Here is a major update on my copyright infringement case. As an independent artist, protecting my work in an era of infinite connectivity is no small feat. After the lower court dismissed my claim, I officially filed my appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 24-145), you can read my Appeal Opening Brief here, and it’s now slated for potential oral argument in early 2025.
This appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals represents a significant step forward in what could be a precedent-setting case about how courts handle copyright infringement in the digital age. Centered on allegations that Katy Perry and her team, under Universal Music Group (UMG), had indirect access to my song Upgraded 2.0, this case is more than just a fight for justice, it’s a push to redefine how copyright law protects independent creators like me.
At the heart of the case is the concept of “access,” a key element in copyright infringement lawsuits. Current standards for proving access are outdated and fail to account for the reality of today’s extremely connected, data driven world. I’m challenging this standard to help level the playing field for all independent artists.
What’s at Stake?
In this appeal, I’m asking the court to recognize that today’s digital landscape fundamentally changes how access should be interpreted. Drawing from the Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin ruling, my appeal advocates for an updated interpretation using Skidmore‘s clear words, arguing that a song being “available on demand” in a public or even partnership-enabled digital space, like Facebook and in my situation, should be enough to prove access.
As a practical matter, the concept of “access” is increasingly diluted in our digitally interconnected world. Access is often proved by the wide dissemination of the copyrighted work. See Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2016). Given the ubiquity of ways to access media online, from YouTube to subscription services like Netflix and Spotify, access may be established by a trivial showing that the work is available on demand. (emphasis added)
Skidmore v. Zeppelin, 952 F. 3d 1051 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2020
This argument stems from the fact that Universal Music Group had a data-sharing partnership with Facebook. This raises serious concerns about whether private or restricted posts, like mine, were accessible to them due to Facebook’s widely criticized privacy practices. Let’s not forget Facebook’s track record, a $5 billion FTC fine, a $725 million class-action settlement, and years of backlash from privacy advocates for mishandling user data.
If successful, this appeal could help courts recognize the unique vulnerabilities facing independent artists in the Digital Age. It could also set a precedent for proving access based on the real-world dynamics of online sharing, not antiquated ideas about physical distribution. A perfect real world example is current outrage over souring AI Training data, there is a public Statement on AI Training, with over 35K Signatories:
“The unlicensed use of creative works for training generative AI is a major, unjust threat to the livelihoods of the people behind those works, and must not be permitted.”
Why This Appeal Matters for Independent Artists
Independent artists already face an uphill battle when it comes to protecting their work. Big music labels have extensive legal resources and vast access to data, giving them an unfair advantage. Meanwhile, current copyright standards often require independent creators to prove a “reasonable opportunity” for access, a hurdle that’s nearly impossible to clear, even when work is readily available online.
This appeal aims to change that. If the court agrees that access can be established through modern digital means, it will finally acknowledge the reality that online spaces are an integral part of how creative works are shared, discovered, and sometimes copied.
This would be a huge win for creators everywhere, providing the legal tools needed to hold large companies accountable when they exploit our work without permission.
A Call for Modernized Copyright Laws
This case also highlights the broader need to bring copyright law into the Digital Age. In today’s world, where AI, data-sharing, and streaming dominate, independent artists face new risks that weren’t imaginable decades ago. Songs can be widely distributed, or even incorporated into AI training data, without the artist’s consent or knowledge, read the October 22, 2024 report Artificial Intelligence: Generative AI Training, Development, and Deployment Considerations from the U.S. Government Accountability Office
It’s time for copyright law to reflect these realities and offer stronger protections for creators who are putting their work online.
The Bigger Picture
My fight isn’t just about one song or one artist. It’s about protecting the creative community as a whole. Independent artists are often the unsung innovators behind mainstream hits, and we deserve fair treatment under the law.
The outcome of this appeal could set a critical precedent for recognizing the ease with which digital content is accessed, whether publicly or privately, in the modern era. It could also help shift the balance of power in favor of creators, ensuring that everyone has a fair chance to protect their work.
As my case moves forward, I hope it inspires others to push for copyright reform that truly supports independent artists in the ever-evolving digital landscape.
Thank you for following my journey and for supporting the fight for fairer copyright protections. Let’s reshape the future together.
