity of modern African-American life.” (Id.) In discussing the award, The New York
Times observed that Lamar had taken “home an even more elusive honor [than the Grammy for
Album of the Year]”, and that he “is not only the first rapper to win the award since the Pulitzers
expanded to music in 1943, but he is also the first winner who is not a classical or jazz
musician.” (Id. ¶ 4, Exh. 3) In a November 2017 story, Variety described Lamar as “inhabiting
the kind of rarefied sphere where the various standards of success — pop chart dominance and
cultural relevance, street-level authenticity and worldwide stardom — all seem to align.” (Id. ¶
5, Exh. 4) The public’s embrace of Lamar and his music goes hand in hand with this critical
acclaim.
First, Lamar’s videos, excluding those for songs on the Album and those with fewer than
10 million plays, have amassed over 4.3 billion plays on YouTube alone. (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. 5)
Lamar’s own videos account for at least 1.7 billion of these plays, more than half of which are
for five songs from his most recent studio album, DAMN., which came out on April 14, 2017,
less than ten months before the Video’s release. 5 (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. 5) Videos by Taylor Swift, Sia,
and many other musical artists in which Lamar appears as a featured artist (all predating the
Video) account for more than 2.6 billion of these plays. 6 (Id. ¶ 6, Exh. 5) Of course, were other
video platforms besides YouTube and all of Lamar’s videos factored in, the total number of
plays would be significantly higher than 4.3 billion. Regardless, the magnitude of Lamar’s
5

The videos and number of plays for the DAMN. tracks are: HUMBLE. (514 million); DNA. (174 million);
LOYALTY. (155 million); ELEMENT. (77 million); and LOVE. (66 million). (Gierl Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 5) The videos
and number of plays for Lamar’s other tracks are Bitch, Don’t Kill My Vibe (explicit) (114 million); King Kunta
(113 million); Alright (108 million); Poetic Justice (explicit) (99 million); Swimming Pools (Drank) (clean) (94
million); The Recipe (lyric video) (67 million); i (67 million); Swimming Pools (Drank) (explicit) (45 million); God
Is Gangsta (15 million); Rigamortis (13 million); These Walls (explicit) (12 million); and For Free? (10 million).
(Id. ¶ 6, Exh. 5) All of the latter videos also predate the Video. (Id.)
6

The videos and number of plays for the videos by other artists featuring Lamar are Bad Blood (Taylor Swift) (1.2
billion); The Greatest (Sia) (560 million); Goosebumps (Travis Scott) (186 million); Collard Greens (ScHoolBoy Q)
(126 million); Don’t Wanna Know (Audio) (Maroon 5) (96 million); YOLO (The Lonely Island) (86 million); New
Freezer (Rich The Kid) (68 million); Memories Back Then (T.I.) (67 million); We Up (Explicit) (50 Cent) (48
million); Classic Man (Remix) (Jidenna) (46 million); How Many Drinks? (Remix) (Miguel) (44 million); Fragile
(Director’s Cut) (Tech N9ne) (37 million); Perfect Pint (Mike WiLL Made-It) (21 million); That’s Me Right There
(Jasmine V) (16 million); Never Catch Me (Flying Lotus) (10 million); Say Wassup (Jay Rock) (11 million); and
Mask Off (Remix) (Audio) (Future) (14 million). (Gierl Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 5)

5

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 10 of 25

popularity – across multiple musical genres – that this figure reflects is extraordinary. 7
Second, all three of Lamar’s major label albums have received platinum or multiplatinum certifications from the Recording Industry Association of America (the “RIAA”). 8 His
debut and most recent albums, good kid, m.A.A.d city and DAMN., respectively, each earned “3x
Platinum” certifications for selling more than three million album or album equivalent units in
the U.S. 9 (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) His sophomore album, To Pimp A Butterfly, earned a platinum
certification for selling more than one million album or album equivalent units in the U.S. (Id. ¶
9, Exh. 8)
Third, no fewer than 15 singles from the above albums also have earned multi-platinum
or platinum certifications from the RIAA. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) HUMBLE., which appears on
Lamar’s latest album DAMN., received a “7x Platinum” certification for selling more than seven
million track or track equivalent units in the U.S. 10 (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) Swimming Pools (Drank)
and Bitch, Don’t Kill My Vibe, both from good kid, m.A.A.d city, and LOVE., from DAMN.,
earned “4x Platinum” certifications for selling more than four million track or track equivalent
units in the U.S. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) DNA., which also is on DAMN., received a “3x Platinum”
certification for selling more than three million track or track equivalent units in the U.S. (Id. ¶

7

As further evidence of Lamar’s broad appeal, on January 8, 2018, he served as the first – and, to date, only –
halftime performer at a NCAA College Football Playoff National Championship game. (Gierl Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 6)
The performance featured the Single, and three songs from DAMN., HUMBLE., DNA., and ELEMENT. (Id.)

