Rock Docs Face the Music as Labels Win Most Counts

A series of videos marketed as documentary histories of classic rock artists led to a copyright dispute between major music publishers and the creators of the works. Produced by British filmmaker Robert Carruthers through Coda Publishing Ltd., the videos featured extensive excerpts of copyrighted sound recordings from artists including The Rolling Stones, Nirvana, Lynyrd Skynyrd, ABBA, Elton John, U2, and The Red Hot Chili Peppers. Although presented as documentaries, the videos combined substantial music use with only limited commentary, prompting the plaintiffs to bring suit for copyright infringement. The court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, rejecting the defendants’ fair use defense. Judge Katherine Failla held that the videos were not sufficiently “transformative” and functioned primarily as entertainment compilations rather than genuine documentary or critical works.

In assessing the “purpose and character of the use” to do its “fair use” analysis, the court found that the videos resembled “video albums” or greatest-hits compilations with minimal commentary. The commentary largely consisted of unsupported “hot takes,” such as labeling songs or performances as “awful” or “embarrassing,” without context, explanation, or identifiable expertise. This lack of meaningful analytical framing weighed strongly against transformation; something is more likely fair use if it “transformed” the work in some way. The court also emphasized the amount and substantiality of copying. The videos repeatedly used significant portions of songs, often including the most recognizable or commercially important segments—the “heart” of the works—rather than brief excerpts tailored to commentary. This supported the conclusion that the videos functioned as substitutes for licensed uses.

On market effect (i.e., another factor when evaluating a fair use defense), the court found that the videos risked displacing demand for licensed audiovisual uses of the music. Judge Failla underscored the importance of preserving the licensing system for synchronization rights and rejected an application of fair use that would allow minimally transformative compilations to bypass that framework. The court therefore held that the fair use defense failed because the videos lacked meaningful transformation and did not add sufficient new expression, meaning, or message.

On liability, the court granted summary judgment on all works except a claim involving “Higher Ground,” which raised a separate authorship issue involving non-party Stevie Wonder. The court also found willful infringement by Coda Publishing Ltd., Robert Carruthers, and Gwilym Davies, noting their knowledge that licensing was required, failure to obtain permissions, and bad faith conduct, including falsely presenting the works as documentaries. The court also addressed misconduct by Coda Publishing Ltd., Carruthers, and Davies, including threatening letters to the U.K.-based Music Publishers Association described as an attempt to “bully” the organization.