In 1985, the former lead singer of Creedence Clearwater Revival faced an unusual legal battle. A music label sued him for sounding too much like himself. John Fogerty had just released a new solo track, but his former record company claimed he ripped off a song he wrote fifteen years earlier.
The dispute over musical similarities ended up in front of a jury, but the aftermath of the verdict went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, permanently changing how the American legal system handles the massive financial costs of copyright litigation.
A Tale of Two Songs
While fronting Creedence Clearwater Revival in 1970, Fogerty wrote the hit track “Run Through the Jungle.” Fantasy Records, the label representing the band, acquired the exclusive publishing rights to the music. Two years later, the rock group disbanded, and Fogerty eventually launched a solo career with Warner Bros.
Records. In 1985, he released a solo song titled “The Old Man Down the Road.” Fantasy Records quickly filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, arguing that the new track was simply the music to “Run Through the Jungle” paired with new lyrics.
The Double Standard in Court
A jury listened to the tracks and ruled in Fogerty’s favor, declaring no copyright infringement occurred. Having won the case, Fogerty asked the court to make Fantasy Records pay his attorney’s fees, citing a provision in the Copyright Act of 1976. The district court denied the request, stating Fantasy had not filed a frivolous lawsuit.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, applying a specific rule. Prevailing plaintiffs in copyright cases automatically received attorney fees, while successful defendants only received them if they proved the lawsuit was malicious. Other federal courts used an evenhanded approach, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene.
The Supreme Court Intervenes
Chief Justice William Rehnquist authored the majority opinion for the Supreme Court. Fantasy Records argued that the differing standards matched rules used in civil rights cases. Rehnquist rejected this comparison, noting that civil rights plaintiffs often lack the financial means to hire lawyers, whereas copyright disputes frequently involve wealthy corporate behemoths.
The Court determined that the primary goal of copyright law is to stimulate artistic creativity for the public good, meaning successful defenses against infringement claims are just as important to encourage as the infringement lawsuits themselves.
Changing Copyright Litigation
The Supreme Court ruled that trial courts must apply the exact same standard to both winning plaintiffs and winning defendants when deciding whether to award attorney’s fees. Furthermore, Rehnquist clarified that the Copyright Act makes these financial awards completely discretionary rather than mandatory.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion. He agreed with the final judgment but argued the Court’s previous rulings on fee standards in civil rights cases were originally decided incorrectly. The ruling established a unified, level playing field for all future copyright disputes in the United States.