8

RIAA platinum and gold certifications confirm that an album or single has sold more than 1,000,000 or 500,000
units in the U.S. alone, respectively. (Gierl Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. 7) To calculate album sales, the RIAA “counts album
sales, song sales and on-demand audio and/or video song streams at the formula of 1,500 on-demand audio and/or
video song streams = 10 track sales = 1 album sale.” (Id.) To calculate single sales, the RIAA “counts both
downloads and on-demand music streams[, and applies] on-demand audio and/or video song streams . . . towards the
thresholds required for certification at the formula of 150 on-demand streams being equivalent to one download
sale.” (Id.)

9

All 14 songs on DAMN. received RIAA certifications, including 5 multi-platinum certifications for HUMBLE.,
LOVE., DNA., LOYALTY., and ELEMENT., and 9 gold certifications for BLOOD., YAH., FEEL., PRIDE., LUST.,
XXX., FEAR., GOD., and DUCKWORTH. (Gierl Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) Lamar also received five Grammy Awards and
multiple other awards for DAMN., HUMBLE., and LOYALTY. (See id. ¶¶ 17-18, 23-25, Exhs. 16, 21-22; see also,
infra, at n.14)
10

HUMBLE. had the second most domestic audio streams of any single in 2017 with a total of 580,866,000. (Gierl
Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. 10)

6

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 11 of 25

9, Exh. 8) M.A.A.D City and Poetic Justice, which appear on good kid, m.A.A.d city, and
LOYALTY., which appears on DAMN., earned “2x Platinum” certifications for selling more than
two million track or track equivalent units in the U.S. (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8) And, seven tracks from
all three of Lamar’s major studio albums received platinum certifications for selling more than
one million track or track equivalent units in the U.S. 11 (Id. ¶ 9, Exh. 8)
Fourth, the RIAA also has recognized a significant number of other songs by or featuring
Lamar. His independently released, first full-length album, Section.80, and no fewer than 12
singles from the above albums – including 9 from his most recent studio album, DAMN. 12 – have
received gold certifications from the RIAA for selling more than 500,000 album or album
equivalent units and 500,000 track or track equivalent units in the U.S., respectively. 13 (Id. ¶ 9,
Exh. 8) Other artists’ releases featuring Lamar have earned multi-platinum and other
certifications from the RIAA, including Maroon 5’s Don’t Wanna Know (3x platinum), Rich The
Kid’s New Freezer (platinum), and Sia’s The Greatest (gold). (Id. ¶ 10, Exh. 9)
Thus, the RIAA certifications confirm that, in the U.S. alone, Lamar’s fans have
consumed more than 53 million units of his solo albums and singles – and singles on which he is
a featured performer – released before the Single, Album, Video, and Film. While that figure,
by itself, makes it impossible to overstate Lamar’s popularity leading into the releases of the
latter works, it does not reflect the consumption of Lamar’s music outside the U.S., which would
push the total consumption figure substantially higher than 53 million units.
The music industry accolades that Lamar has earned are similarly far-reaching. In the
past four years, Lamar has received nominations for twenty-nine Grammy Awards, including
nominations for Album of the Year for each of his three major label studio albums, good kid,
11

The seven tracks are Backseat Freestyle, Money Trees, and The Recipe on good kid, m.A.A.d city; King Kunta, i,
and Alright on To Pimp A Butterfly; and ELEMENT on DAMN. (Gierl Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 8)

12

See, supra, at n.9.

13

The three other singles are untitled 02   06.23.2014 on untitled unmastered.; The Blacker The Berry on To Pimp A
Butterfly; and A.D.H.D. on Section.80. (Gierl Decl. ¶ 9, Exh. 8)

