You are on page 1of 8

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:4184

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Francis Malofiy, Esq.


Francis Alexander, LLC
280 N. Providence Rd. | Suite 105
Media, PA 19063
T: (215) 500-1000; F: (215) 500-1005
E: francis@francisalexander.com
Attorney for Plaintiff
Glen L. Kulik, Esq. (SBN 082170)
Kulik Gottesman & Siegel LLP
15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
T: (310) 557-9200; F: (310) 557-0224
E: gkulik@kgslaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

MICHAEL SKIDMORE, as Trustee for


15 the RANDY CRAIG WOLFE TRUST,
16
17

20
21
22
23
24

Hon. R. Gary Klausner

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19

Case No. 15-cv-03462 RGK (AGRx)

LED ZEPPELIN; JAMES PATRICK


PAGE; ROBERT ANTHONY PLANT;
JOHN PAUL JONES; SUPER HYPE
PUBLISHING, INC.; WARNER MUSIC
GROUP CORP., Parent of
WARNER/CHAPPELL MUSIC, INC.;
ATLANTIC RECORDING
CORPORATION; RHINO
ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY,

DECLARATION OF ERIK
JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN
LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

25
26

Defendants.

27
28

DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING


DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:4185

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER STEWART, Ph.D


OPPOSING DEFENDANTS MOTIONs IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

I, Erik Johnson, declare as follows:


1.

I am an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Music at the University of the Arts in

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2.

I was retained as an expert in this case to listen to and analyze Taurus and

Stairway to Heaven, to perform both pieces as a master musician and faithfully replicate

the original recordings for the purpose of creating multitrack facsimiles. I also created a

full transcription of Taurus and incorporated by reference the corresponding audio for

10
11

both Taurus and Stairway to Heaven.


3.

I submitted an Expert Report in this case along with an Expert Declaration

12

which contained rebuttal of defendants reports (Ferrara and Mathes). I now submit this

13

Supplemental Declaration produced to answer dispute regarding the deposit copy in

14

Taurus and if after further consideration of defendants expert reports, rebuttals, and

15

declarations if my conclusions or opinions in my reports or declarations change. I can

16

state with conviction that they do not.

17

4.

I note at the outset that all experts in this caseexcept Ferraraanalyzed

18

both the deposit copy and the recordings to render a full and complete analysis and

19

opinion. This means that 5 of the six experts involved in this case (on both sides plaintiff

20

and defendant) used the same method where as one defense expert Ferrara used a

21

different method. It should be noted that even defendants experts conflict each other on

22

the proper analysis.

23

5.

The difference between the methodology used by Dr. Ferrara in coming to

24

his musicological opinions as compared to mine and the other experts in this case, is that

25

Dr. Ferrara had taken a narrowfishbowl approachof solely considering the deposit

26

copy of Taurus as compared to the sound recording of Stairway to Heaven. My analysis

27

(and that of the other experts), had taken a holistic approach in considering both the

28

recordings of Taurus along with the deposit copy.


1
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:4186


1

6.

Moreover, there is no dispute among the experts that the intro of Stairway to

Heaven is qualitatively one of the most memorable parts of the composition.

Furthermore, Dr. Ferrara in his Expert Report affirms that it is similar to Taurus.

Some parts in a musical composition can be more qualitatively


valuable than other music in the same composition. For example, if the
music in Stairway that is similar to Taurus includes one or more of
the most memorable parts of Stairway
(Ferrara Report; Attachment F Value Assessment; Paragraph 12)

5
6
7
8

7.

Johnson is correct that the initial guitar part in Stairway is very


significant, but he is incorrect that it is the most important single
element of Stairway to Heaven.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Additionally, Mathes in his Rebuttal Report confirms that I am correct:

(Mathes Rebuttal Report; Paragraph 14)


8.
The audio attached by Mathes in his Report further indicate that his
analysis and comparison of Taurus to Stairway was consistent with Plaintiffs
Experts analysis. (Mathes Report; Paragraph 25. Mathes Audio Exhibits to his
Report)
9.

Mathes Rebuttal further states that Stewart says that 80% of the

pitches are the same. With the same underlying line clich, this would be
expected. However, it should be noted that the descending melodic line
encompasses only a portion of what is substantially similar. The harpsichord part
of Taurus (as represented in the deposit copy) contains six notes that correspond
exactly to the melody of Stairway to Heaven. This fact doesnt address the striking
similarity of the guitar parts on the recordings. Furthermore, the bass clef part on
the deposit copy of Taurus strongly suggests the guitar part which although is not
fully represented, is present represented and defined in the deposit copy.

25
26
27

Composition Is The Part Of The Song Which Remains The Same From
Performance To Performance

28
2
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4187


1

10.

"A musical composition's copyright protects the generic sound that would

necessarily result from any performance of the piece," Newton v. Diamond, 204 F. Supp.

2d 1244, 1259 (C.D. Cal. 2002)

4
5
6

11.

In other words, the composition is that part of the song that remains constant

from performance to performance to performance.


12.

Here, there is no dispute among any musicological expert that the

compositional element that remains unchanged from each and every performance of

Taurus is the compositional elements embodied in the performance of the guitar.

13.

The compositional elements embodied in the guitar in Taurus are the

10

compositional elements of the song which remain constant from performance to

11

performance to performance.

12

14.

