Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1472

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4
5
6

Plaintiff,

7

v.

8

United States District Court
Central District of California

9

2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SSx

Tracy Chapman,

Order DENYING Plaintiff’s
Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 54)
and GRANTING Defendant’s
Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Dkt. 57)

Onika Tanya Maraj et al.,
Defendant.

10
11
12
13

Before the Court are Plaintiff Tracy Chapman’s (“Chapman”) Motion for

14

Partial Summary Judgment (“Chapman MSJ,” Dkts. 54 (redacted), 56, Ex. A)

15

and Defendant Onika Tanya Maraj’s (“Maraj”) Motion for Partial Summary

16

Judgment (“Maraj MSJ,” Dkt. 57). The parties each opposed the other’s

17

Motion. (“Maraj Opposition,” (“Opp.”), Dkt. 66; “Chapman Opp.,” Dkt. 67).

18
19

After considering all the papers filed in support of, and in opposition to,

20

the Motions, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without a

21

hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. The Court GRANTS

22

Maraj’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENIES Chapman’s

23

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

24
25
26
1

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:1473

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

This action arises out of a copyright dispute between Chapman and

3

Maraj regarding the use and distribution of Chapman’s musical composition.

United States District Court
Central District of California

4
5

On October 22, 2018, Chapman brought this action alleging copyright

6

infringement of her musical composition, Baby Can I Hold You (the

7

“Composition”). (Dkt. 1). According to Chapman, Maraj violated Chapman’s

8

exclusive rights to “reproduce, distribute, and prepare derivative works from

9

and otherwise exploit the Composition.” (Id. ¶ 50). Maraj denies these

10

allegations. (Dkt. 14).

11
12

Each party now moves for partial summary judgment. (Chapman MSJ;

13

Maraj MSJ). Chapman seeks partial summary judgment only on the issue of

14

copyright infringement (not damages). (Chapman MSJ, at 2). Specifically,

15

Chapman alleges that Maraj is liable for copyright infringement in two ways:

16

(1) for creating a song (hereinafter, the “new work” or “song”) that

17

incorporates lyrics and melodies of the Composition; and (2) for distributing

18

the song to a DJ and radio host. (Id.). Chapman also requests that the Court

19

summarily adjudicate that the infringement was willful. (Id.).

20
21

Maraj, in her Motion, seeks summary judgment only on the issue of her

22

alleged infringement for creating the song. (Maraj MSJ). According to Maraj,

23

the creation of the song constitutes fair use. (Id.).

24
25

On August 24, 2020, both parties opposed the other’s Motion.

26

(Chapman Opp.; Maraj Opp.). On August 31, 2020, both parties filed replies
2

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:1474

1

in support of their Motions. (“Chapman Reply,” Dkt. 72; “Maraj Reply,” Dkt.

2

73). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Chapman’s Motion in

3

its entirety and GRANTS Maraj’s Motion.

4

United States District Court
Central District of California

5

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

6

A motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment shall be

7

granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving

8

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

9

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);

10
11

“[W]hen parties submit cross-motions for summary judgment, each

12

motion must be considered on its own merits.”

Fair Hous. Council of

13

Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001)

14

(internal quotations and citations omitted). Thus, “[t]he court must rule on

15

each party’s motion on an individual and separate basis, determining, for

16

each side, whether a judgment may be entered in accordance with the Rule

17

56 standard.” (Id. (quoting Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure §

18

2720, at 335–36 (3d ed. 1998))). If, however, the cross-motions are before

19

the court at the same time, the court must consider the evidence proffered by

20

both sets of motions before ruling on either one. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d at

21

1135–36.

22
23

Generally, the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that it is

24

entitled to summary judgment. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.

25

1998).

26

element of the nonmoving party’s case, or . . . show that the nonmoving party

“The moving party may produce evidence negating an essential

3

 United States District Court
Central District of California

Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:1475

1

does not have enough evidence of an essential element of its claim or

2

defense to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire &

3

Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)

4

(reconciling Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) and Celotex

5

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)). The nonmoving party must then “do

6

more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the

7

material facts” but must show specific facts which raise a genuine issue for

8

trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

9

(1986). A genuine issue of material fact will exist “if the evidence is such that

10

a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson,

11

477 U.S. at 248.

12
13

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court construes the

14

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Barlow v.

15

Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1991). “[T]he judge’s function is not []

16

to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine

17

whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.

18
19

III.

FACTS

20

Both Chapman and Maraj filed statements of undisputed facts,

21

(“Chapman SUF,” Dkts. 54-1, 56, Ex. B; “Maraj SUF,” Dkt. 59), to which the

22

other party has filed statements of genuine dispute and additional facts,

23

(“Chapman RSUF,” Dkt. 67-2, “Maraj RSUF,” Dkt. 69). Chapman also filed a

24

response to Maraj’s additional facts proffered in opposition to Chapman’s

25

Motion. (“Chapman RAMF,” Dkt. 72-4). Each party has also filed various

26

evidentiary objections to facts cited in the other’s papers.
4

(“Chapman

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:1476

1

Objections to Maraj’s MSJ Evidence,” Dkt. 67-3; “Maraj Objections to

2

Chapman’s MSJ Evidence,” Dkt. 68; “Chapman Objections to Maraj’s Opp.

3

Evidence,” Dkt. 72-2). Chapman also filed a response to Maraj’s objections

4

to Chapman’s evidence. (“Chapman Response to Maraj Objections,” Dkt. 72-

5

3).

