Facing Sample Lawsuit, Travis Scott Says Nobody Can Own a Copyright on ‘Alright, Alright, Alright’
Written by djfrosty on June 5, 2024
Travis Scott is asking a federal judge to end a lawsuit accusing him of using unlicensed samples on songs from Utopia and Astroworld, arguing that nobody can claim a copyright on the words “alright, alright, alright.”
The case was filed in February by Dion Norman and Derrick Ordogne, who claim that Scott and Sony Music illegally borrowed a portion of their song “Bitches Reply” — an oft-sampled 1992 track that’s previously been used by Lil Wayne, Cardi B, Kid Cudi and others.
But in a motion to dismiss the case filed Monday (June 3), lawyers for Scott and Sony argue that the allegations were centered on the “untenable” claim to ownership over basic words — “alright, alright, alright” — that everyone should be free to use.
Trending on Billboard
“The only alleged copyright infringement here is the alleged copying of the word ‘alright’,” the star’s attorneys write. “But the single word ‘alright’ and the short phrase ‘alright, alright, alright’ lack even the minimal creativity required for copyright protection both because these lyrics are too short and because they are commonplace, or stock, expressions.”
Released in 1992 by DJ Jimi, “Bitches Reply” has reportedly been sampled or interpolated in dozens of songs, including tracks by Megan Thee Stallion, Drake and OutKast. Most of those samples have come from a staccato burst of the word “alright” shouted nine times at the beginning of the song.
Norman and Ordogne, who say they co-wrote DJ Jimi’s song and own the copyrights to it, claimed in their February lawsuit that Scott sampled from that portion of the track twice — first in his 2018 song “Stargazing” off the Astroworld album, and again in his 2023 “Til Further Notice” off Utopia.
But copyright law only protects “original” works, and that typically doesn’t include short phrases that are already widely used. In Monday’s response filing, Scott’s lawyers say that a repetition of a common word like “alright” in song lyrics was exactly that — too “trite” and “cliched” to meet copyright law’s basic requirements.
They cite numerous other songs that had featured the phrase before “Bitches Reply” was even released, including “Revolution” by The Beatles, Elton John’s “Saturday Night’s Alright” and Earth, Wind & Fire’s “Let’s Groove.” They also cite a 2003 ruling in which a federal judge ruled that T-Pain’s “Put It Down” didn’t infringe copyrights by using phrases like “I can’t get enough” and “raise your hands in the air.”
“The Copyright Act does not protect ‘stock’ expressions,” Scott’s lawyers write. “Because the allegedly infringed phrase “Alright, Alright, Alright” is too commonplace to be copyrightable, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims should be dismissed.”
Monday’s motion also made various other attacks on Norman and Ordogne’s lawsuit, including that they failed to show that they own the proper copyright registrations and filed the claims over “Stargazing” past the statute of limitations.
An attorney for Norman and Ordogne did not immediately return a request for comment. Their lawyers can file a formal response to Scott’s motion in the coming weeks.