A Legal Marvel: The Stark Difference Between Copyrights and Trademarks

Theatrical release poster

Since Iron Man was released to rave reviews in 2008, Marvel has created the most successful film franchise in history and has amassed a global empire while simultaneously re-energizing the comic book genre. As you might expect, many overly ambitious citizens have attempted to take a cut of Marvel’s profit by any means necessary, leading to some interesting lawsuits against the comic book mogul in the past few years.

In 2015 for instance, Ben and Ray Lai of Horizon Comics sued Marvel for copyright infringement on the grounds that Iron Man’s advanced super suit, as depicted in the company’s films, was plagiarized from Horizon’s character, Radix, a comic book figure who also wears a highly advanced suit of body armor. Although the indie comic company’s character was only created in 2001, the Lai brothers claimed that the original Iron Man wore a simple spandex suit when he debuted in 1963 and didn’t sport his new suit until 2008, when the movie franchise began. Luckily for Marvel, the Lai brothers’ allegations were considered questionable, and their case was quickly dismissed. The case does, however, raise an interesting question; what facts can substantiate a lawsuit based on a fictional character?

Fictional characters may be protected by both copyright and trademark law. In the intellectual property world, it is common knowledge that ideas themselves are not copyrightable. Instead it’s the expression of ideas in new and unique ways that earn a creator a limited-duration monopoly. In order for a fictional character to rise above classification as an idea or mere stock character, which isn’t entitled to copyright protection, the imagined figure must be sufficiently developed and contain distinctive characteristics. Using Iron Man as an example, Tony Stark is dramatized as a billionaire philanthropist playboy who is incredibly intelligent and annoyingly witty. Alone, none of these traits would make Iron Man a distinctive fictional character. But together, they constitute Tony Stark, a complex figure who has been entertaining audiences across multiple media forms for decades and is therefore entitled to the protection of copyright law.

Copyrights and trademarks protect different aspects of a figure’s likeness. While copyrights safeguard an owner’s exclusive right to use, copy, and exploit a fictional character, trademarks can lock down a figure’s name, physical appearance, and catchphrases when incorporated into or used in association with goods and services. Once again returning to the Tony Stark example, whenever one purchases a licensed product that sports Iron man’s likeness, the consumer should be able to trust that Marvel (now owned by Disney) proudly endorses the product, and that the product meets the comic company’s standard of high quality.

In addition to protecting different facets of intellectual property, trademarks and copyrights are governed by different systems of law with their own distinct rules, further distinguishing the two complex types of protection. For example, in terms of duration, copyrightable works created after January 1, 1978 are protected for the life of the last living author plus 70 years (or 120 years when the creator is a company). On the contrary, trademarks remain valid indefinitely, assuming that the mark at issue is still in use, and that the public continues to recognize the mark as a source indicator. Although the character of Tony Stark will eventually enter the public domain and be exploitable by the masses on the copyright side, for instance, Marvel could, in theory, benefit off of (and foreclose others’ rights to use) Iron Man in connection with merchandising forever.

When used together, copyrights and trademarks can be used to protect influential fictional figures from abuse by potential infringers while encouraging future creatives to come up with new, innovative, and fanciful characters. On the other hand, media companies’ motivation to keep tight control of their most popular characters keeps other from using them to tell new or unusual stories. That is, of course, unless the parody or fair use defenses apply . . . but that’s a story for another blog.

Matt Wagner is a law clerk at Berenzweig Leonard, LLP who is currently studying Music Business and Songwriting at Belmont University.

Appeal of “Blurred Lines” Verdict Backed by Artists

Roughly a year and a half after the highly controversial March 2015 jury verdict awarding Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million in a copyright infringement lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, the “Blurred Lines” case is in the news again. Over two hundred songwriters, composers, musicians, and producers joined in the filing of an amicus brief in support of Thicke and Williams, who have appealed the verdict.

Following a trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a jury concluded that Thick and Williams plagiarized Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” to create “Blurred Lines,” the longest-running number one single of 2013. In July of 2015, the judgment was trimmed down to $5.3 million, and Gaye’s heirs were granted half of all future royalties from “Blurred Lines.” Thicke and Williams filed a notice of appeal that December.