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7

To the extent certain facts or contentions are not mentioned in this

8

Order, the Court has not found it necessary to consider them in reaching its

9

decision. In addition to considering the evidentiary objections raised by the

10

parties, the Court has reviewed independently the admissibility of the

11

evidence that both parties submitted and has not considered evidence that is

12

irrelevant or inadmissible. At the summary judgment stage, a district court

13

should “focus on the admissibility of the [evidence’s] contents” and not the

14

form in which the evidence is presented—it is sufficient that a party will be

15

able to produce evidence in its admissible form at trial.

16

Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003); Block v. City of Los Angeles,

17

253 F.3d 410, 418–19 (9th Cir. 2001).

See Fraser v.

18
19

Moreover, “objections to evidence on the ground that it is irrelevant,

20

speculative, and/or argumentative, or that it constitutes an improper legal

21

conclusion are all duplicative of the summary judgment standard itself” and

22

thus need not be considered on a motion for summary judgment. Burch v.

23

Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1120 (E.D. Cal. 2006).

24
25
26
5

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:1477

United States District Court
Central District of California

1

A.

Evidentiary Objections

2

Chapman’s Objections

3

The Court sustains Chapman’s objections to Maraj’s SUF No. 1 as

4

unsupported by the evidence and SUF Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 11 as compound.

5

The Court also sustains Chapman’s objection to SUF No. 7 as unsupported

6

by the evidence. The Court overrules Chapman’s objections to Maraj’s SUF

7

Nos. 9 and 12 but finds only the following statement supported by Maraj’s

8

proffered evidence for SUF No. 9: “Tracy Chapman has requested samples

9

of proposed works when considering a license request.” The Court overrules

10

Chapman’s objections to Maraj’s SUF Nos. 8 and 10, but finds only the

11

following statements supported by Maraj’s proffered evidence: “rights holders

12

often request copies of new works during licensing discussions,” and

13

“prospective licensees usually include their proposed derivative works with

14

their initial licensing requests.” Chapman also objects to certain statements

15

within the declarations of Maraj and Aubry Delaine filed in support of Maraj’s

16

Opposition to Chapman’s Motion.

17
18

1. Maraj Declaration

19

According to Chapman, the following statements contradict Maraj’s

20

former sworn testimony and must be stricken from the record:

21
22

 “I thought that maybe, if Ms. Chapman heard my song on the

23

radio, and learned of a positive reaction among listeners, she

24

would allow me to release the song.”

25
26

 “[]that day, however, I had a change of heart. I never sent the
recording.”
6

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:1478

1

 “I was surprised to learn that Flex played Sorry on the radio that

2

evening. I have no idea how he obtained the recording. He did

3

not obtain it from me or, to my knowledge, from anyone I know.”

4
5

(Dkt. 72-2). The Court agrees with Chapman as to the first statement and

6

most of the second statement but disagrees as to the third statement.

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8

“[]The Ninth Circuit has held that ‘a party cannot create an issue of fact

9

by [submission of] an affidavit contradicting his prior deposition testimony’

10

where the court determines that the later affidavit is merely ‘‘sham’ testimony

11

that flatly contradicts earlier testimony.’”

12

Grove et al., 2020 WL 4760184, at *7 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (citing to Kennedy v.

13

Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1999)). “The rationale

14

underlying the sham affidavit rule is that a party ought not be allowed to

15

manufacture a bogus dispute with himself to defeat summary judgment.”

16

Nelson v. City of Davis, 571 F.3d 924, 928 (9th Cir. 2009).

Ana Mora et al. v. City of Garden

17
18

The Ninth Circuit in Yeager reiterated two important limitations on the

19

sham affidavit rule: (1) the district court must make a “factual determination

20

that the contradiction was actually a sham”; and (2)

21

between a party’s deposition testimony and subsequent affidavit must be

22

clear and unambiguous.” Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1080 (9th Cir.

23

2012). For example, “[]an affidavit might not be a sham if the affiant’s actions

24

were the result of honest discrepancy, a mistake, or the result of newly

25

discovered evidence … [or] if the affiant gives a plausible excuse for the

26

contradiction ….” Jack v. Trans World Airlines, 854 F. Supp. 654, 660 (N.D.
7

the “inconsistency

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:1479

1

Cal. 1994); see Yeager, 693 F.3d at 1080 (“[T]he nonmoving party is not

2

precluded from elaborating on, explaining or clarifying prior testimony elicited

3

by opposing counsel on deposition . . . ”) (quoting Van Asdale v. Int’l Game

4

Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 999 (9th Cir. 2009)).

United States District Court
Central District of California

5
6

Maraj’s statements explaining why she asked DJ Flex to play the new

7

work on his radio show and her statement about her “change of heart”

8

contradict her earlier deposition testimony, rendering her affidavit a sham one.

9

In her September 3, 2019 supplemental responses to Chapman’s Requests

10

for Admission, Maraj denied that she asked DJ Flex to play the new work.

11

(Dkt. 54-2, Ex. 8, p. 87). In her September 23, 2019 deposition, Maraj stated

12

that she could not locate any communications between her and DJ Flex. (Dkt.

13

54-2, Ex. 6 at 22:4-8). Maraj further testified that the only discussion she

14

recalled having with DJ Flex over social media was when she responded to

15

his Instagram post saying that he can only play official album music. (Id., at

16

24:5-22). According to Chapman, DJ Flex, not Maraj, submitted the direct

17

messages where Maraj asked him to play the song on his show. (Dkt. 54-2,

18

Declaration of Nicholas Frontera ¶ 16).