7

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 12 of 25

m.A.A.d city, To Pimp A Butterfly, and DAMN. (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. 11) Lamar also has won twelve
Grammy Awards, including, most recently, five at the 60th Annual Grammy Awards on January
28, 2018. 14 (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. 11) Further underscoring his music industry prominence, Lamar gave
the opening performance at this year’s Grammy Awards – a medley of two songs from DAMN.,
DNA. and XXX., one song from the Album, King’s Dead, and Rich The Kid’s song New Freezer
on which Lamar appears as a featured artist. (Id. ¶ 13, Exh. 12) At the 58th Annual Grammy
Awards in 2016, Lamar delivered what was described as a “legendary performance” and “one of
the most striking . . . to hit the Grammy stage in years” featuring two songs, The Blacker The
Berry and Alright, from his sophomore major label album, To Pimp A Butterfly. (Id. ¶ 14, Exh.
13 In addition, Lamar has received nominations for – and won – numerous Billboard Music
Awards; American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers Awards; and Broadcast
Music, Inc. Awards, among many others. (Id. ¶¶ 15-26, Exhs. 14-23)
Apart from his myriad achievements, Lamar has a significant social media following. At
least 9.5 million people follow Lamar on Instagram, despite the fact that he only has 21 posts.
(Id. ¶ 27, Exh. 24) In addition, 8.5 million people follow him on Facebook. (Id. ¶ 28, Exh. 25)
This following further reflects the public’s keen interest in Lamar and his work.
As the foregoing makes clear, Lamar is among the most successful and popular figures in
music and culture today. This undisputable fact, by itself and in combination with the other facts
set forth below, demonstrates that Plaintiff’s causation theory – i.e., that profits generated by the
Single and Album are attributable to the alleged 19-second use of the Artwork in the final minute
of the Video – is far more speculative (and, in any event, no less speculative) an explanation for
such profits than many other considerations unrelated to Plaintiff.

14

The five awards were for Best Rap Album (DAMN.); Best Music Video (HUMBLE.); Best Rap Song
(HUMBLE.); Best Rap Performance (HUMBLE.); and Best Rap/Sung Performance (LOYALTY.). (Gierl Decl. ¶ 12,
Exh. 11) Lamar also won five awards at the 58th Annual Grammy Awards on February 15, 2016 – for Best Rap
Album (To Pimp A Butterfly); Best Rap Song (Alright); Best Rap Performance (Alright); Best Rap/Sung
Collaboration (These Walls); and Best Music Video (Bad Blood). (Id.) At the 57th Annual Grammy Awards on
February 8, 2015, Lamar won the awards for Best Rap Song (i); and Best Rap Performance (i). (Id.)

8

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 13 of 25

Rowe’s Breakout Success
Rowe, who also is featured prominently on the Single, took the music industry by storm
in 2017 with her major label debut album, Ctrl. The release garnered several multi-platinum,
platinum, and gold certifications from the RIAA, including “2x Platinum” certifications for the
songs The Weekend and Love Galore, which have sold more than two million track or track
equivalent units in the U.S.; a platinum certification for Ctrl for selling more than one million
album or album equivalent units in the U.S.; and two gold certifications for the songs Broken
Clocks and Garden (Say It Like Dat), which have each sold more than 500,000 track or track
equivalent units in the U.S. (Id. ¶ 29, Exh. 26) In addition, Rowe received five Grammy
nominations for the album, 15 which, according to The New York Times, made her the most
nominated female artist at the 60th Annual Grammy Awards on January 28, 2018. (Id. ¶¶ 30-31,
Exhs. 27-28) At the 49th NAACP Image Awards on January 15, 2018, Rowe won the
Outstanding New Artist Award (id. ¶ 32, Exh. 29), and received three other nominations. 16
Rowe also won the award for Best New Artist at the BET Awards on June 24, 2018. (Id. ¶ 33,
Exh. 32)
Thus, Rowe, too, enjoyed tremendous success and visibility in the lead-up to and
following the Single’s release. This undisputable fact, by itself and in combination with the
other facts set forth below and immediately above, also demonstrates that Plaintiff’s causation
theory is far more speculative (and, in any event, no less speculative) an explanation for any
profits generated by the Single and Album than many other considerations unrelated to Plaintiff.
The Single’s Appeal and Popularity Independent of the Video
The Single was released on January 4, 2018 to radio, and for digital download and
15

The five nominations were for (i) Best New Artist; (2) Best R&B Performance (The Weekend); (3) Best R&B
Song (Supermodel); (4) Best Urban Contemporary Album (Ctrl); and (5) Best Rap/Sung Performance (Love
Galore). (Gierl Decl. ¶ 30, Exh. 27)

16

The nominations were for Outstanding Female Artist; Outstanding Duo, Group or Collaboration (Love Galore);
and Outstanding Song – Contemporary (Love Galore). (Gierl Decl. ¶ 32, Exh. 29) Lamar also was in the spotlight
at the 49th NAACP Image Awards, receiving a nomination for Outstanding Male Artist, and winning the awards for
Outstanding Album (DAMN.); Outstanding Duo, Group or Collaboration (LOYALTY.); and Outstanding Song –
Contemporary (HUMBLE.). (Id.)