The recent and overwhelming support of this appeal by the music community comes in the wake of a verdict that essentially creates artist liability for the creation of new works that are merely inspired by prior works, even unwittingly, rather than actually copied or plagiarized. The brief, whose signatories include members of Earth, Wind & Fire, Linkin Park, Weezer, Hall & Oates, and solo artists such as R. Kelly and Jennifer Hudson, points out that “by eliminating any meaningful standard for drawing the line between permissible inspiration and unlawful copying, the judgment is certain to stifle creativity and impede the creative process.”

While certain aspects of a musical composition are protectable by copyright, such as particular arrangements of notes and harmonies, others are not, such as style, feel, or the timbre of a certain combination of instruments. It became apparent early on that the verdict in this case relied almost exclusively on those non-protectable elements, as jurors seemed to pay more heed to stylistic similarities than the fact that Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” are otherwise distinguishable works. Many artists forecast the possibility of this controversial verdict having a chilling effect on songwriting going forward. The filing of this amicus brief to overturn this result shows just how widespread that sentiment is throughout the music community.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Led Zeppelin’s Victory on the Stairway to Heaven

Led Zeppelin emerged victorious in their recent copyright infringement lawsuit against the estate of founding Spirit guitarist, Randy Wolfe, proving once and for all that their smash hit, Stairway To Heaven, is a unique composition and arguably one of the most successful Rock and Roll songs of all time. But in addition to asserting Stairway’s dominance, this landmark decision could possibly change the music industry’s copyright infringement battle ground in the coming years.

Today, popular artists and their hit songs are often facing critical scrutiny. This new trend has led to an abundance of infringement accusations in the last decade. While some cases, such as the Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me” dispute, have been legitimate, other lawsuits, such as the Taylor Swift’s “Shake It Off” debacle, are viewed by many as completely unfounded. Especially after last year’s controversial “Blurred Lines” decision, which required the hit’s songwriters to pay over 5.3 million dollars in damages for replicating the “feel” of Marvin Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” many artists have been afraid that creative inspiration will inevitably turn into an expensive and time-consuming copyright lawsuit which will, in turn, stifle artistic creativity.

Thankfully, because of Led Zeppelin’s recent victory, common musical motifs, such as a descending chromatic scale, are now officially not copyrightable, restoring a level of creative freedom that could have been relinquished after 2015’s “Blurred Lines” verdict. Additionally, it is predicted that this legal triumph could diminish future gratuitous copyright allegations now that songwriters can see that these cases are difficult to win.

This case reminds artists that music is rooted in inspiration. For example, in 2009, musical comedy group, The Axis Of Awesome, compiled together 40 pop songs into one mashup in order to prove that musicians have been rehashing the “I-V-vi-IV” chord progression for decades. Although these artists all were inspired by their influences and incorporated the same musical motif, very few of the compiled songs actually sound similar when listened to side by side. In other words, chord progressions are not subject to copyright protection, much like ideas or facts. If one artist could claim a limited monopoly on a musical progression, then the world would be deprived of future artistic creations and music would remain stagnant. Now that Led Zeppelin has defeated their legal opposition, musicians can now officially stand by the fact that chord progressions are useful tools that hopefully can be utilized without fear of infringement. In the end, this trial will go down in history as an important victory for artistic creativity.

Matt Wagner is a law clerk at Berenzweig Leonard, LLP who is currently studying Music Business and Songwriting at Belmont University.

Seth Berenzweig is the managing partner of  Berenzweig Leonard, LLP, works with artists and musicians, and is a member of the  Recording Academy. He can be reached at sberenzweig@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Stairway to Heaven Lawsuit Trial Date Set

If you work in or around the music industry, you’re probably well aware of the fact that Led Zeppelin, one of the most popular bands of all time, has been embroiled in litigation over the writer credits for the band’s iconic megahit “Stairway to Heaven.” In 2014, the estate of guitarist Randy California, a founding member of the band Spirit, as well as another band member, sued Led Zeppelin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for copyright infringement over the musical similarities between “Stairway to Heaven” and Spirit’s “Taurus.” The lawsuit states that Stairway’s iconic introduction was lifted directly from Taurus, which Led Zeppelin heard while opening for Spirit on several concerts in 1968 and 1969, and seeks monetary damages as well as crediting Randy California as a writer on Stairway to Heaven.

