It would probably need to be a lot more creative than “All I Want For Christmas Is You” to have much chance at all of being covered by copyright.
The fun thing is, the lawsuit doesn’t actually claim the title is infringing either. It just refers to Carey releasing “a version of the song ‘All I Want For Christmas Is You’”. Which is technically true if you’re saying she released a version of her song… but if they’re arguing that it was a version of the plaintiff’s song (or that the title was infringing) then that needs to be said, preferably with some information on how the songs are similar.
(It also states a few times that Carey doesn’t have rights to make a derivatives of the plaintiff’s song. Which is probably completely accurate, but still isn’t an argument that a derivative work was created.)
If I remember correctly, in 1994/1995, E&Y was one of the firms that seniors at Dorsey Business School would visit to learn about the office in downtown Detroit and possibly be considered for employment. One of the girls who went said that female employees weren’t allowed to wear slacks or black eyeliner; I think she also mentioned that hair had to be short or put up.
It started out with comments attorney Timothy Scott made on the record to opposing counsel. After losing a motion for nonsuit, Scott made the following remarks, just laced with meaning:
“…I hope this doesn’t sound unctuous, but just to end the weekend on a good note, I want to thank the court staff. I want to say to have a good weekend to Mr. DeMaria. I want to say have a good weekend to Ms. Frerich. And I want to say have a good weekend to both MTS counsel. I’ll See you next Tuesday. See you next Tuesday.”
As someone not aware of the referenced meme… “unctuous”? Seriously? That really doesn’t sound like it makes sense in the context.
For the uninitiated like this dear judge, see you next Tuesday is a euphemism for cunt, which is very much an insult and a sexist one at that.
But you know, it wouldn’t be an ATL story if that’s where it ended. The Urban Dictionary meaning of the phrase was shared with Judge Sturgeon by one of the attorneys on the receiving end of this not-so-hidden insult (Erin Lagasse). He then held an in-chambers meeting where it was revealed that Scott knew exactly what he was saying — because of course he did. Yet he tried to justify it by arguing that he didn’t think anyone would know what he was really saying.
The judge described Scott’s behavior as “reprehensible,” and such behavior “will not be tolerated in this courtroom.” And, BOOM — Judge Sturgeon alerted the State Bar of California and will be filing a disciplinary referral with the State Bar.
I’ll just say that until now, I had seen no cases in which a defendant claimed to have killed in self-defense because the victim had summoned a Bigfoot to murder him.
Now I have.
You’ll be surprised to know that it isn’t clear exactly what made this noodling excursion turn ugly. But it is clear why the matter escalated, or at least it’s clear what the suspect said about why it escalated, according to the sheriff: “His statement was that [the other man] had summoned ‘Bigfoot’ to come and kill him. That’s why he had to kill [him first].”
[link added, to bypass the discussion of “noodling”]
The sheriff did note that the suspect “appeared to be under the influence of something” when he made the self-defense claim, so that is another potential explanation.