About two weeks ago, Nickelback doubled down on its attempt to dismiss a “Rockstar”-centric copyright infringement lawsuit. But this wide-ranging effort to end the confrontation in the courtroom does not appear to have been successful, as the Alberta-based rock group has now filed a point-to-point rebuttal of the action.
The legal battle for copyright infringement began last year, when a certain Kirk Johnston, the lead singer of a rock band named Snowblind Revival, filed a lawsuit in federal court in his native Texas. of his group. Nickelback’s 2005 hit “Rockstar,” said Johnston, was snatched from his band’s “Rock Star” effort in 2001, which the act reportedly featured “to a wide variety of labels.”
“The general comments from the executives of these labels were very positive about the band,” said the original lawsuit, “but more particularly about Johnston’s lineup. Rock star. Based on these comments, Snowblind Revival sent tracks including “Rock Star” to major labels on CD, according to the complaint, Nickelback would have thus obtained “direct access” to the song.
In addition, a “substantial” amount of the music from the older of the two tracks made its way onto Nickelback’s “Rockstar”, the complainant alleged, including large “parts of the tempo, of the form of the song, melodic structure, harmonic structures and lyrical themes. . “By the way, the long-running” 7 Rings “copyright infringement lawsuit against Ariana Grande – in which plaintiff Josh Stone said he performed his song” You Need It I Got It “for the Executives Universal Music Group including Thomas, a longtime Grande.Brown collaborator – closed in June.
Getting back to the dispute between Nickelback and Johnston, however, the former party did not mince words when it tried to file the case, stating bluntly that “the two songs are not alike.”
Further, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff failed to disclose details of his alleged meetings with record company superiors, “such as the names of record company representatives he allegedly met, where the meetings were held. took place, or even when the meetings took place.
Despite these and similar statements disputing the validity of the complainant’s claims, the case appears poised to continue, and Nickelback along with co-defendants, including Warner Music Group and Live Nation, have rebuffed the complainant’s individual claims. , reveals a new answer. .
Agreeing with the basics of the lawsuit – those regarding Nickelback’s lineup, Atlantic Records location and other similar details – the defendants refute each of the allegations regarding the alleged “Rock Star” violation. “The defendants specifically deny having copied anything from the composition of the plaintiff Rock star, or infringes the claimant’s alleged rights in any way, ”the document reads in part.
Finally, Nickelback presents 14 affirmative defenses against the copyright infringement lawsuit, which allegedly “do not present sufficient facts to constitute a claim for relief.” Perhaps the most notable of these affirmative defenses relates to the specifics of the copyright ownership of “Rock Star”, as Johnston “does not own any copyright in” the track or that “alleged copyright. author is invalid and / or unenforceable ”. In addition, “the elements” of the older song allegedly exist “in the prior art or are in the public domain, and therefore cannot give rise to a copyright claim.”
More as it grows.