9

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 14 of 25

streaming. (Id. ¶ 34, Exh. 31) The Single received critical praise from publications across the
artistic spectrum. For example, XXL applauded the Single, referencing Lamar’s “defiant bars”
and Rowe’s “powerful, but pop-accessible hook”. (Id. ¶ 35, Exh. 32) Rolling Stone described
Lamar’s performance on the Single as “defiant”, and Rowe’s verse “enthralling”. (Id. ¶ 36, Exh.
33) Against the backdrop of these positive reviews, Lamar’s widespread popularity and success,
Rowe’s breakout star status, and the tremendous anticipation for the Film (see infra at 13), it is
no surprise that the Single became an immediate hit.
The Single went to and remained for five months at the top of the Billboard charts shortly
after its January 4, 2018 release:
All The Stars Billboard Chart History
Date
Hot R&B List
Hot 100 List
January 7, 2018
24
January 14, 2018
4
43
January 21, 2018
4
53
January 28, 2018
4
54
February 4, 2018
3
54
Video Release – February 6, 2018
Album Release – February 9, 2018
February 11, 2018
3
31
Film Opening – February 16, 2018
February 18, 2018
2 (peak)
9
February 25, 2018
2
7 (peak)
March 4, 2018
3
10
March 11, 2018
3
11
March 18, 2018
3
10
March 25, 2018
4
14
April 1, 2018
4
16
April 8, 2018
5
19
April 15, 2018
5
25
April 22, 2018
5
31
April 29, 2018
5
44
May 6, 2018
10
49
May 13, 2018
6
35
May 20, 2018
6
33
May 27, 2018
5
33
June 3, 2018
6
41
(Id. ¶¶ 37-38, Exhs. 34-35)
10

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 15 of 25

As reflected above, the Single entered the charts just days after its release, reaching No.
24 on Billboard’s Hot R&B List released on January 7, 2018. By the following week, the Single
climbed to No. 4 (and entered Billboard’s Hot 100 List at No. 43), where it remained for three
weeks before rising to No. 3 the week of February 4, 2018. The Single’s position on the Hot
R&B List did not change the week of February 11, 2018 following the release of the Video and
Album on February 6 and 9, 2018, respectively; however, it rose to No. 2 (its peak) the week of
February 18, 2018 immediately after the Film opened. Although the Single climbed to No. 31 on
the Hot 100 List the week of February 11, 2018, both the Video and the Album were released the
week before at the same time that the public’s anticipation for the Film’s release was growing
even more feverish (see id. ¶¶ 40-42, Exhs. 37-39), making it impossible to determine which of
these factors, if any, accounted for the Single’s movement on the chart. Regardless, the Single
did not break the top 10 or hit its peak – at No. 7 – on the Hot 100 List until after the Film’s
opening, strongly suggesting that the Film, which features the Single in its closing credits, had an
immediate impact on the Single.
Thus, it is indisputable that the Single was a huge success well before the Video’s
release. This undisputable fact – alone and in combination with the other facts set forth below
and immediately above – further demonstrates that Plaintiff’s causation theory is far more
speculative (and, in any event, no less speculative) an explanation for any profits generated by
the Single and Album than many other considerations unrelated to Plaintiff.
The Album’s Appeal and Popularity Independent of the Video
The Album was released on February 9, 2018, one week before the Film opened. (Id. ¶
39, Exh. 36) The Album, like the Film, is a cultural phenomenon in its own right. Curated by
Lamar and Anthony Tiffith of TDE, the Album features 14 different tracks, including the Single,
by a variety of well-known and up-and-coming musical artists from around the world, including
Lamar, Rowe, The Weeknd, Vince Staples, Anderson.Paak, Jay Rock, SOB X RBE, Jorja Smith,
Sjava, and many others. (Id.) According to The Los Angeles Times, the Album “weave[s] a
dense and often gorgeous fabric of sound” that makes use of “variety to embody and examine
11

