A U.S. judge recently ruled that Mariah Carey's classic Christmas hit, "All I Want for Christmas Is You," did not plagiarize the work of other songwriters. Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani granted Carey's request for summary judgment, allowing her and co-author/co-defendant Walter Afanasieff to win without going to trial. This decision solidifies the song's status as an original work.
Read Also...:
ABC Accessibility Statement
03-21, 2025ABC Editorial Policies
03-21, 2025
Australia's Good Life Festival announces it is skipping 2025 edition due to rising costs
03-21, 2025
Snow White is a great trailer for Disney's original animated masterpiece
03-21, 2025Previously, Louisiana songwriter Andy Stone, known as Vince Vance, and Troy Powers of Tennessee, filed a $20 million (approximately AU$32 million) lawsuit, claiming that Carey's 1994 song infringed the copyright of their 1989 country song of the same name. Carey's song has become a holiday classic, enjoying immense popularity on streaming platforms every year. This was Stone's second lawsuit regarding the song, having withdrawn one in 2022, indicating a persistent effort to claim infringement.
Gerard P. Fox, the lawyer for Stone and Powers, expressed "disappointment" in an email to the Associated Press. Fox stated that, in his experience, judges at this level "almost always dismiss music copyright cases, and an appeal is necessary to overturn the ruling and get the case before a jury." He stated, "My clients will decide soon whether to appeal. We brought the lawsuit based on the opinions of two prominent musicologists who teach at distinguished universities," suggesting a strong foundation for their claim.
In their lawsuit, Stone and Powers claimed that their song "All I Want For Christmas Is You" contained unique lyrical structures, describing someone disappointed with expensive gifts and seasonal comforts, wishing to be with a loved one, and therefore writing to Santa Claus. They argued that Carey and Afanasieff "most likely" heard their song and extracted significant elements from it, infringing their copyright. Their song once reached number 31 on Billboard's Hot Country chart, indicating some level of success.
After hearing from experts on both sides, Judge Ramírez Almadani agreed with the defense's argument that the authors of both songs used common Christmas clichés that existed before either song, and that Carey's song used these clichés in a different way. She stated that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard of proving substantial similarity between the two songs. Judge Ramírez Almadani also imposed sanctions on the plaintiffs and their lawyer, calling their lawsuit and subsequent filings frivolous, and stating that the plaintiffs' lawyer "did not make a reasonable effort to ensure that the factual content asserted had evidentiary support." She stated that they must pay at least a portion of the defendants' legal fees. Defense lawyers and Carey's publicist did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving the final word with the judge's ruling.
In recent years, Carey's Christmas juggernaut has become even more popular than it was in the 1990s. For the past six years, it has consistently topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart during the holiday season, which measures the most popular songs through radio airplay, sales, and streaming. Dr. Yanto Browning, a music lecturer at Queensland University of Technology, stated that the law makes such cases challenging. "For example, it's hard to copyright a chord progression," Dr. Browning said. In 2015, Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke were successfully sued by the estate of Marvin Gaye, who claimed that Williams and Thicke's song "Blurred Lines" infringed the copyright of Gaye's 1977 song "Got To Give It Up," highlighting the complexities of copyright law in music.
Dr. Browning stated that such lawsuits can be based on lyrical and melodic content, as well as broader style or "vibe." "It's almost like the textual component is as important as the chord and lyrical ideas," he said. Dr. Browning believes that the situation is unlikely to become easier in the future, with the rise of generative artificial intelligence, "whatever happens next with AI and copyright, all the attention will be there," he said, suggesting a shift in focus towards AI-related copyright issues.
Dr. Browning anticipates that individual cases will become less important, taking a back seat, and that copyright infringement claims will focus on the use of existing music to train artificial intelligence companies' large language models. "Now you can go into an AI generator and say 'give me a folk song that's similar to...' and it's already been trained on all these other artists," he said. "But nobody's talking about, how do you compensate an entire genre?" This raises significant questions about the future of music copyright in the age of AI.
