Supreme Court sides with music producer in copyright case over Flo Rida hit
The 6-3 decision came in a case filed by Sherman Nealy, who was suing over music used in the 2008 song ‘In the Ayer’ by the rapper Flo Rida
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The US Supreme Court has sided with a music producer in a copyright case, allowing him to seek more than a decade's worth of damages over a sample used in a hit Flo Rida song.
The 6-3 decision came in a case filed by Sherman Nealy, who was suing over music used in the 2008 song “In the Ayer,” by the rapper Flo Rida. It also was featured on TV shows like “So You Think You Can Dance.”
Mr Nealy says he didn't find out his former collaborator had inked a deal with a record company that allowed the sampling until 2016. He sued two years later for damages going back to the song's release.
Copyright law states that suits must be filed within three years of the violation, or the point when it's discovered. The record company, Warner Chappell, argued that means Mr Nealy would only be entitled to three years' worth of royalties at most.
The question of how far back damages can go has split appeals courts, and it's one that industry groups like the Recording Industry Association of America called on the Supreme Court to decide.
The opinion handed down Thursday was written by Justice Elena Kagan, and joined by her liberal colleagues Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson as well as conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“There is no time limit on monetary recovery. So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim is entitled to damages for infringement, no matter when the infringement occurred,” Justice Kagan wrote.
Three conservative justices dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the majority sidestepped the important question: Whether Nealy's claim was valid to begin with, or whether copyright holders should have to show some kind of fraud in order to sue over older violations. The dissenters said the suit should have been dismissed.