Dua Lipa Wins Copyright Case: Court Dismisses Claims Against "Levitating"

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. The Case Background
4. Legal Implications
5. The Arguments Presented
6. Broader Implications for the Music Industry
7. FAQs
8. Conclusion

Key Highlights

• A federal judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit claiming Dua Lipa's song "Levitating" copied melodies from "Wiggle and Giggle All Night" and "Don Diablo."
• U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the alleged similarities did not meet the threshold for copyright infringement.
• The ruling is regarded as a significant decision for musical creativity and the interpretation of copyright law in the music industry.

Introduction

In a landmark ruling that reverberates beyond the catchy beats of pop music, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled in favor of Dua Lipa on March 27, 2025, dismissing a copyright lawsuit that could have had serious implications for artistic expression. The lawsuit alleged that Lipa’s hit "Levitating" borrowed elements from the disco tune "Wiggle and Giggle All Night" (1979) by L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, asserting that the similarities were substantial enough to warrant legal action. The judge’s decision has broader implications, reinforcing the notion that basic musical building blocks are available for all creators, thereby preventing a chilling effect on musical innovation.

The Case Background

The lawsuit was filed in 2022 by the songwriters of "Wiggle and Giggle," claiming Lipa stole melodies and musical elements not only from their song but also from another of their works, "Don Diablo." The plaintiffs argued that the core melodies were too similar to support distinctiveness. However, the judge's ruling emphasized a pivotal distinction in copyright cases: whether elements cited are protectable by law.

Brown and Linzer insisted that the similarity between the "Wiggle" melody and Lipa's "Levitating" was indicative of creative theft, but Judge Failla stated that the similarities were superficial and could be attributed to the use of common musical tropes and structures prevalent in pop and disco genres.

Legal Implications

The legal framework surrounding this decision rests upon historical precedents about what constitutes copyright infringement. Judge Failla's ruling was influenced by a significant prior case involving Ed Sheeran, where courts ruled that music cannot be stifled by overly broad copyright claims.

“Musical style and function, such as ‘pop with a disco feel’ and the purpose of entertainment, do not qualify as protectable elements," she wrote, underscoring the necessity of maintaining a creative environment in the arts. As a result, her statement highlighted a critical perspective in copyright circles: safeguarding the essential building blocks of music fosters innovation rather than hindering it.

Previous Relevant Cases

• Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye: A decision reinforcing that not all artistic influences are subject to copyright claims, allowing musicians to draw inspiration from various genres without the threat of legal action.
• Artikal Sound System Case (2023): Another lawsuit against Lipa that was dismissed, where the reggae group alleged Lipa had copied their track "Live Your Life." These repeated dismissals indicate a judicial trend favoring artistic freedom over restrictive interpretations of copyright claims.

The Arguments Presented

The case rested heavily on the testimony and legal representation of both parties. Lipa's attorney, Christine Lepera, argued that neither Lipa nor her collaborators had ever heard the songs in question prior to the lawsuit. “The similarities pointed out in the plaintiffs’ claims were merely coincidental,” she explained, framing the argument around the accessibility of basic musical structures.

Conversely, attorney Jason Brown (representing Brown and Linzer) expressed intentions to appeal the decision, voicing concerns over the “academic dissection” of music that overlooks the emotive essence and subjective experience of a song’s reception by listeners. “The soul of a song doesn’t live in a court brief,” Brown emphasized, advocating for the argument that the essence of music cannot solely be distilled into notes and bars on a page.

Broader Implications for the Music Industry

The outcome of Lipa's case has substantial implications for artists navigating the complexities of copyright in a rapidly evolving industry. With the rise of digital platforms and unprecedented access to a vast array of musical influences, the lines around artistic borrowing are increasingly blurred.

Many artists may feel a newfound sense of liberty in exploring creative expressions rooted in established styles, knowing that foundational elements are less likely to be legally challenged. In essence, this ruling reinforces that music evolution is inherently collaborative, advancing culture while demanding a careful balance between protecting creativity and stifling progress.

FAQs

What was the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit claimed that Dua Lipa's song "Levitating" plagiarized melodies and elements from L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer’s 1979 song "Wiggle and Giggle All Night" and another of their work, "Don Diablo."

What did the judge rule?

U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that the similarities cited between "Levitating" and the plaintiffs’ songs were not substantial enough to warrant a trial, emphasizing that musical styles and functions cannot be protected as copyright.

What does this ruling mean for music writers?

This ruling could encourage music writers by reinforcing that foundational musical elements are available for all to use, thereby protecting artistic freedom and fostering creativity in the industry.

Are there any similar past cases?

Yes, prior cases like Ed Sheeran's lawsuit over "Blurred Lines" and the legal challenges against Lipa's "Live Your Life" showcase a growing trend where courts favor artistic freedom over restrictive interpretations of copyright.

Will the plaintiffs appeal the decision?

Yes, attorney Jason Brown has expressed intentions to appeal the verdict, citing concerns over the judicial focus on analytically assessing music rather than considering the overall feel and performance of the art.

Conclusion

Dua Lipa's victory in this copyright case is a significant chapter in the ongoing discourse surrounding artistic expression, creativity, and legal boundaries in the music industry. As pop music continues to evolve, the implications of such rulings serve as both a relief and reassurance for artists working within a vibrant, collaborative ecosystem. This decision does not merely affect Lipa but signals a shift towards supporting creative freedom, which is paramount for the future of musical innovation.

Such cases underscore the importance of acknowledging the shared cultural heritage that informs contemporary music, reminding artists and audiences alike that the beauty of music often lies in its ability to create connections, invoke emotions, and inspire creativity across genres and generations.