19
20

In the face of that evidence, Maraj now seeks to claw back her prior

21

testimony to create additional issues of fact on summary judgment. Rather

22

than providing an explanation for her former testimony, Maraj offers a new

23

version of contradictory events.

24

doctrine aims to prevent. The Court thus strikes Paragraphs 4 and 5 from

25

Maraj’s declaration. The Court also strikes Paragraph 6, except for Maraj’s

26

statement that she “never sent the recording” because that statement does

This is exactly what the sham affidavit

8

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:1480

1

not contradict prior testimony. (See Dkt. 66-1, Deposition of Tanya Maraj at

2

78:24-79:18).

3

statement at issue. Maraj stated in her deposition that she was not sure how

4

DJ Flex received the new work. Her statement that she was surprised to hear

5

him play the song is thus consistent with that testimony.

For similar reasons, the Court declines to strike the third

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7

2. Delaine Declaration

8

Chapman also argues that statements in Delaine’s declaration

9

contradicts his deposition testimony in this case. (Dkt. 72-2, at 4-7). The

10

Court disagrees.

11
12

None of the statements in Delaine’s declaration directly contradict his

13

deposition testimony. To the extent that there are any inconsistencies, the

14

Court finds that they do not rise to the level of sham statements but rather are

15

offered to explain certain aspects of his testimony. See Ana Mora et al., 2020

16

WL 4760184, at *7. Further, Chapman improperly attempts to use the “sham

17

affidavit” rule as both a shield and a sword. In re GGW Brands, LLC, 504

18

B.R. 577, 629 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2013). For example, Chapman relies on the

19

fact that Delaine reached out to Chris Athens for a mastered copy of Sorry

20

(Dkt. 69, Chapman’s SUF No. 30) while simultaneously seeking to strike the

21

same information from Delaine’s declaration. In the absence of “clear and

22

unambiguous” inconsistencies in Delaine’s testimony, the Court declines to

23

strike the contested statements from the record. Yeager, 693 F.3d at 1080.

24
25

Maraj’s Objections

26

Maraj contests the admissibility of Exhibits 20 and 21 to the declaration
9

 United States District Court
Central District of California

Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:1481

1

of Nicholas Frontera, which consists of copies of Instagram and Twitter posts

2

made by DJ Flex on August 11, 2018. (Dkt. 68; Dkt. 54-2, p. 212-214). The

3

posts state:

4

“Shhhhhhh!!!!

TONIGHT

7

PM!!!

NICKI

GAVE

ME

5

SOMETHING!!! @nickiminaj ft @nas !!! (NOT ON HER

6

ALBUM!) GONNA STOP THE CITY TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

7

(Dkt. 54-2, at 212-214). Maraj claims that the posts are inadmissible hearsay

8

because Chapman cites to them for the truth of the matter asserted – that

9

Maraj supplied the recording of the song to DJ Flex. (Dkt. 68, at 1; Dkt. 72,

10

at 8) (“Mr. Taylor’s multiple social media postings that he received the

11

Infringing Work from Ms. Maraj are contemporaneous statements

12

demonstrating Ms. Maraj in fact sent it to him.”). Chapman claims the posts

13

are admissible either as exclusions from or exceptions to the hearsay rule.

14

(Dkt. 72-3). The Court disagrees.

15
16

Chapman first argues that these documents are admissible as

17

admissions of a person authorized to make the statement and/or a co-

18

conspirator. (Id., at 1-2). Nevertheless, Chapman cites no evidence of Maraj

19

authorizing DJ Flex to make the social media posts, nor are they statements

20

of a co-conspirator; Chapman provides no facts showing that DJ Flex and

21

Maraj entered into a “conspiracy.” See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S.

22

171, 175 (1987) (requiring a court to make a preliminary finding of the

23

existence of a conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence before

24

admitting statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)).

25
26

Chapman also argues that the social media posts are admissible under
10

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:1482

1

one or more of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, i.e., present sense

2

impression,

3

recollection, or business record. (Dkt. 72-3, at 3). All of these arguments fail.

excited

utterance,

existing

mental

condition,

recorded

United States District Court
Central District of California

4
5

The facts do not support a finding that the social media posts are

6

present sense impressions, excited utterances, or evidence of existing mental

7

conditions. The Ninth Circuit has held that to qualify as an exception as a

8

present sense impression or an excited utterance, the “out-of-court statement

9

must be nearly contemporaneous with the incident described and made with

10

little chance for reflection.” Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369, 1372 (9th Cir.

11

1995).

12

contemporaneousness, chance for reflection, and relevance.” United States

13

v. Ponticelli, 622 F.2d 985, 991 (9th Cir. 1980).

“Under all three rules, the court must evaluate three factors:

14
15

Chapman’s argument that DJ Flex “described an event … right after it

16

happened” is conclusory and unsupported. Chapman provides no evidence

17

showing when DJ Flex allegedly received the text message. Chapman simply

18

argues that DJ Flex must have received the text message sometime between

19

August 10, 2018 when Maraj said “I’ll text” and 2:34 p.m. on the next day

20

when DJ Flex made his first social media post. Maraj disputes whether the

21

text message was received within this time frame. Thus, these facts do not

22

establish that the social media posts were made without time for reflection.

