Judge: Spears' Song Not Copied - Eternal Allegiance

Porcelain Doll · 05-26-2003, 02:37 PM

When Philadelphia songwriters Michael Cottrill and Lawrence E. Wnukowski first heard Britney Spears' "What U See (Is What U Get)," they thought it was the same old song: theirs. Not so, ruled U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller yesterday, dismissing their copyright-infringement lawsuit in an opinion mixing law and musicology to show that the adage behind Cottrill and Wnukowski's "What You See Is What You Get" is not always true. Schiller wrote that the two local songwriters had not come up with any evidence proving that the writers of Spears' song - Swedes Jorgen Elofsson, David Kreuger, Per Magnusson and Rami Yacoub - had access to and copied their song before November 1999, when Spears recorded it in Stockholm. Nor, Schiller wrote, could any "reasonable juror" conclude the two songs were the same: "While the titles of the songs and use of the lyric phrase are the same," that is not enough to prove copying. "The phrase is a cliche and can be found in prior art," Schiller explained. "Additionally, the pitch series and opening rhythm of this lyric phrase are different in each of the songs." George Bochetto, who filed the suit last year on behalf of Cottrill and Wnukowski, said: "Obviously we're disappointed, and certainly we are going to take an appeal. That's no reflection on Judge Schiller... . We just disagree." Spears' "What U See" was on the teen idol's multiplatinum second album, Oops!... I Did It Again, released in May 2000. The local songwriters' lawsuit, which sought unspecified money damages, was filed last June against Spears and Zomba Recording Corp., Jive Records, Wright Entertainment Group, and BMG Music Publishing - all companies involved in recording and promoting Spears' album. The lawsuit contended that Spears and her Swedish songwriters must have gained access to Cottrill and Wnukowski's "What You See" through William Kahn, a talent scout and Spears representative who had invited them to submit songs for her consideration. An un-copyrighted instrumental version of "What You See" was given to Kahn for consideration in October 1999, the lawsuit maintains. Schiller, however, cited Cottrill's testimony in a sworn deposition in which he said the instrumental he gave to Kahn was an earlier version that "has nothing to technically do" with the version of "What You See Is What You Get" that he submitted to the U.S. Copyright Office in November 1999. created : Philly Posted