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 16 of 25

ideas about the African diaspora at a time of increasing immigration control.” (Id. ¶ 40, Exh. 37)
As the same article observes (and is apparent upon listening to the Album), the Album “utilize[s]
music as a storytelling device – including tunes delivered from characters’ points of view – and .
. . reflect[s] the sprawl of an ambitious narrative with a soundtrack that coheres even as it
showcases a diversity of styles.” (Id.)
Various sources attribute the Album’s success to Lamar and the Film. For example,
Rolling Stone reported that the Album “has been nearly as feverishly anticipated as the [F]ilm,
and no wonder: It is helmed by another improbable straddler of cultural categories, Kendrick
Lamar, A-list pop star and Black Lives Matter-era protest poet nonpareil.” (Id. ¶ 41, Exh. 38)
The Guardian highlighted the excitement generated by Lamar’s role in putting the Album
together, and the appeal of the other musical artists joining him on the Album:
Lamar is so revered that even his more ephemeral releases are greeted
with elation: if the guy’s so good that he can put out a collection of
untitled demos and outtakes [ – i.e., Lamar’s album untitled unmastered. –
] that’s better than many artists’ main albums, why shouldn’t people get
excited about a film soundtrack created under his aegis? And particularly
when it assembles such an intriguing musical cast: big names – the
Weeknd, Vince Staples, Anderson.Paak – alongside relative unknown
artists Mozzy, Babes Wodumo, SOB x RBE and South African vocalist
Sjava singing in Zulu. Moreover, if you believe that Lamar is at the
forefront of an impressive renaissance in hip-hop and R&B, a confluence
of high-altitude artistry and righteous sociopolitical anger that harks back
to the revered era that was bookended by the arrival of psychedelic soul
and the rise of disco – an era in which soundtracks to films that expanded
black representation in commercial cinema had an important part to play –
then perhaps Black Panther is his Superfly, his Shaft.
(Id. ¶ 42, Exh. 39)
The combination of public interest in the Film and the efforts by Lamar and his
collaborators on the Album made the Album a huge success. Eight of the fourteen tracks on the
Album made it onto Billboard’s Top 100 list. 17 (Id. ¶ 43, Exh. 40) The Album earned a
17

The eight tracks are the Single; King’s Dead by Jay Rock, featuring Lamar, Future, and James Blake; Pray For
Me by Lamar and The Weeknd; X by Lamar, Schoolboy Q, 2 Chainz, and Saudi; The Ways by Khalid and Swae
Lee; Paramedic! by SOB X RBE; Big Shot by Lamar and Travis Scott; and Black Panther by Lamar. (Gierl Decl. ¶
43, Exh. 40)

12

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 17 of 25

platinum certification from the RIAA, and four of its tracks also earned RIAA certifications,
including the Single (2x platinum); King’s Dead (platinum); Pray For Me (platinum); and X
(gold). (Id. ¶¶ 9-10 Exhs. 8-9) The videos for tracks on the Album other than the Single have
also been tremendously successful, including the lyric video for Pray For Me, which has nearly
107 million plays, and the video for King’s Dead, which has almost 84 million plays. (Id. ¶ 6,
Exh. 5)
Thus, the success, acclaim, and appeal that the Album and several of its individual tracks
(other than the Single) have enjoyed unrelated to the Video are indisputable. These undisputable
facts – alone and in combination with the other facts set forth below and immediately above –
additionally demonstrate that Plaintiff’s causation theory is far more speculative (and, in any
event, no less speculative) an explanation for any profits generated by the Single and Album than
many other considerations unrelated to Plaintiff.
The Film’s Cultural Watershed Moment
Many observers regard the Film, which opened in the U.S. on February 16, 2018, as part
of a larger cultural watershed moment for both race and gender minorities – a moment that is
particularly relevant given the current cultural and political climate. (See id. ¶¶ 44-46, Exhs. 4143) The New York Times noted that “[r]ace matters in [the Film] and it matters deeply . . . as a
means to explore larger human concerns about the past, the present and the uses and abuses of
power.” (Id. ¶ 44, Exh. 41) The Los Angeles Times observed that the Film fills a void in black
cinema, and “is having a cultural moment fueled by massive pent-up demand for what is
expected to be the first global superhero blockbuster to feature a mostly black cast and an
African American director.” (Id. ¶ 45, Exh. 42) Time opined that the Film is “about what it
means to be black in both America and Africa—and, more broadly, in the world”, and, as such,
mirrors the current political landscape and zeitgeist of America in 2018. (Id. ¶ 46, Exh. 43)
Plaintiff effectively admits as much. (See AC ¶ 6 (the Film (and Video) promotes “themes of
black and female empowerment and the end of racist and gender exploitation, themes
particularly topical in the current environment”))
13

