Buchanan v. Sony Music Entm't

MOREH J. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff, v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, et. al., Defendants.

No. 18-cv-3028 (KBJ)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

May 26, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se plaintiff Moreh J. Buchanan has filed the instant lawsuit against four record companies and one movie studio under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501. (See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 14-17.)¹ Buchanan alleges that he distributed four original songs to Defendants Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group Corp., UMG Recordings, Inc., and Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC (collectively, "the Record Companies") between 1992 and 1997, in an effort to persuade them to produce his music (see id. at 4-5), and that these companies then unlawfully appropriated his music and lyrics, using them to create scores of hit songs that were released between 1993 and 2018 (see id. at 10-14). Buchanan specifically alleges that the Record Companies engaged in 56 individual acts of copyright infringement, and he further contends that Defendant Universal Pictures derived the "plot, theme, story line, characters, cast, scenes, etc. etc." of the Fast and Furious film franchise from a copyrighted song that hesent to that company. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Mots. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs."), ECF No. 22, at 6.) Buchanan also alleges that the Record Companies were negligent, and strictly liable, for failing to monitor their "writers, producers[,] and artist[s]" and for not protecting Buchanan "from harm of copyright infringement." (Compl. at 14-15.)

Before this Court at present are two motions to dismiss Buchanan's complaint that the Record Companies and Universal Pictures have filed. (See Defs. Record Cos.' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 19; Def. Universal Pictures's Mot. to Dismiss ("Def. UP's Mot."), ECF No. 18.) The Record Companies contend that Buchanan's complaint fails to plead his claims of copyright infringement sufficiently under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); that the Copyright Act's statute of limitations bars some of the infringement claims; and that the Copyright Act preempts the complaint's negligence and strict liability tort claim. (See Defs. Record Cos.' Mem. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss ("Defs. Record Cos.' Mem."), ECF No. 19-1, at 6-7.) Universal Pictures similarly argues that Buchanan has failed to plead facts that establish a plausible claim of copyright infringement under Rule 12(b)(6). (See Def. UP's Mot. at 1.) In response, Buchanan generally maintains that the allegations in his complaint are sufficient to support his copyright infringement claims. (See Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs. at 2.)

For the reasons explained below, this Court concludes that Buchanan has failed to state a claim for copyright infringement, because not all of the songs that he claims were infringed have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and he has not sufficiently alleged that Defendants had access to his registered works or that there are substantial similarities between protectable aspects of his registered works and most ofthe infringing songs in his complaint. The Court further finds that the tort claim in Buchanan's complaint must be dismissed as preempted by the Copyright Act. Accordingly, both Defendants' motions will be GRANTED. A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will follow.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Alleged Facts²

Plaintiff Moreh J. Buchanan is a "songwriter, music publisher, singer/rapper, artist . . . and composer[.]" (Compl. ¶ 3.) In the 1990s, Buchanan allegedly wrote, produced, and recorded several original demonstration songs—colloquially referred to as "demos"—that he distributed to music-industry professionals in hopes of landing a record deal. (Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs. at 12.) According to the complaint, Buchanan first traveled to Atlanta in 1994 and 1995 (see Compl. ¶¶ 40, 43) to present the demos to certain relatives of his who worked in the music industry (see Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs. at 5; see also Compl. ¶¶ 20-23). Buchanan's family members apparently consistently rebuffed his repeated attempts to pitch the demos in this fashion (see Compl. ¶¶ 24, 40-45), so Buchanan physically relocated to Atlanta (see id. ¶ 46), to "search for a record deal by sharing his music" (id. ¶ 50). Once there, Buchanan allegedly not only passed demo tapes to producers and music executives personally (seeid. ¶ 52-53), he also worked with a lawyer, E. Earle Burke, who, in 1997, "shopped" Buchanan's demo tapes to "Motown, Columbia, Sony, and MCA/Universal Records" (Compl. ¶ 59; see also Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs. at 5). Burke allegedly told Buchanan that the record companies he approached were "very excited about [Buchanan's] looks, sound, and demo tape[,]" (Compl. ¶ 60), and further suggested that MCA or Motown was interested in contracting with Buchanan (see id. ¶ 61).