While Led Zeppelin was unsuccessful in dismissing the lawsuit, the band succeeded in having the case moved from Pennsylvania to Los Angeles, where a federal district judge has slated trial to begin on May 10th, 47 years to the day after Zeppelin performed a concert in Vancouver for a crowd of 4,000. Notably, the band’s defenses in this case don’t deny that Taurus was appropriated, or claim that the songs are dissimilar. Instead, Led Zeppelin claims that the Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this lawsuit in the first place, for three reasons. First, the band asserts that Randy California wrote Taurus as a work for hire, meaning that he created the music pursuant to his contract with Hollenbeck Music and solely on Hollenbeck’s behalf, and therefore never owned the copyright himself. Second, the Defendants argue that California waived any claim to the work in a 1991 interview when he was asked about the similarities between Taurus and Stairway, ultimately responding that “if they wanted to use [Taurus], that’s fine,” and “I’ll let them have . . . Taurus for their song without a lawsuit.” Finally, the members of Led Zeppelin claim that they have been prejudiced by the fact that Plaintiffs waited over 40 years to bring this claim, during which time Stairway to Heaven became one of the highest-earning songs in history, and increasing the amount of damages sought by the Plaintiffs.

This is a case of landmark proportions. The fact that Led Zeppelin, a British band, was found to be subject to personal jurisdiction, first in Pennsylvania and now in Los Angeles, demonstrates that jurisdictional requirements can be met by non-resident musicians simply by marketing and selling records in a particular place. Recent efforts by the parties to settle the case have been fruitless, and we expect the case to proceed to trial roughly a month from now, as scheduled. Stay tuned as the court finally resolves this copyright infringement matter involving one of the most iconic, widely recognizable songs of all time.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Internet Service Provider Held Responsible for Users’ Infringement in Landmark Decision

BMG Rights Management, one of the world’s largest music publishers, has been awarded a $25 million verdict by a federal jury after Cox Communications was found to be liable for the copyright-infringing actions of its users.

Following a week-long trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, it was determined that Cox was on the hook for the actions of its users as a result of its failure to reasonably implement a repeat-infringer policy. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act offers a number of “safe harbors” that typically protect internet service providers from liability for copyright infringement, Cox was found to fall outside of these safe harbors when it failed to crack down on repeated piracy. For example, after identifying known copyright pirates among Cox users, BMG sought to enlist Cox’s help in sending cease and desist letters to those users and/or terminating their internet service. Cox purported to have a policy of terminating the service of repeat copyright infringers, but in practice retained them as high speed internet customers.

BMG controls the rights to music by popular artists including David Bowie and Bruno Mars, among others. At issue in this particular lawsuit were 1,397 different copyrighted works that were downloaded illegally a total of nearly 2 million times. The jury found Cox liable for willful contributory infringement, awarding $25 million in damages. Moreover, Cox is now facing a separate lawsuit from its insurance company, which is trying to skip out on the tab in the BMG case due to “Cox’s business policy and practice of ignoring and failing to forward infringement notices and refusing to terminate or block infringing customers’ accounts.”

The impact of this landmark decision on future internet service provider liability for copyright infringement seems clear: you can probably expect ISPs to crack down much harder on copyright abuse, probably going as far as to terminate the service of repeat offenders. In the wake of this verdict, the failure to do so could result in significant liability for the service provider, in what appears to be a clear victory for artists and rights holders.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Judge Modifies Verdict in “Blurred Lines” Lawsuit

In March, a jury awarded Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million after rendering a verdict that singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams plagiarized Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” to create “Blurred Lines,” the longest-running number one single of 2013.

Now, a federal judge has modified the verdict, trimming more than $2 million off the singers’ liability, but also giving Gaye’s family 50% of the song’s future royalties. Thicke and Williams both sought a new trial, and Gaye’s family moved for an injunction that would have blocked sales and performances of Blurred Lines; all three requests were denied, with the judge instead arriving at what he perceived to be the more equitable conclusion of reducing infringement damages while providing Gaye’s estate with a share of future profits.