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 18 of 25

In addition to (and, possibly, as a result of) its cultural impact, the Film has earned strong
praise from critics and fans alike, as reflected in its A+ CinemaScore and 97% Rotten Tomatoes
score. (Gierl Decl. ¶¶ 47-48, Exhs. 44-45) It is no surprise, then, that the Film smashed longtime box office records, grossing more than $200 million in its first three days, making it one of
the “top five domestic openings of all time” and the “second highest four-day domestic opening
of all time.” (Id. ¶ 49, Exh. 46) Internationally, the Film fared just as well, “with No. 1 debuts
in almost all territories”. (Id.) As of April 10, 2018, the Film had grossed $1.3 billion
worldwide and $667 million domestically. (Id. ¶ 50, Exh. 47)
In light of the Film and Album’s close relationship, and the fact that the Film features the
Single during its closing credits, the Film’s cultural significance and box office success
indisputably helped drive the success of the Single and Album, and any profits these musical
works have generated. These undisputable facts – alone and in combination with the other facts
set forth immediately above – also demonstrate that Plaintiff’s causation theory is far more
speculative (and, in any event, no less speculative) an explanation for such profits than many
other considerations unrelated to Plaintiff.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is proper
when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Summary judgment is mandated where a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s [claim], and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. “When the moving party does not bear the
ultimate burden on a particular claim or issue, it need only make a showing that the non-moving
party lacks evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in the non-moving party’s favor at
trial.” Jetmax Ltd. v. Big Lots, Inc., No. 15-cv-9597, 2017 WL 3726756, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28,
2017) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23). Summary judgment is proper when no reasonable
jury “could find by a preponderance of the evidence” for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v.
14

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 19 of 25

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
Further, “[u]nder Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice, at ‘any
stage of the proceeding,’ of any fact ‘that is not subject to reasonable dispute because’ it ‘can be
accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.’” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wrights Mill Holdings, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 156, 166
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (d)). “Pursuant to Rule 201, courts have
considered newspaper articles, . . . and information publicly announced on certain nongovernmental websites”. Id. (citations omitted). Further, the fact that “a [song] has been and is a
well-known and popular piece” is judicially noticeable, Robbins Music Corp. v. Weinstock, 107
F. Supp. 102, 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1952), as are Billboard music charts, see Effie Film, LLC v.
Pomerance, 909 F. Supp. 2d 273, 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Straughter v. Raymond, No. 08 Civ.
2170, 2011 WL 3651350, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2011); and information regarding musical
artists and their performances based on information available on non-party websites. See
Williams v. Midwest Airlines, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 993, 994 n.2 (E.D. Wisc. 2004).
ARGUMENT
I.

PLAINTIFF IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISGORGE DEFENDANTS’ PROFITS
FROM THE SINGLE OR ALBUM, IF ANY, BECAUSE NO NON-SPECULATIVE
EVIDENCE COULD DEMONSTRATE A CAUSAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE
PROFITS AND THE ALLEGED USE OF THE ARTWORK IN THE VIDEO
Plaintiff’s request to disgorge indirect profits generated by the Single and Album has no

factual or legal support. The Court, therefore, should grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on her claim for such profits.
Pursuant to Section 504(b) of the Copyright Act, a copyright owner is entitled to recover
“profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in
computing the actual damages”. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). To establish a defendant’s profits, a
plaintiff initially must present proof of defendant’s “gross revenue”. Id. “The term ‘gross

15

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 20 of 25

revenue’ must be construed as ‘gross revenue reasonably related to the infringement, not
unrelated revenues.’” Complex Sys., Inc. v. ABN Ambro Bank N.V., No. 08 Civ. 7497, 2013 WL
5970065, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2013) (quoting Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152, 160 (2d
Cir. 2001)) (emphasis added). In other words, the owner must demonstrate a “reasonable
relationship” and “causal link” between the alleged infringement and the gross revenues it seeks
to disgorge. See Davis, 246 F.3d at 159-60; Granger v. Gill Abstract Corp., 566 F. Supp. 2d
323, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“in order to recover Defendants’ profits, Plaintiff is required to
establish a ‘causal link’ between [the] profits and the infringement”).
Profits can be direct or indirect, the former referring to the profits “generated by selling
an [allegedly] infringing product”, and the latter referring to the profits that have “a more
attenuated nexus to the [alleged] infringement.” Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909, 914 (9th Cir.
2002). “Damages only remotely or speculatively attributable to the infringement should be
precluded.” Complex Sys., 2013 WL 5970065, at *2; see also Mackie, 396 F.3d at 915 (courts
should bar recovery of profits that are only “remotely or speculative attributable to the
infringement”, or if the “proffered measure of damages . . . is too speculative”) (internal
quotations omitted). Accordingly, a copyright plaintiff has a heightened burden to demonstrate a
“causal nexus”, not merely a connection, between the alleged infringement and the indirect
profits she seeks to disgorge. Complex Sys., 2013 WL 5970065, at *3.
“[A] district court must conduct a threshold inquiry into whether there is a legally
sufficient causal link between the infringement and subsequent indirect profits” before allowing
a plaintiff’s indirect profits claim to continue. Mackie, 296 F.3d at 915. In fact, it is “common
sense” that the court must first determine that the “infringing act had an effect on profits before
the parties can wrangle about apportionment” – i.e., before the defendant must come forth with