Around that same time, Buchanan purportedly came to believe that the rapper Will Smith had copied one of the demo songs in order to create the popular song "Gettin' Jiggy Wit It." (See id. ¶¶ 64-71.) Buchanan sought counsel from Burke, and Burke agreed to pursue the matter. (See id. ¶¶ 67, 82-83.) Ultimately, Burke failed to take legal action because, according to Buchanan, Burke "was bribed by Will Smith[.]" (Id. ¶ 101.)³ In late 2012, Buchanan began to notice other popular songs—songs "dating back as far as 1993"—that he believed "infringed on his . . . songs and music copyright." (Id. at 17.) The allegedly infringing works are songs that were marketed between 1993 to 2018 and include popular hits like "Single Ladies" by Beyoncé, "Shape of You" by Ed Sheeran, and "No Scrubs" by TLC. (See id. at 9-15.) In total, Buchanan's complaint identifies 56 songs that allegedly infringe on his copyrights. (See id.)⁴ In addition to the listed popular songs, Buchanan's complaint further alleges thatthe Fast and Furious film franchise lifted its "plot, theme, story line, characters, cast, scenes, etc. etc." from his song entitled "I Gos Ta Roll." (Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs. at 6.)

Notably, Buchanan officially registered "I Gos Ta Roll" with the U.S. Copyright Office in April of 1998. (See Exh. 2 to Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1-1, at 2; Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs., at 13; see also Defs. Record Cos.' Mem., at 12; Exh. A to Defs. Record Cos.' Mem., ECF No. 19-5, at 2.) However, none of the other demo songs that Buchanan points to as having been subsequently pilfered by the Record Companies—including "Krazy Bad," "Gangsta Bass," and "Zombie Beat"—were registered with the Copyright Office prior to the initiation of the instant lawsuit. (See Pl.'s Exh. 10 in Supp. of Second Aff. ("Pl.'s Registration Appl."), ECF No. 27, at 4.)

B. Procedural History

On December 17, 2018, Buchanan filed a pro se complaint in this Court, alleging "copyright infringement of his original demo song[s][.]" (Compl. ¶ 101.) Buchanan's complaint is not a model of clarity, but it appears to assail certain specified acts as copyright violations, each of which this Court construes as a separate infringement claim for the purpose of evaluating Defendants' motions to dismiss.⁵ Buchanan's complaint also appears to allege that the Record Companies have committed negligence,and are strictly liable, for "failing to protect Plaintiff from harm of copyright infringement." (Compl. at 14.) As relief, Buchanan seeks damages totaling "$1 Quadrillion." (Compl. at 17.)

On May 6, 2019, the Record Companies moved to dismiss Buchanan's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Defs. Record Cos.' Mem. at 10.) The Record Companies point out that Buchanan does not have a valid copyright for three of the four demo songs (see id. at 10-12), and they further insist that his complaint has "not plausibly pled" that the Record Companies had access to Buchanan's works in order to copy them (id. at 13). The Record Companies also argue that Buchanan's pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because he does not identify similarities between most of his works and the allegedly infringing songs, and the few similarities that he does identify are insufficient to support his claims (id. at 15-22). Finally, the Record Companies point to the Copyright Act's statute of limitations, which they maintain bars many of Buchanan's infringement claims, and they assert further that the Copyright Act preempts his negligence/strict liability claim. (See id. at 22-25.)

Universal Pictures filed its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on May 2, 2019. (See Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def. Universal Pictures's Mot. to Dismiss ("Def. UP's Mem."), ECF No. 18-1.) The primary thrust of Universal Pictures's argument is that Buchanan has not "plausibly explain[ed] how Universal Pictures gained access" to "I Gos Ta Roll" or any of his other demo songs, nor has he "set forth what copyrightable elements of his works" Universal Pictures allegedly copied. (Id. at 5.)

Buchanan filed a consolidated opposition to both Defendants' motions to dismisson June 7, 2019 (see Pl.'s Opp'n to All Defs., ECF No. 22), and flurry of responsive briefing followed. Specifically, the Record Companies filed a reply brief on June 17, 2019 (see Defs. Record Cos.' Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 23), and Universal Pictures filed its reply brief on that same day (see Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def. Universal Pictures's Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 24). Buchanan then filed several additional documents in opposition to the Defendants' motions to dismiss (see Pl.'s Opp'n to Def. UP's Mot., ECF No. 25; Pl.'s Exh. 11 in Supp. of 2nd Aff., ECF No. 26; Pl.'s Registration Appl., ECF No. 27), and the Record Companies filed a surreply on August 7, 2019 (see Defs. Record Cos.' Surreply, ECF No. 34). Finally, Buchanan filed an initial surreply on August 14, 2019 (see Pl.'s Reply in Supp. of Opp'n to Not Dismiss ("Pl.'s Surreply"), ECF No. 30), which was followed by a final surreply on August 23, 2019 (see Pl.'s Opp'n to Defs.' Surreply, ECF No. 33).

II. ...