23
24

The social media posts are also not recorded reflections or business

25

records. “A recorded recollection is ‘[a] record that: (A) is on a matter the

26

witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully
11

 United States District Court
Central District of California

Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:1483

1

and accurately; (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was

2

fresh in the witness's memory; and (C) accurately reflects the witness's

3

knowledge.’” United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1143 (9th Cir. 2011).

4

Chapman provides no facts to demonstrate DJ Flex cannot recall his posts

5

on social media well enough to testify about them. In fact, DJ Flex testified

6

about the posts in his deposition. When asked why he tweeted that “Nicki

7

gave me something” DJ Flex responded: “Well, if you are asking me why I

8

said Nicki gave me something because I want the kids to believe that I got it

9

from the artist so they tune in. It's called smoke and mirrors.” (Dkt. 66-1, at

10

31, 162:7-12). This testimony also contradicts Chapman’s assertions that the

11

social media posts demonstrate that “Ms. Maraj in fact sent it to him.” Thus,

12

even assuming the social media posts were admissible non-hearsay, the

13

meaning of the posts is a material disputed fact that must be resolved by the

14

trier of fact.

15
16

Finally, the social media posts do not qualify as business records.

17

Chapman provides no evidence from DJ Flex showing that the social media

18

posts are regularly conducted business activities. FRE 801(3) (“all these

19

conditions [must be] shown by the testimony of the custodian or another

20

qualified witness.”). The social media posts do not describe an “act, event,

21

condition, opinion, or diagnosis” that was made. FRE 801(3). To the extent

22

Chapman argues that the event is “Nicki [giving] something” to DJ Flex, as

23

explained above, that fact is disputed by the parties.

24
25

The Court thus SUSTAINS Maraj’s objection to the social media posts

26

as inadmissible hearsay. The Court will consider the posts only for the fact
12

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:1484

1

that they exist, but not for the truth of the matters asserted therein. (Dkt. 69,

2

SUF 35 (parties agreeing that the posts exist)).

3

United States District Court
Central District of California

4

B.

Undisputed Facts

5

Local Rule 56 allows the Court to find that “the material facts as claimed

6

and adequately supported by the moving party are admitted to exist without

7

controversy except to the extent that such material facts are (a) included in

8

the “Statement of Genuine Issues” and (b) controverted by declaration or

9

other written evidence filed in opposition to the motion.” Local Rule 56–3

10

(emphasis added). The Court finds that the following relevant facts are

11

undisputed:

12
13

The Copyrighted Work

14

Chapman wrote her song Baby Can I Hold You (the “Composition”) in

15

1982 and obtained copyright registration for the Composition on October 20,

16

1983. (Maraj RSUF Nos. 1-2). Chapman is the sole owner of the copyright

17

in the Composition. (Maraj RSUF No. 3).

18
19

The New Work

20

In 2017, Maraj agreed to work with a recording artist named Nasir Bin

21

Olu (“Nas”) on a re-make of a song entitled Sorry.

22

Chapman RSUF No. 2). At the time, Maraj believed that Sorry was created

23

by an artist named Shelly Thunder. (Chapman RAMF No. 40). Maraj told

24

Nas that she would experiment with Sorry to see where the project could go.

25

(Maraj RSUF No. 41). Maraj began to experiment with Sorry before seeking

26

a license (Chapman SUF No. 10), but she knew she would need a license to
13

(Maraj RSUF No. 4;

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:1485

1

produce a song on an album eventually. (Chapman SUF No. 9). Maraj did

2

not intend to release a new work without securing an appropriate license first.

3

(Maraj RSUF No. 42). This was customary practice because rights holders

4

often request copies of new works during licensing discussions and

5

prospective licensees usually include their proposed derivative works with

6

their initial licensing requests.

7

requested copies of new works from prospective licensees herself. (Maraj

8

SUF No. 9).

(Maraj SUF Nos. 8-10).

Chapman has

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10

License Requests

11

Maraj’s representatives later found out that Sorry was a cover to Tracy

12

Chapman’s song, Baby Can I Hold You. (Maraj SUF No. 12). The new work

13

created by Maraj incorporated a large number of lyrics and vocal melodies

14

from Baby Can I Hold You. (Chapman SUF Nos. 7-8). Thus, on May 23,

15

2018, Maraj, through her representatives, began seeking Chapman’s

16

clearance to publish the new work in Maraj’s then-upcoming album, Queen.

17

(Maraj SUF No. 12). Between May 23, 2018 and August 2, 2018, Maraj and

18

her representatives made multiple requests to Chapman for a license to

19

publish the new work.

20

Chapman repeatedly denied the requests. (Id.). On at least one occasion,

21

Maraj attempted to reach out to Chapman directly via Twitter to change

22

Chapman’s mind. (Id.). Despite these efforts, Chapman continued to deny

23

Maraj’s requests. (Id.).

(Id., at Nos. 13-15; Chapman SUF Nos. 11-20).

24
25

Maraj told Nas that the song “was not gonna get cleared” by Chapman.

26

(Chapman SUF No. 23). She further stated that, “they saying [Ms. Chapman]
14

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:1486

1

don’t clear stuff. She was forced to with [another song] but took all the money

2

cuz they put it out w/no approval.” (Id., SUF No. 24). Nas expressed his

3

frustrations with Chapman’s refusal to issue a license. (Maraj RSUF No. 51).

4
5

Maraj Reaches Out to DJ Flex

6

On August 3, 2018, Maraj direct messaged DJ Aston George Taylor

7

(“DJ Flex”) the following message:

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9

“Hey. I got a record I want u to world premier. The week album drops.

