Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Katy Perry appeals plagiarism ruling in Christian rap song case

Pop star and the song's co-creators call the ruling a 'grave miscarriage of justice'

Roisin O'Connor
Tuesday 15 October 2019 05:50 EDT
Comments
Katy Perry song 'Dark Horse' accused of stealing from Christian rapper's song

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Katy Perry is appealing against a recent ruling that her hit song "Dark Horse" plagiarised a Christian rap single released in 2009.

Variety reports that the appeal, which also cites Lukasz "Dr Luke" Gottwald, Capitol Records and others, asks the court to overturn the ruling or grant a new trial.

It cites insufficient evidence for the jury's decision that the works share substantial similarities, that Perry and the song's co-creators were aware of rapper Flame's song "Joyful Noise", and that the beat used in his song is protected by copyright.

Perry and her collaborators also argue that Flame, real name Marcus Gray, was not famous enough for them to have heard the song before composing "Dark Horse".

"No reasonable fact-finder could have concluded that 'Joyful Noise' was so well-known that it could be reasonably inferred that [the defendants] had heard it, particularly in this digital age of content overload, with billions of videos and songs available to users with trillions of streams," the appeal read.

The brief calls the verdict "legally unsupportable" and "a grave miscarriage of justice".

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in