Katy Perry and “Dark Horse”

In2013, Katy Perry released Dark Horse, a trap infused pop anthem that became one of her biggest hits. Featuring rapper Juicy J, the track reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100, sold millions of copies, and became a staple of Perry’s live performances.

‍

But six years later, the song was at the centre of one of the most high profile copyright disputes of the decade. A Christian rapper named Marcus Gray, who performs as Flame, claimed that Dark Horse copied elements of his 2008 track Joyful Noise. What followed was a courtroom battle that raised questions about originality, influence, and the limits of copyright in modern pop music.

‍

The Background: Two Songs, One Beat

‍

Marcus Gray and his co writers argued that Dark Horse copied the ostinato, or repeated eight note pattern, that underpinned Joyful Noise. The plaintiffs claimed that the similarity was substantial enough to constitute infringement, and that Perry and her team must have had access to the earlier song.

‍

Perry’s defence countered that the ostinato in question was a basic musical building block. They argued that short, repeated patterns were common in many genres, particularly in electronic and hip hop influenced music, and therefore not protectable by copyright.

‍

The financial stakes were considerable. Dark Horse had generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue. If infringement were proven, damages could be substantial.

‍

The Legal Battle

‍

The case went to trial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2019. Both sides presented expert testimony from musicologists.

The plaintiffs argued that the two songs shared a distinctive pattern that was central to their identity. Perry and her co writers — including Dr Luke, Max Martin, and Cirkut — maintained that they had never heard Joyful Noise and that any similarity was coincidental.

‍

Perry testified personally, insisting that she had never encountered the track before the lawsuit. Her legal team highlighted the ubiquity of ostinato patterns in music history, arguing that allowing copyright over such elements would stifle creativity across the industry.

‍

The Verdict

‍

In July 2019, the jury found in favour of Marcus Gray. They ruled that Dark Horse did infringe Joyful Noise, and awarded damages of $2.8 million, to be shared among the plaintiffs. The verdict shocked many in the music industry, which feared it set a precedent allowing lawsuits over common, simple musical phrases.

‍

However, the story did not end there. In 2020, Judge Christina Snyder overturned the jury’s verdict. She ruled that the ostinato in question lacked sufficient originality to be protected by copyright. In her judgment, she emphasised that copyright cannot cover basic musical building blocks that are common to countless works.

‍

This reversal was a major victory for Perry and her team, and a relief for many songwriters and producers.

‍

The Impact on the Industry

‍

The Dark Horse case became part of a broader wave of similarity disputes, alongside the Blurred Lines and Shape of You cases. Together, they revealed the uncertainty and inconsistency in how courts handle musical copyright claims.

‍

The initial verdict in favour of Gray alarmed the industry. Many feared that it would open the floodgates to claims based on simple motifs, discouraging artists from writing music in certain styles. The judge’s later reversal restored some confidence, reaffirming the principle that copyright protects original expression but not common patterns.

‍

For artists, the case illustrated the risks of litigation in a litigious era. Even when successful in defending a claim, the process can take years, cost millions, and create reputational damage. For lawyers and labels, the case highlighted the importance of expert testimony and the challenge of explaining musical concepts to juries unfamiliar with technical analysis.

‍

Lessons for Musicians Today

‍

The Dark Horse case offers several important lessons:

‍

• Not all similarities are infringement. Common patterns and motifs are not protected by copyright.

• Court decisions can be unpredictable. Juries and judges may view the same evidence differently.

• Defending claims is costly. Even a successful defence requires time, money, and energy.

• Documentation is valuable. Demonstrating how a song was written can help defend originality.