10

U will be the only one with it. I’ll have Jean hit u to explain. Keep it on

11

the low. Wait til u see who’s on it. Not going on album either. No one

12

will get it.”

13

(Chapman SUF No. 25). DJ Flex indicated that he would play the record on

14

his show (Id., SUF No. 26). On that same day, Maraj sent Nas a copy of the

15

latest mix of the new work via WeTransfer. (Maraj RSUF No. 50). There is

16

no record of Maraj sending DJ Flex a copy of the latest mix on that day.

17
18

One week later, on August 10, 2018, Maraj followed up with DJ Flex

19

about the show asking, “You got me tonight? The song is me and Nas. Send

20

your number.” (Chapman SUF No. 27). DJ Flex responded with his number

21

and confirmed that he would play the song the next day. (Id., SUF No. 28).

22

Maraj responded, “Ok I’ll text.” (Id., SUF No. 29).

23
24

The New Work is “Mastered”

25

On the same day, Maraj’s lead recording engineer, Aubry Delaine,

26

asked Chris Athens Masters, Inc. to “master” the song and return clean and
15

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:1487

1

explicit versions of the mastered copy. (Chapman SUF No. 30). Chris Athens

2

mastered the work and his intern, David Castro, sent Delaine links to

3

download the mastered versions via email at 9:12 p.m. that night. (Id., SUF

4

Nos. 31-32). The links only allowed for one download each. (Id., SUF No.

5

33). Delaine never sends unreleased recordings of Maraj’s work to third

6

parties without receiving instructions from Maraj to do so. (Id., SUF No. 34).

7

Maraj’s album, Queen, was released on August 10, 2018 without the new

8

work. (Maraj SUF No. 16).

United States District Court
Central District of California

9
10

DJ Flex Plays the New Work on His Show

11

On August 11, 2018, the day after Maraj’s album released, DJ Flex

12

promoted the debut of the new work on his Twitter and Instagram accounts:

13
14

“Shhhhhhh!!!! TONIGHT 7 PM!!! NICKY GAVE ME SOMETHING!!!

15

@nickiminaj ft @nas !!! (NOT ON HER ALBUM!) GONNA STOP THE

16

CITY TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

17

(Chapman SUF No. 35). Maraj commented on DJ Flex’s post stating that he

18

was not to play any material that was not included on her album. (Maraj

19

RSUF No. 45). Later that night, DJ Flex played a version of the new work

20

that was titled, “01 Sorry – 72518 – master.mp3.” (Chapman SUF No. 37).

21

DJ Flex received that version of the song via text message. (Id., SUF No.

22

37).

23
24
25

C.

Disputed Facts
The parties dispute the following facts in connection with their Motions:

26
16

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 17 of 29 Page ID #:1488

United States District Court
Central District of California

1
2

When DJ Flex Received the New Work

3

 Chapman argues that DJ Flex must have received the new work

4

after Maraj said “she’ll text” it to him on August 10, 2018 and before

5

he played it on the air the next evening. (Chapman SUF No. 36).

6

 Maraj maintains that DJ Flex’s testimony only establishes that he

7

received the new work before he sent the Tweet broadcasting the

8

show but does not establish that DJ Flex received it after Maraj said

9

“she’ll text.” (Maraj RSUF No. 36).

10
11

Who texted DJ Flex the New Work

12

 Chapman states that Maraj or one of her representatives sent DJ

13

Flex the song based on the following disputed facts.

14

 Maraj maintains that neither she, nor anyone acting with her

15

authority, sent DJ Flex the song. (Maraj RSUF No. 46). DJ Flex

16

denies that Maraj sent him the song. (Id.). DJ Flex claims he

17

received the new work from one of his bloggers, and not from

18

anyone associated with Maraj. (Id.). Delaine states that neither he,

19

nor anyone else to his knowledge, was asked to send a recording

20

of the new work to DJ Flex. (Id.). Delaine states that he does not

21

know how DJ Flex received the new work. (Id.). Roberson also

22

denies sending DJ Flex the new work. (Id.).

23
24

Whether “01 Sorry – 72518 – master.mp3” is the mastered version

25

 Maraj maintains that the “01 Sorry – 72518 – master.mp3” file is a

26

mixed version generated by Serban Ghenea and not the mastered
17

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 18 of 29 Page ID #:1489

1

copy created by Chris Masters on August 10, 2018. (Maraj RSUF

2

No. 47).
 Chapman disputes this and maintains that because of the file name,

3

the file is the mastered version. (Chapman SUF No. 37).

4
5
6

Whether the Mastered Version Can Be Sent Via Text Message

7

 Maraj maintains that the mastered copy cannot be sent via text
message because the file is too large. (Maraj RSUF No. 49).

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9

 Chapman argues that the mastered copy can be sent via text

10

message using WeTransfer the same way Maraj sent Nas a copy of

11

the file via text message through WeTransfer on August 3, 2018.

12

(Chapman RAMF No. 49).

13
14

When the Mixed Version Was Created

15

 Maraj maintains that the mixed version of the song was completed

16

on July 25, 2018 as indicated by the “72518” in the file name. (Maraj

17

RSUF No. 48).
 Chapman maintains that the mixing services were completed later

18

than that. (Maraj RSUF No. 48).

19
20
21

IV.

DISCUSSION

22

A.