Thicke and Williams, who each earned more than $7 million apiece on “Blurred Lines,” claim to have written the song independently, but Gaye’s estate argued that a number of distinct elements from “Got to Give It Up” were used in “Blurred Lines.” It was ultimately left up to the jury to determine whether the defendants infringed upon Gaye’s copyright or simply emulated the sound of Gaye’s work. The jury concluded that “Blurred Lines” infringed on Gaye’s copyright, leading to a great deal of debate regarding the distinction between plagiarism and mere influence of another song or genre.

It is important to note that certain aspects of a musical composition are protectable by copyright, such as particular arrangements of notes and harmonies, while others are not, such as style, feel, or the timbre of a certain combination of instruments. In this case, it would be naïve to believe that Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” did not influence Thicke and Williams in crafting “Blurred Lines,” but copyright protection is not intended to extend to mere influence. While particular expressions of musical ideas can be protected, the ideas themselves, such as, for example, pairing an electric piano and a cowbell with a disco beat, cannot. These important points seem to have gotten lost in this case.

The judge’s willingness to modify the verdict while also denying the parties’ motions for a new trial serves to highlight the controversy surrounding the court’s initial decision. On its face, “Blurred Lines” simply doesn’t infringe on Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” an opinion that appears to be extremely prevalent among those with musical training. This recent development may be a recognition of that fact, while still attempting to give some teeth to current copyright protections. Either way, it will be interesting to see whether the chilling effect on songwriting that has been forecast by some in the industry will play out.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

L.A. Jury Delivers $7.4 Million Verdict in “Blurred Lines” Lawsuit

A jury has awarded Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4 million after determining that celebrity singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams plagiarized Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up” to create “Blurred Lines,” the longest-running number one single of 2013.

Thicke and Williams, who each earned more than $7 million apiece on “Blurred Lines,” claim to have written the song independently, but Gaye’s estate argued that a number of distinct elements from “Got to Give It Up” were used in “Blurred Lines” and it was ultimately left up to the jury to determine whether the defendants infringed upon Gaye’s copyright or simply emulated the sound of Gaye’s work. The jury concluded that “Blurred Lines” infringed on Gaye’s copyright, and that decision could have a chilling effect on musicians seeking to emulate the sounds of certain artists, genres, or eras going forward.

Certain aspects of a musical composition are protectable by copyright, such as particular arrangements of notes and harmonies, while others are not, such as style, feel, or the timbre of a certain combination of instruments. In this case, it would be naïve to believe that Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” did not influence Thicke and Williams in crafting “Blurred Lines,” but copyright protection was not intended to extend to mere influence. While particular expressions of musical ideas can be protected, the ideas themselves, such as pairing an electric piano and a cowbell with a disco beat, cannot.

To the untrained ear, the similarity between the two songs may be striking. A musically trained ear, though, may notice that the two songs are in different keys and utilize different chord progressions. In other words, the success of Gaye’s infringement claim depended largely on the average juror’s inability to see past the similarities between the songs’ unprotectable characteristics (tempo, use of cowbell and Rhodes piano, use of syncopation, similar bass groove) to realize that “Got to Give It Up” and “Blurred Lines” are in fact two different songs whose similarities are mainly limited to characteristics that cannot be protected by copyright.

Had the jury been comprised of the defendants’ peers in the music profession, there is a strong possibility that Thicke and Williams would have prevailed. In light of this huge verdict, however, artists should be increasingly vigilant in their endeavors to emulate the sounds of other artists, genres, and eras in furtherance of their own art. Although the result of this case seems to blur the lines between what is protectable by copyright and what isn't, it nonetheless serves as a reminder that copyright infringement can lead to costly outcomes.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

A-List Artists Threaten YouTube With Billion-Dollar Lawsuit

Music industry juggernaut Irving Azoff, who manages music licensing for some of the biggest artists in the business, including Pharrell Williams, the Eagles, Van Halen, Steely Dan, and the late John Lennon, has threatened YouTube with a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit unless over 20,000 songs are taken down. Azoff says that the infringing content was created by about 40 of his artists, and that YouTube has made them available online without permission to do so.