16

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 21 of 25

evidence to prove those profits not attributable to the copyrighted work. Id. (emphasis added).
Indeed, “‘[b]ecause of the at-best highly speculative nature of all indirect profits claims’ . . . the
decision to ‘send[ ] such claims to a jury should be extremely rare.’” Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp. v.
BGC Partners, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 128, 2013 WL 1775437, *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2013)
(alteration in original & emphasis added) (quoting 6 William F. Patry, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT §
22:131 (2010)). Thus, to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the indirect
profits she seeks to disgorge are “attributable” to the alleged infringement, “mere connection or
usage alone [is] insufficient.” Complex Sys., 2013 WL 5970065, at *5; see also Mackie, 296
F.3d at 915-16 (to survive summary judgment, “a copyright holder must proffer sufficient nonspeculative evidence to support a causal relationship between the infringement and the profits
generated indirectly from such an infringement.”). Because no evidence could possibly satisfy
Plaintiff’s burden to meet the “statutory requirement of showing attribution”, her request to
disgorge indirect profits from the Single and Album should be dismissed. See Complex Sys.,
2013 WL 5970065, at *5 (emphasis in original).
As the Ninth Circuit held in Mackie, a case directly on point and cited by this Court in
Complex Systems, when there are “virtually endless permutations” of reasons having nothing to
do with the alleged infringement that may account for indirect profits, a court should dismiss the
claim for such profits. See Mackie, 296 F.3d at 916. In Mackie, an alleged infringer used the
plaintiff’s copyrighted artwork in a 24-page direct-mail brochure that promoted subscriptions to
the Seattle Symphony Orchestra (the “Symphony”). Id. at 912. The plaintiff’s artwork appeared
on page 12 of the brochure, and collaterally on various other pages. Id. The plaintiff demanded,
among other things, the Symphony’s profits generated by the season promoted by the brochure,
as well as profits from future seasons, “arguing that many patrons who subscribed to the [season]

17

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 22 of 25

because of the infringing collage later renewed their subscriptions.” Id. at 913. In affirming the
district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s demand for such profits, the Ninth Circuit noted that,
“[i]ntuitively, we can surmise virtually endless permutations to account for an individual’s
decision to subscribe to the [season], reasons that have nothing to do with the artwork in
question.” Id. at 915. In support of its holding, the court specifically listed the Symphony’s
reputation, the conductor and musicians, the musical programming, “or simply a love of music”,
as reasons that could account for the Symphony’s sales. Id. at 916. Tellingly, the court
highlighted that the plaintiff’s theory of causation would be “no less speculative than [the
court’s] effort in this paragraph to enumerate even a relatively short list of the myriad factors that
could influence an individual’s purchasing decisions.” Id.; see also Complex Sys., 2013 WL
5970065, at *13 (“a customer may have many reasons to need a service” regardless of whether
the defendant used the allegedly infringing software at issue).
Plaintiff’s causation theory here is even more speculative than the plaintiff’s in Mackie.
Regardless of what Plaintiff may try to point to or obtain through discovery to show a connection
between the alleged 19-second use of the Artwork toward the end of the Video and any profits
generated by the Single and Album, the factors outlined on page 2 above and discussed in detail
on pages 4 through 14 above, and common sense and logic demonstrate that virtually endless
combinations of reasons – wholly unrelated to the alleged use – could account for people’s
decisions to stream or buy the Single or Album, and, thus, any profits that these works generate.
The alleged use of Plaintiff’s Artwork is far more speculative (and, in any event, no less
speculative) an explanation for such decisions than any one, or any combination of, those factors,
especially in light of (a) Lamar and Rowe’s popularity and accomplishments, (b) the success of
the Single before the Video’s release, (c) the success of many tracks on the Album other than the

18

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 23 of 25

Single, and (d) the Film’s success, social and cultural impact, and use of the Single in its closing
credits, all of which are indisputable. Plaintiff’s causation theory is all the more speculative in
light of the added uncertainty as to whether people who play the Video actually watch it instead
of just listening to the audio, and, if they do watch, whether they do so until the final minute
when the alleged use occurs. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff cannot come forth – as she must
to meet her burden under the Copyright Act – with any non-speculative evidence of a causal
nexus between the alleged infringement and any profits generated by the Single and Album, if
any. Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for such
profits. See Mackie, 296 F.3d at 916; Complex Sys., 2013 WL 5970065, at *5.
II.