Copyright Infringement

23

To establish a claim for direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must

24

demonstrate: (1) it owns a valid copyright in a work, and (2) defendant’s

25

violation of plaintiff's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. §§

26

106, 501; see also Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.,
18

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 19 of 29 Page ID #:1490

1

462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006). “In addition, direct infringement requires

2

the plaintiff to show causation (also referred to as ‘volitional conduct’) by the

3

defendant.” Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 666 (9th Cir.

4

2017).

5

United States District Court
Central District of California

6

1.

Ownership

7

A certificate of registration bearing the plaintiff’s name “creates a

8

presumption of ownership of a valid copyright,” which the defendant must

9

offer “some evidence” to rebut.

Ent. Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis

10

Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, Chapman

11

provides adequate documentation of her copyright registration in the song

12

entitled, Baby Can I Hold You. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 13-19, Ex. B). Maraj also does not

13

dispute that Chapman is the sole copyright holder. (Maraj RSUF No. 3).

14
15

2.

Violation of Exclusive Right

16

The Copyright Act bestows on the owner of a copyright certain exclusive

17

rights, including the rights to reproduction, preparation, distribution, public

18

performance, and importation. (17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1)-(3), 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)).

19
20

Chapman claims that Maraj violated her exclusive rights in two ways:

21

(1) when Maraj created the new work without Chapman’s permission; and (2)

22

when Maraj distributed the new work to DJ Flex without Chapman’s

23

permission. Maraj counters that summary judgment should be granted in her

24

favor as to the first issue because her creation of the song was fair use. The

25

Court turns to the distribution issue first.

26
19

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 20 of 29 Page ID #:1491

(a) Distribution Right

United States District Court
Central District of California

1
2

In support of her argument that Maraj violated her distribution rights,

3

Chapman relies on several disputed or inadmissible facts. First, Chapman’s

4

argument that Maraj, or one of her agents, distributed the new work largely

5

depends on the timeframe that DJ Flex received the text message containing

6

the new work. According to Chapman, DJ Flex received the song after Maraj

7

said “I’ll text” and before he played the song on his show the following night.

8

Yet, Maraj offers facts to contradict that timeframe. Specifically, DJ Flex

9

testifies that he was not sure about the timeframe he received the text

10

message, but that he knows he received the song before he sent his Tweet.

11

(Dkt. 66-1, at 32, 171:19-172:5). At best, DJ Flex’s testimony is inconsistent

12

– the transcript shows that there is some confusion with the line of

13

questioning. Given the inconclusive testimony, a trier of fact could differ as to

14

the timeframe DJ Flex received the text message in this case.

15
16

In addition to the timeframe, Chapman relies on inadmissible hearsay

17

in her analysis. As explained above, the Tweet on DJ Flex’s social media

18

accounts is not admissible for the truth of the matter on which Chapman

19

relies.

20

postings that he received the Infringing Work from Ms. Maraj are

21

contemporaneous statements demonstrating Ms. Maraj in fact sent it to

22

him.”). Moreover, even if the Court were to consider these statements for the

23

truth of the matter asserted, triable issues of fact would persist. In DJ Flex’s

24

deposition testimony, he squarely rejects the idea that his Tweets meant that

25

he received the song from Maraj. (Dkt. 66-1, at 31, 162:7-12). To the contrary,

26

he explains that he only said “Nicki gave me something” to lure in fans on his

(See Chapman Reply, at 8) (“Mr. Taylor’s multiple social media

20

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 21 of 29 Page ID #:1492

1

show. (Id.).

United States District Court
Central District of California

2
3

Moreover, the denials by Maraj, DJ Flex, Delaine, and Roberson

4

regarding the transmission of the song creates disputed material facts.

5

Critically, DJ Flex denies that Maraj sent him the text message and states that

6

one of his bloggers provided it to him. Further, both Maraj and Delaine testify

7

that the new work could have gotten into a number of persons’ hands

8

(including those who do not take direction from Maraj, such as Nas or

9

individuals on Chris Masters’ team). (Maraj RSUF No. 46).

10
11

Finally, the dispute about the mastered and mixed versions is also key

12

circumstantial evidence for determining who sent DJ Flex the new work. The

13

parties dispute several facts related to whether DJ Flex received a mastered

14

copy of the file, including whether a mastered file can be sent via text

15

message, when the “mixed” version of the song was created in this case, and

16

whether the file name, including the word “master,” is dispositive. Chapman

17

relies on the fact that DJ Flex received a “mastered” copy of the file to support

18

her argument that Maraj or someone acting on Maraj’s behalf sent DJ Flex

19

the song. This is a disputed issue of material fact. (Chapman SUF No. 37).

20
21

These factual disputes raise triable issues of material fact that must be

22

resolved by a jury. The Court thus DENIES Chapman’s Motion for Summary

23

Judgment on the distribution issue.

24
25
26

(b) Right to Create Derivative Works
21

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 22 of 29 Page ID #:1493

1

Chapman next argues that Maraj violated her exclusive right to create

2

derivative works. (Chapman MSJ, at 12). Maraj counters that her creation of

3

the new work constitutes fair use. (Maraj MSJ, at 7).

United States District Court
Central District of California

4
5

Fair use is a mixed question of law and fact. Los Angeles Times v. Free

6

Republic, No. CV 98-7840 MMM(AJWx), 2000 WL 565200, at *4 (C.D. Cal.

7

2000). A court may appropriately decide a fair use issue on a summary

8

judgment motion only when the material facts are not in dispute. Mattel, Inc.