Please note that I am not suggesting that performance elements are

13

protectable. Rather, what I am sayingand what is undisputedis that the composition

14

is that part of the song which remains unchanged from each and every performance of

15

Taurus. And, the part of the song which remains unchanged from each and every

16

performance of Taurusfrom performance to performance to performance is the

17

composition embodied in the guitar.

18

15.

Why do we know this? Because we have recordings of Taurus which span

19

roughly 30 years. In each and every performance of Taurus, the compositional element

20

which remains unchanged are the compositional elements embodied in the guitar part.

21

16.

Here is a list of every recording of Taurus that was produced in discovery

22

and from what I am told known to exist. The list is in chronological form, except that the

23

Taurus Album Recording is listed first:

24

a.

Taurus Album Recording (11/10/1967):

25

b.

Taurus Live at the Ash Grove (7/10/1967): Audio Exhibit 33

26

c.

Taurus Live at the Ash Grove (7/31/1967): Audio Exhibit 34

27

d.

Taurus Live at the Ash Grove (8/8/1967): Audio Exhibit 35

28

e.

Taurus Demo Recording (8/1967):

Audio Exhibit 32

Audio Exhibit 36

3
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:4188


1

f.

Taurus Live at Kaleidoscope (4/5/1968): Audio Exhibit 37

g.

Taurus Live at The Time Coast (1992):

Audio Exhibit 38

h.

Taurus Live Acoustic (7/30/1996):

Audio Exhibit 39

17.

In each of the above 8 recordings of Taurus, the composition which remains

unchangedregardless of performanceis the guitar part and the composition embodied

therein. This cannot be disputed.

18.

This is true regardless if one listens to the very first recording of Taurus

(7/10/1967)(Audio Exhibit 33) or the very last recording of Taurus (1996)(Audio Exhibit

39).

10
11
12

Individual Performances And Instrumentation Are Not Protectable Compositional


Elements Of A Song
19.

Nothing in my musicological analysis considered or factored the individual

13

performances of Taurus or the instrumentation as these aspects of music are not

14

protectable. For this reason, those aspects were discarded in rendering my opinions.

15

20.

For example, the Taurus Album Recording (Audio Exhibit 32) contains

16

individual performance aspects and instrumentation that are notand never werepart

17

of the composition or compositional elements of Taurus.

18
19

21.

These separate instruments that make up the Taurus Album Recording

(Audio Exhibit 32), which were re-recorded for purposes of this case are as follows:

20

a.

Acoustic Guitar

(Audio Exhibit 22)

21

b.

Cello 1

(Audio Exhibit 23)

22

c.

Cello 2

(Audio Exhibit 24)

23

d.

Cymbal

(Audio Exhibit 25)

24

e.

Flute

(Audio Exhibit 26)

f.

Harpshichord/Piano

(Audio Exhibit 27)

g.

String Bass

(Audio Exhibit 28)

h.

Viola

(Audio Exhibit 29)

i.

Violins

(Audio Exhibit 30)

25
26
27
28

4
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:4189


1
2
3

22.

Many of these instruments are only heard in the Taurus Album Recording

(Audio Exhibit 32). For example: Cello 1; Cello 2, Flute; Viola; and Violins.
23.

These instruments and the parts that they are playing are performance

elements not compositional elements of the song Taurus. These performance and

instrumentation aspects of Taurus are really nothing more than an orchestral

introduction to Taurus and accompaniment for purposes of the Album Recording, which

are not protectable.

8
9
10

24.

Moreover, the performance and instrumentation aspects of the Taurus

Album Recording and the other recordings of Taurus which are not protectable
compositional elements of Taurus are identified below (by striking them out):

11

a.

Acoustic Guitar

(Audio Exhibit 22)

12

b.

Cello 1

(Audio Exhibit 23)

13

c.

Cello 2

(Audio Exhibit 24)

14

d.

Cymbal

(Audio Exhibit 25)

15

e.

Flute

(Audio Exhibit 26)

f.

Harpshichord/Piano

(Audio Exhibit 27)

g.

String Bass

(Audio Exhibit 28)

h.

Viola

(Audio Exhibit 29)

i.

Violins

(Audio Exhibit 30)

25.

The only time this orchestral introduction and accompaniment appear is on

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the Taurus Album Recording. It is not part of the composition of Taurus that must remain
unchanged from performance to performance. For that reason, those performance and
instrumentation elements must be discarded in coming to a musicological opinion. (I note
that I took the liberty to also strike the Cymbal from my analysis even though this can be
heard in other performances of Taurus because it too should not be considered part of the
composition).
26.

This leaves the protectable composition elements of Taurus which are

embodied in the:
5
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:4190


1

a.

Acoustic Guitar

b.

Harpshicord/Piano (Audio Exhibit 27)

c.

String Bass

27.

Regardless if one listens to the Taurus - Album Recording (1968)(Audio

(Audio Exhibit 22)

(Audio Exhibit 28)

Exhibit 32), or the last known performance of Taurus, Taurus Live Acoustic

(7/30/1996), it is the composition of the guitar which is the salient feature, which is

represented in the deposit copy.

8
9
10
11

Executed this 15th day of April, 2016 in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.


I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
foregoing is true and correct.

12
13
14

/s/ Erik Johnson______________


Erik Johnson

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DECLARATION OF ERIK JOHNSON OPPOSING
DEFENDANTS MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 3 & 4

Case 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR Document 176 Filed 04/17/16 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:4191