Kanye Won — But Not Because He Didn't Copy: The U.S. Copyright Trap You Need to Know

Does an oral promise to transfer copyright count? U.S. courts say no.

Kanye West recently prevailed in a copyright suit over the Donda album. The plaintiff, Artist Revenue Advocates LLC ("ARA"), alleged that West had copied the musical work MSD PT2; the court dismissed most of the claims.

The reason is striking: the plaintiff simply could not produce a valid written assignment of copyright. Put another way, even if West had used someone else's melody, the "rights holder" suing him could not establish its own standing.

That is a warning for anyone in music, in copyright, or in cross-border content: in the United States, while ordinary oral contracts are valid in commerce, a transfer of copyright requires a signed writing. An oral promise, a WeChat exchange, or an email will not effect a valid transfer of rights.

I. What Happened?

ARA, a copyright management company, alleged that West had used the melodic and harmonic elements of MSD PT2 without authorization in Hurricane, Moon, and other tracks on Donda, and asked the Central District of California to find copyright infringement.

The problem: ARA was not the original author. It claimed to have taken assignment of the copyright from the author.

West's counsel did not spend much effort arguing about copying. They asked a different question: on what basis do you have the right to sue?

The court dismissed the great majority of the infringement claims. The core of the ruling was not that the works were dissimilar, but that the plaintiff could not establish that it lawfully held the copyright in the musical work, and that the parties had executed no written transfer satisfying the statutory requirement.

II. What U.S. Law Requires for a Transfer

Under § 204(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of copyright ownership is effective only where evidenced by a writing signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or that owner's duly authorized agent:

"A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."

This is not a recommendation. It is a hard requirement.

The court made clear that a transfer must be in a writing signed by the rights holder or it is invalid — even where the parties genuinely intended to transfer, and regardless of what California contract law might otherwise provide. Absent a signed writing, no transfer of copyright takes legal effect. In short: no signature, no writing, no copyright, no standing.

III. Musical Works vs. Sound Recordings — Do Not Conflate Them

The case turns on another important distinction: a musical work and a sound recording are different things. Under § 102(a), they are separate categories of protected work.

Musical works — melody, harmony, composition, lyrics, and other core creative elements. Exercising any of the § 106 rights (reproduction, derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display) without the owner's authorization infringes. This was the principal subject of the dispute.

Sound recordings — the recorded audio of a musical performance. Infringement turns on whether the audio itself was copied; reproducing melody and harmony without using the original recording does not infringe the sound recording copyright.

Why did ARA not lose entirely? Because it held a valid written assignment of the sound recording copyright. Its allegation that an early demo of Hurricane directly sampled the MSD PT2 audio therefore survived and proceeded to discovery. But for lack of a written assignment of the musical work copyright, the claims directed at the released album and the core creative elements were dismissed.

IV. How Copyright Is Lawfully Acquired

(1) Written transfer. Under § 204(a), the owner signs a written instrument specifying the work, the scope of rights, the term, and the territory.

(2) Works made for hire. A written work-for-hire agreement expressly designating the work as such can also effect a valid transfer; and a work created by an employee within the scope of employment vests in the employer originally as a matter of law.

Beyond these, oral agreements, email exchanges, and industry custom are insufficient to effect a valid transfer.

V. What This Means for Copyright and Cross-Border Businesses

If you are a musician, a copyright operator, or an outbound company selling into the U.S. market, two points are worth keeping:

(1) Do not skip the paperwork. Specify the work, the rights conveyed, the scope of transfer, the term, and the territory. Any transfer resting on oral agreement or informal messaging risks being held invalid.

(2) Build a complete, traceable chain of title. An assignee should examine the source of rights at each preceding link and retain the written instrument for every step, so that the chain is clear, continuous, and traceable — the foundation for later enforcement and for commercial transactions.

This article addresses general legal questions only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Outcomes depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and the court's discretion. Past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in future matters.