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR INTEGRITY RIGHT AND REPUTATIONAL
DAMAGES SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS A MATTER OF LAW
In addition to the indirect profits generated by the Single and Album, Plaintiff improperly

seeks damages for alleged harm to her reputation. (AC at 19, ¶ C) Plaintiff predicates the latter
request on the theory that the alleged infringement supposedly has damaged the “integrity of her
work and her reputation as an artist”. (Id. ¶ 9) However, because the alleged infringement does
not fall within the purview of the Copyright Act’s limited moral rights provisions, the sole
mechanism for copyright plaintiffs to recover such damages, Plaintiff’s theory has no legal basis.
The Court, therefore, should grant Defendants summary judgment on this damages claim.
Copyright plaintiffs generally are not entitled to reputational damages. The Second
Circuit has long recognized that a copyright “plaintiff’s legally protected interest is not . . . his
reputation as a musician” or artist. Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464, 473 (2d Cir. 1946); cf.
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broad. Co., 433 U.S. 562, 573 (1977) (“the State’s interest is
closely analogous to the goals of patent and copyright law, focusing on the right of the individual
to reap the reward of his endeavors and having little to do with protecting feelings or
reputation”). The only exception to this rule is for the narrowly circumscribed set of
circumstances to which Congress has extended quasi-moral rights protection under the Visual
19

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 24 of 25

Artists Rights Act (“VARA”), codified in 17 U.S.C. § 106A. See Bd. of Managers of SoHo Int’l
Arts Condo. v. City of N.Y., No. 01 Civ. 1226, 2005 WL 1153752, at *1 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 13,
2005) (“[m]oral rights claims to go to creators’ reputations, not to rights of economic
exploitation”) (citing H.R. Rep. 101-514, 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6915, 6932). In pertinent part,
VARA creates a “right of integrity” that, among other things, allows an author of a work of
visual art to prevent “any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of [the
author’s] work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional
distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right”. 17 U.S.C. §
106A(a)(3)(A). However, VARA has no application here.
The provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 106A, including subsection (a)(3)(A), are limited to
circumstances in which a defendant uses or does something to the author’s actual work, and,
therefore, do not apply when – as is the case here – a defendant allegedly depicts or otherwise
copies the work. See 17 U.S.C. § 106A(c)(3) (“any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other
use of a work is not a . . . distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in [§
106A(a)(3)(A)].”). At least one commentator has noted that Congress intended this exclusion to
apply to the very situation at issue in this case in which an audiovisual work allegedly embodies
a work of visual art. See 5 William F. Patry, PATRY ON COPYRIGHT § 16:28 (2018) (“The House
report indicates that the purpose of [§ 106A(c)(3)] is to ensure that works of visual art that are
embodied in works such as audiovisual works, books, and periodicals are excluded from
protection in order to ‘insulate’ copyright owners and users from liability.”) Because the
premise of Plaintiff’s lawsuit is that the Video features an unauthorized “copy” of the Artwork,
(AC ¶¶ 2, 10) (emphasis added), and Plaintiff does not and cannot allege that the Video uses the
actual Artwork, she has no right to recover for any purported damages to the “integrity of her
work and her reputation as an artist”. (Id. ¶ 9, at 19 ¶ C) Defendants, therefore, are entitled to
summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for such damages.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth herein, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant
20

 Case 1:18-cv-01554-KBF Document 94 Filed 07/12/18 Page 25 of 25

their motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for (i) disgorgement of
profits generated by the Single and Album, if any; and (ii) damages for the supposed harm to the
integrity of Plaintiff’s work and her reputation as an artist.
Dated: New York, New York
July 12, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
By: /s/ Robert A. Jacobs
Robert A. Jacobs
7 Times Square
New York, New York 10036
Telephone: (212) 790-4500
Facsimile: (212) 790-4545
E-Mail: rjacobs@manatt.com
Maura K. Gierl (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
11355 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: (310) 312-4000
Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
E-Mail: mgierl@manatt.com
Attorneys for Kendrick Lamar Duckworth p/k/a Kendrick
Lamar; Solana Imani Rowe p/k/a SZA; Top Dawg
Entertainment LLC; Interscope Records; UMG Recordings,
Inc.; Dave Friley (incorrectly sued as “Dave Free”); Dave
Meyers; BUF, Inc.; and Freenjoy, Inc.

21