Rapper Future Defeats Copyright Lawsuit Over ‘When I Think About It’

Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against the rapper and singer, Future. A Virigina-based rapper, Gutta, accused the rap star of copying his song “When U Think About It” when Future released “When I Think About It” on a 2018 mixtape.

The district court judge ruled that none of the elements brought forward by Gutta were protectable under U.S. copyright law. The Virginia rapper argued that the two songs shared both subject matter and similar phrases.

“Most critically, the phrase ‘when you think about it’ or ‘when I think about it’ is not entitled to copyright protection. It is a fragmentary expression that is commonplace in everyday speech and ubiquitous in popular music,” wrote Judge Martha M. Pacold.

Timeline and Song’s Similarities

In his lawsuit, Gutta claimed that he sent “When U Think About It” to a music producer who works closely with Future in 2017. The Viginia-based musical artist was interested in purchasing a Beat from the music producer.

Later in the year, Gutta also sent his song to another musical artist who has worked with Future, and he asked the rapper to forward his song to Future.

Gutta tried to use this correspondence as evidence that Future or his close associates were aware of the song and its structure.

To bolster his case, Gutta pointed to similarities in the structures of the chorus of his and Future’s songs. Both ended lines in the chorus with a five-word phrase, “when you think about it” for Gutta’s song, and “when I think about it” in Future’s song. The artist continued that the subject matter and story-telling were also similar, with repeated mentions of money, guns and jewelry.

In 2019, Gutta sent a letter to Future accusing him of copyright infringement, and he launched the lawsuit when he did not receive a response.

Insufficient Evidence

While the songs share similar names and refrains, the district judge was not convinced by the Virginia rapper’s arguments. The judge found that Gutta only brought forward two similarities between the songs—the name and refrain and the subject matter.

In response to the motion to dismiss, Gutta included further similarities, such as the key of the song, a similar ‘core’ lyric, and thematic content.

However, Judge Pacold wrote: “None of these features is a protectable element of a song. And even considering the unprotectable elements in combination, the two songs share only ‘small cosmetic similarities,’ meaning that Robinson’s infringement claim cannot survive the motion to dismiss.”

The district judge continued that the court had to filter out unprotectable elements when considering similarities and then compare the works side-by-side. When the district court judge did so, there were no copied elements left over, thus there was no infringement claim remaining to evaluate.

Judge Pacold also cited various precedents to support the ruling that commonplace phrases cannot be protected in music. Additionally, Gutta’s case was not helped by the fact that the two similar phrases occurred on similar points during the respective songs.

“That these phrases are used in similar places and in similar ways in both songs’ choruses does not alter this conclusion,” wrote Judge Pacold.

A similar ruling was reached by a circuit court in 2012 that found Kanye West’s song “Stronger” did not infringe on a Vince P song that had a similar phrase in a similar position in the song.

Themes Not Copyright Protected

As to Gutta’s second main argument that the thematic content in the two songs was similar, Judge Pacold remained similarly unimpressed.

The judge wrote, “This argument fits squarely within the “scènes-à-faire” doctrine. Where elements of a work are ‘indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given topic,’ they receive no protection.”

Judge Pacold cited a variety of popular rap songs and wrote that the themes of “guns, money, and jewelry are frequently present in hip-hop and rap music.”

These common themes are thus not fair game for copyright protection. Gutta’s argument that the story-telling within the two songs was similar and thus infringed on his song also flopped due to the commonality of these stories in music.

In addition to the themes, Judge Pacold found other elements that Gutta cited in his response to the motion to dismiss, including the “core lyric” and structural similarity to be widespread in music composition.

While the judge conceded that “theoretically, all these individually unprotected elements might, in combination, create a plausible allegation of substantial similarity,” like in the Kanye West case, here they amount to “only small cosmetic similarities” that do not rise to the level of copyright protected content.

Future was represented by David Rose and Andrew Goldsmith of Pryor Cashman. Gutta represented himself.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: dvargg
Image ID: 69088459