Azoff’s threatened lawsuit is just the latest instance of artists beginning to resist the streaming culture that makes music available to consumers for little or no compensation. Recently, Taylor Swift elected to remove her entire catalog of songs from the popular streaming radio provider Spotify, citing the disparity in artist compensation between streaming media and purchasing music through conventional means, such as CD.

Indeed, Pharell Williams, one of the leading plaintiffs in Azoff’s threatened lawsuit, is a prime example of why the culture of streaming media has so outraged artists of late. Williams’s 2014 hit song “Happy” has garnered over 525,000,000 YouTube views, for which Azoff alleges no license was purchased. Pandora, another streaming radio station similar to Spotify and the most-used streaming service on the market, did compensate Williams—to the tune of $2,700 for 43,000,000 plays, or just $60 for every million plays.

While streaming services have allowed unknown artists that may never have been discovered to make their music available to the masses, artists at the very top of the industry, including those represented by Azoff, have taken a large revenue hit as a result of exceedingly low per-play royalties and widespread unlicensed streaming of their work.

Azoff has ordered YouTube to pull down 20,000 songs by about 40 of his artists in order to avoid $1 billion in copyright infringement liability. Google, who owns the online streaming video giant, appears ready to go to court rather than give in to Azoff’s request, stating that the allegations are “misguided.” Given the popularity of Azoff’s artists’ music and Google’s ostensible refusal to back down, this is shaping up to be the biggest music-industry legal showdown since the illegal file-sharing litigation of the Napster days. Expect this large-scale development to shed some much-needed light on artist compensation in the world of streaming media, and possibly a tempering of the expectation that music should be available for free.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com,

Adventures in Licensing, Part II: It’s Not Just About Live Music

In an earlier article, we discussed the importance of getting a license from ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or all three before presenting live music at your bar, restaurant, or other venue. Purchasing blanket licenses from one or all of those organizations allows you avoid harsh copyright infringement penalties. As we’ve seen, these penalties can find you no matter how far off the beaten path your restaurant is, how unknown the band is, or how unlikely you think it is that the  music being played at your bar will be surveyed.

But what about showing major sporting events, HBO, or Netflix at your bar or restaurant? Can you broadcast the World Series, the Super Bowl, or the Game of Thrones season premiere? Believe it or not, the United States Code provides for some exceptions to broadcasts that would otherwise constitute copyright infringement, allowing you to freely engage in showing some of those, provided certain conditions are met.

If you are receiving an over-the-air broadcast of a sporting event televised on a major network like Fox, for example, it is perfectly legal to show it at your bar or restaurant provided that (1) you don’t charge for admission; (2) your establishment is smaller than 3,750 square feet; (3) you have no more than four televisions showing the broadcast; and (4) none of those televisions is larger than 55 inches. Yes, the law actually specifies qualifying square footage and screen size!

Over-the-air broadcasts, however, are increasingly becoming things of the past. Most establishments now receive their network programming through cable, satellite, or online streaming subscriptions, in which case copyright infringement cannot be avoided without a proper license, regardless of how few televisions are showing the broadcast or how small the screens. Unfortunately, the typical contract with FiOS, Comcast, Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, and others don’t include the proper licenses required for commercial or non-personal viewing. For example, if you plan to draw a die-hard baseball crowd to your bar during Game 7 of the World Series, you can put the game on as long as the above criteria are met and you’re receiving an over-the-air broadcast signal. If you happen to be a cable or satellite subscriber and have not purchased the appropriate license, however, showing that very same ballgame could result in steep fines and a lawsuit brought against you by your provider.

But there’s good news: just like in circumstances where you might find yourself purchasing a blanket license from a performing rights organization to facilitate the performance of live music at your bar or restaurant, many broadcast media providers offer affordable licenses that will allow you to show the big game, the big fight, or the big season finale of your favorite show without the fear of racking up damages to the tune of $150,000 per violation. Verizon, Time Warner, DirecTV, and others all offer business-level packages containing enhanced licenses for precisely such a purpose. Like in the case of live music, the cost of a license is much, much less than the cost of defending just a single copyright infringement lawsuit, so if part of your business’s appeal derives from showing sports or TV, the safe bet is to buy the appropriate license.

