Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson)
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
972 F.3d 25 (2020)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Curtis James Jackson III (plaintiff), also known as 50 Cent, was a hip-hop recording artist. One of Jackson’s most famous songs was called “In Da Club.” William Leonard Roberts II (defendant), also known as Rick Ross, was also a hip-hop recording artist. Roberts featured a sample of “In Da Club” on the free mixtape, entitled Renzel Remixes, that he released to promote his upcoming commercial album. Renzel Remixes also featured samples from 26 other artists from varying genres. It was common practice in the hip-hop world to sample tracks from other artists without permission as long as credit was given. Jackson was credited on the mixtape in the title track for the song featuring the “In Da Club” sample. Jackson’s photograph was not included on the mixtape packaging. Jackson sued Roberts, arguing that Roberts’s use of Jackson’s identity on Roberts’s mixtape, via Roberts’s use of Jackson’s stage name and Jackson’s voice performing “In Da Club,” violated Jackson’s right of publicity under Connecticut common law. Roberts countered, arguing that Jackson’s claim was preempted by Section 301 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The district court granted Roberts summary judgment. Jackson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leval, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.