9

v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792, 800 (9th Cir. 2003). The

10

defendant bears the burden of proving fair use because fair use is an

11

affirmative defense to infringement. Henley v. DeVore, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1144,

12

1151 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

13
14

The Copyright Act provides that the fair use of a copyrighted work, “for

15

purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship,

16

or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. The fair

17

use determination is “an open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry,” and the

18

examples and factors in the statute are “illustrative and not limitative . . . [and]

19

provide only general guidance about the sorts of copying that courts and

20

Congress most commonly had found to be fair uses.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose

21

Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994). In determining whether a use is fair

22

use, courts consider four factors:

23
24
25
26

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
22

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 23 of 29 Page ID #:1494

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the

1
2

copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the

3
4

copyrighted work.

United States District Court
Central District of California

5
6

(Id.). These factors should not be treated in isolation, and instead must be

7

explored and weighed in light of copyright’s purpose. Campbell, 510 U.S. at

8

578. The Supreme Court has found that transformative uses “lie at the heart

9

of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space within the confines of

10

copyright” because such works generally further “the goal of copyright, to

11

promote science and the arts[.]” (Id. at 579).

12
i. Purpose and Character of the Use

13
14

The first factor, 17 U.S.C. § 107(1), requires a court to consider “the

15

purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a

16

commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” The central

17

purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether and to what extent the new

18

work is “transformative.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. The Ninth Circuit has

19

adopted a two-step analysis of this first prong. Furie v. Infowars, LLC, 401 F.

20

Supp. 3d 952, 972 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing to Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336

21

F.3d 811, 818 (9th Cir. 2003)). First, courts ask whether the use of the work

22

is commercial in nature.

23

transformative1. (Id.).

(Id.).

Second, they ask whether such use is

A use is considered transformative only where a defendant changes a

24
25
1

26

The parties do not provide any analysis as to whether the new work is transformative.

23

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 24 of 29 Page ID #:1495

1

plaintiff's copyrighted work or uses the plaintiff's copyrighted work in a

2

different context such that the plaintiff's work is transformed into a new

3

creation. (Id. citing Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1164

4

(9th Cir. 2007)). The more transformative the new work, the less important

5

the other factors, including commercialism, become. Kelly, 336 F.3d at 818.

United States District Court
Central District of California

6
7

Commercial use is a “factor that tends to weigh against a finding of fair

8

use.” Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc., 688 F.3d 1164, 1176 (9th Cir. 2012).

9

Yet the crux of the distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is

10

monetary gain, but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the

11

copyrighted material without paying the customary price. Harper & Row

12

Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 562 (1985).

13
14

Here, Maraj claims that the purpose of creating the new work was to:

15

(1) experiment with the artist’s vision, and (2) create a form that can be

16

submitted to the rights holder for approval. (Maraj MSJ, at 6). Chapman

17

argues that the purpose of creating the work was commercial and non-

18

transformative. (Chapman Opp., at 16).

19
20

Chapman argues that the new work was created for a commercial

21

purpose because Maraj knew she needed clearance to include the work on

22

her album. (Chapman Opp., at 12-13). Chapman also uses facts related to

23

Maraj’s clearance efforts after the work already had been created. (Id.).

24

Maraj maintains that the use was not commercial even though there was

25

some incidental commercial aspect of the work. (Maraj MSJ). The Court

26

agrees with Maraj.
24

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 25 of 29 Page ID #:1496

United States District Court
Central District of California

1
2

The parties do not dispute that in 2017, Maraj agreed to work with Nas

3

on a re-make of Sorry. (Maraj RSUF No. 4; Chapman RSUF No. 2). At that

4

time, Maraj believed that Sorry was created by an artist named Shelly

5

Thunder.

6

experiment with Sorry to see where the project could go. (Maraj RSUF No.

7

41). This was the initial purpose of Maraj’s use of Chapman’s Composition –

8

to experiment with it. At that time, the parties do not dispute, that Maraj did

9

not know whether she would produce a song based on Sorry. Further, the

10

parties do not dispute that Maraj knew she would need to seek a license to

11

eventually publish a new work based on Sorry. (Chapman SUF No. 9).

(Chapman RAMF No. 40).

Maraj told Nas that she would

12
13

The parties also do not dispute that Maraj never intended to exploit the

14

work without a license (and she did not do so). (Maraj RSUF No. 42). The

15

“degree to which the new user exploits the copyright for commercial gain—as

16

opposed to incidental use as part of a commercial enterprise—affects the

17

weight” afforded to commercial nature as a factor. Harper & Row Publishers,

18

Inc., 471 U.S. at 562. To the contrary, Maraj excluded the new work from her

19

album. Thus, although there is some incidental commercial nature related to

20

recording a song that may be used for an album, the low degree of

21

exploitation here counterbalances that. See Sundeman v. Seajay Soc'y, Inc.,

22

142 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 1998) (“…there was a potential commercial

23

motivation in that Dr. Blythe may have received royalties if her paper were

24

published, however, there was no attempt to exploit the Foundation. The

25

paper was only to be published if the necessary permission were obtained

26

from the copyright holder. Since such permission was not obtained, the paper
25

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 26 of 29 Page ID #:1497

1

was not published, and no royalties were ever received.”). All these facts

2

show that Maraj’s use was not purely commercial.

