'Levitating' Vs 'Live Your Life': Dua Lipa wins copyright infringement lawsuit

Artikal Sound System had put forward a theory that claimed that one of Dua Lipa's co-writers had previously worked with a woman who was allegedly taught guitar by the brother-in-law of one band member.

Los Angeles: Singer-songwriter Dua Lipa and music label Warner Records, who were sued by reggae outfit Artikal Sound System, have won their bid to dismiss a copyright lawsuit against hit song 'Levitating'.

The songstress and label were being sued by Artikal who claimed the song released in 2020 was 'substantially similar' to their song titled 'Live Your Life', which was released in 2017. However, the US federal judge who was passing judgment regarding the case, was unimpressed by the arguments put forward by the reggae outfit.

Artikal Sound System had put forward a theory that claimed that one of Dua Lipa's co-writers had previously worked with a woman who was allegedly taught guitar by the brother-in-law of one band member.

US District Judge Sunshine S Sykes said, "These attenuated links, which bear little connection to either of the two musical compositions at issue here. Also do not suggest a reasonable likelihood that defendants actually encountered plaintiffs' song."

Judge Sykes also found that there was no sign that anyone involved in the creation of Dua's top hit had had "access" to the little-known song from the reggae group.

However, the band claimed that their song was "widely available" and insisted that one of the writers for 'Levitating' must have heard it, adding that it had been played at concerts and had sold "several hundred" physical CDs and that it was available on some streaming platforms.

As per 'Mirror.co.uk', Judge Sykes found that the claims were "too generic or too insubstantial" to sustain a lawsuit.

She added: "Plaintiffs' failure to specify how frequently they performed 'Live Your Life' publicly during the specified period, where these performances took place, and the size of the venues and/or audiences precludes the Court from finding that Plaintiffs' live performances of the song plausibly contributed to its saturation of markets in which Defendants would have encountered it".

(With IANS inputs)

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.