A federal district court denied a summary judgment motion filed by pop singer Sam Smith and co-defendants in a copyright infringement lawsuit over the 2019 hit song “Dancing With a Stranger.” The court ruled that plaintiff Sound and Color LLC presented sufficient expert testimony to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the hooks of the two competing songs are strikingly similar. The decision also rejected the defendants’ argument that unauthorized sampling in the plaintiff’s track strips it of copyright protection.
District Court Rejects Defense Arguments on Striking Similarity and Sampling
Sound and Color LLC originally filed the copyright infringement action on March 4, 2022, targeting Sam Smith, Normani Kordei Hamilton, and numerous associated music publishing entities and record labels. The lawsuit alleges that the chorus of the defendants’ 2019 song infringes on the lyrics “dancing with a stranger” and the accompanying melodic elements found in the 2015 composition “Dancing With Strangers,” written by Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda, and Rosco Banlao.
The litigation previously traveled to the Ninth Circuit after the district court granted an initial summary judgment for the defendants in September 2023. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded that ruling, determining that the plaintiff’s selection-and-arrangement theory could support a finding of substantial similarity. By May 2026, the plaintiff withdrew all access theories, leaving striking similarity as the sole mechanism to establish copying.
Musicological Testimony Establishes Material Fact for Jury Trial
In the latest ruling, the district court evaluated the defendants’ motion under the Ninth Circuit’s extrinsic and intrinsic tests for striking similarity. Rather than comparing pitch, rhythm, and metric placement in isolation, the court evaluated the works as the sum of all relevant elements together.
The plaintiff’s musicologist testified that the hooks share an identical melodic contour, a similar pitch sequence, perfectly aligned metric placement of lyrical syllables, and virtually identical rhythmic configuration offset by only half a beat. The expert addressed pitch discrepancies by characterizing them as momentary passing tones that are definitionally insignificant, concluding that the similarities are highly unlikely to be coincidental. Because this testimony established a genuine dispute of material fact under the extrinsic test, the court did not reach the intrinsic test, leaving the question of independent creation or coincidence for a jury.
Court Rules on Unauthorized Sampling and De Minimis Defense
The defendants also argued that the plaintiff’s hook falls outside copyright protection because it pervasively incorporates unauthorized samples from two older tracks: a one-measure vocal sample from “The Ha Dance” by Masters at Work and a two-measure portion of “Think (About It)” by Lyn Collins. The court held unauthorized sampling does not automatically strip a work of copyright protection.
The dispositive issue is whether the copying affects trivial or substantial elements of the original works. The court found that the defendants failed to submit evidence regarding the quantitative and qualitative significance of the samples. After listening to the tracks, the court independently determined that reasonable jurors could find the samples de minimis because they remain difficult to identify or hear due to their low volume relative to the main vocals.
Disputed Songs and Striking Similarity Standard in Copyright Lawsuit
Which songs are at the center of this copyright lawsuit?
The dispute involves the 2015 composition “Dancing With Strangers,” owned by Sound and Color LLC, and the 2019 hit track “Dancing With a Stranger” released by Sam Smith and Normani.
What legal standard is currently being used to determine copying?
With the plaintiff withdrawing all access theories in May 2026, striking similarity is now the sole basis to establish copying for the remainder of the litigation.
How did the court rule on the defendants’ unauthorized sampling defense?
The court denied the summary judgment motion on sampling, finding that the defendants presented no evidence that the samples were substantial and concluding independently that the samples could be viewed as de minimis.
What is the next procedural step for the case?
With the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on both grounds, the competing expert evidence and remaining questions of independent creation and striking similarity are left for a jury to decide.
Related reading