Frank Gulino is an associate attorney with Washington, DC business law firm Berenzweig Leonard. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Stairway to the Courthouse: Part II

Led Zeppelin, one of the most popular bands of all time, has lost its first court battle in the lawsuit over iconic megahit “Stairway to Heaven,” brought by the estate of guitarist Randy California and profiled in one of our earlier blog posts.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the trust of the late Randy California, a founding member of the band Spirit, and Spirit bassist Mark Andes, and alleges copyright infringement as well as “Falsification of Rock N’ Roll History.”

In 1968 and ‘69, Spirit and Led Zeppelin performed several concerts together that featured one of Spirit’s instrumental tracks, called “Taurus.” The lawsuit states that Stairway’s iconic introduction was lifted directly from Taurus, which Led Zeppelin heard while opening for Spirit on those concerts, and seeks monetary damages as well as a writing credit for California.

The Led Zeppelin members named as defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that they are all British and have no ties to Pennsylvania. The District Court judge, however, denied the band’s motion and has allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Under the so-called “effects” test, a district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the plaintiff felt the brunt of the harm there or if the defendants allegedly aimed their conduct there. In this instance, the fact that Stairway to Heaven is one of the best-selling, most profitable musical works of all time suggests that Led Zeppelin’s conduct in marketing, selling, and performing the song was essentially aimed at Pennsylvania, among other places, so the judge ruled that the case will remain in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The cause of action for “Falsification of Rock N’ Roll History” will almost certainly be invalidated because, frankly, it’s both non-existent and completely ridiculous, but the plaintiffs here have won the first procedural battle and successfully thwarted Led Zeppelin’s efforts to have the case tossed on jurisdictional grounds. If nothing else, this development serves to show that musicians and entertainers are uniquely vulnerable to the “effects” test, and can be hailed into court in far off places simply by having successfully marketed and sold records there. We will continue to monitor the case as the battle against the legendary rock band continues.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Stairway to the Courthouse?

Led Zeppelin’s 1971 hit “Stairway to Heaven” is one of the most popular and recognizable rock songs of all time. With a re-release of the original Led Zeppelin albums planned for this summer, however, a Philadelphia attorney has expressed his intention to bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against the band over the true origin of Stairway’s iconic introduction.

That attorney represents the trust of the late Randy California, formerly the guitarist of the band Spirit, as well as Spirit bassist Mark Andes. In 1968 and ‘69, Spirit and Led Zeppelin performed several concerts together that featured one of Spirit’s instrumental tracks, called “Taurus.” Allegations that Stairway’s introduction was lifted from “Taurus” are nothing new; in the mid-1990s, California, who wrote “Taurus,” publicly stated that “[Stairway] was a ripoff,” and that “[Led Zeppelin] made millions of bucks on it and never said ‘thank you.’” But the impending re-release of Led Zeppelin IV has certainly provided a financial incentive to bring the suit sooner than later.

In addition to being the best-selling piece of sheet music in rock history (having sold over 1 million copies since its release), Stairway is also one of the most profitable. As of 2008, Stairway to Heaven had earned at least $562 million, a number that has undoubtedly grown over the last few years and stands to grow even further if all goes as planned with the digitally remastered re-releases this summer.

The lawsuit will allege copyright infringement and will also try to enjoin the re-release unless Randy California is given a writing credit on the song. Although it may seem unusual to add a writer credit over 40 years after Stairway’s release, this is not unfamiliar territory for Led Zeppelin. Album listings for some of the band’s other big hits including “Whole Lotta Love,” “The Lemon Song,” and “Dazed and Confused” have all been amended to include the names of artists which courts ruled were the true originators of the music as a result of past lawsuits, showing Zeppelin’s history of settling cases like this.

Although there is a three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement, Stairway to Heaven is such a profitable song that back royalties for just the last three years would be significant, not to mention potential for a spike in profits following the re-release. In the end of this tune, don’t be surprised if Led Zeppelin settles this case in an effort to avoid the Stairway to the Courthouse.

Frank Gulino is an award-winning composer and attorney with Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at FGulino@BerenzweigLaw.com.