United States District Court
Central District of California

3
4

Courts should also “consider the public benefit resulting from a

5

particular use notwithstanding the fact that the alleged infringer may gain

6

commercially.” Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1523 (9th

7

Cir. 1992). The public benefit need not be direct or tangible, but may arise

8

because the challenged use serves a public interest. (Id. at 1523). As

9

explained above, artists usually experiment with works before seeking

10

licenses from rights holders and rights holders typically ask to see a proposed

11

work before approving a license. (Maraj SUF Nos. 8, 10). Chapman has

12

requested samples of proposed works before approving licensing requests

13

herself because she wanted “to see how [her work] will be used” before

14

approving the license (Maraj SUF No. 9), yet Chapman argues against the

15

very practice she maintains. A ruling uprooting these common practices

16

would limit creativity and stifle innovation within the music industry. This is

17

contrary to Copyright Law’s primary goal of promoting the arts for the public

18

good. This factor thus favors a finding of fair use.

19
20

ii. Nature of the Copyrighted Work

21

The second factor that § 107 instructs courts to consider is “the nature

22

of the copyrighted work” which recognizes the fact that “some works are

23

closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others.” Campbell,

24

510 U.S. at 586. Lyrics and music created by various musicians are creative

25

in nature and at the core of copyright’s protective purpose. (See, e.g., id.).

26

Chapman’s work is a musical composition, which is the type of work that is at
26

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 27 of 29 Page ID #:1498

1

the core of Copyright’s protective purpose. This factor thus weighs against a

2

finding of fair use.

3
4

United States District Court
Central District of California

5

iii. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used in Relation to the
Copyrighted Work as a Whole

6

“[T]his factor calls for thought not only about the quantity of the

7

materials used, but about their quality and importance, too.” Campbell, 510

8

U.S. at 587. When the extent of the copying is considered with the purpose

9

and character of the uses, the amount and substance of the copies are

10

justified. (Id. at 586–87). Indeed, this factor will not weigh against an alleged

11

infringer, even when he copies the whole work, if he takes no more than is

12

necessary for his intended use. Kelly, 336 F.3d at 820–21.

13
14

As the Supreme Court has recognized, this factor necessarily overlaps

15

somewhat with the first factor — the “extent of permissible copying varies with

16

the purpose and character of the use.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586–87.

17
18

Here, it is undisputed that the new work incorporates most of the

19

Composition’s lyrics and incorporates parts of the vocal melodies from the

20

Composition. (Chapman SUF Nos. 7-8). Nevertheless, the portion of the

21

Composition that Maraj used was no more than that necessary to show

22

Chapman how Maraj intended to use the Composition in the new work. This

23

factor thus favors a finding of fair use.

24
25
26

iv. Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market for or Value of the
27

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 28 of 29 Page ID #:1499

United States District Court
Central District of California

1

Copyrighted Work

2

The final statutory inquiry considers the effect the allegedly infringing

3

use has upon the market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C.A. §

4

107(4). As the ability to reap financial rewards from creative endeavors is a

5

critical component of the copyright regime, the Supreme Court has noted that

6

this factor is "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.”

7

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 471 U.S. at 566. Courts in this Circuit have

8

reasoned the same. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 964

9

F.2d 965, 971 (9th Cir. 1992). At this stage, courts ask whether the copy

10

brings to the marketplace a competing substitute for the original, or its

11

derivative, so as to deprive the rights holder of significant revenues because

12

of the likelihood that potential purchasers may opt to acquire the copy in

13

preference to the original. Estate of Smith v. Cash Money Records, 253 F.

14

Supp. 3d 737, 752 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).

15
16

Here, there is no evidence that the new work usurps any potential

17

market for Chapman. Chapman’s only argument as to this factor is that

18

market harm may be presumed because the work was created for commercial

19

gain. (Chapman Opp., at 19). As explained above, there was only incidental

20

commercial purpose behind the new work of which Maraj did not attempt to

21

exploit. The presumption of market harm is thus unwarranted. Chapman

22

offers no other support for market harm, and the Court declines to

23

manufacture any. Maraj argues, and the Court agrees, that the creation of

24

the work for private experimentation and to secure a license from the license

25

holder has no impact on the commercial market for the original work.

26

On balance, the Court finds that Maraj has met her burden of showing
28

 Case 2:18-cv-09088-VAP-SS Document 78 Filed 09/16/20 Page 29 of 29 Page ID #:1500

1

there are no genuine issues of material fact and that she is entitled to a finding

2

of fair use as a matter of law. Maraj’s creation of the new work for the purpose

3

of artistic experimentation and to seek license approval from the copyright

4

holder thus did not infringe Chapman’s right to create derivative works.

5

Chapman has thus failed to meet her burden in proving Maraj’s infringement.

6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7

CONCLUSION2

V.

8

As a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to the distribution of the

9

song, Chapman is not entitled to summary judgment on that portion of the

10

infringement claim. For the reasons discussed above, however, this Court

11

finds that any liability for Maraj’s creation of the song is barred by the fair use

12

doctrine.

13

Summary Judgment and GRANTS Maraj’s Motion for Partial Summary

14

Judgment.

The Court therefore DENIES Chapman’s Motion for Partial

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:

9/16/20
Virginia A. Phillips
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

The parties also briefed the issue of “willfulness” with respect to the infringement claims. The Court need not address this point because there are disputed
issues of material fact as to the threshold issue of infringement on the distribution
claim and the fair use doctrine absolves Maraj of any liability for her creation of
the new work for the reasons discussed above. For similar reasons, the Court
need not reach whether the parties’ conduct was volitional.

29