Litigators of the Week: A Win for Songwriter Jason Derulo in Trial Over Credit for ‘Savage Love’
Our Litigator of the Week is Sheppard partner Joshua Rosenberg.
Rosenberg represented singer/songwriter Jason Derulo in a lawsuit brought by Matthew Spatola, a guitarist who claimed he deserved co-authorship credit—and royalties—on Derulo’s 2020 mega-hit "Savage Love (Laxed – Siren Beat)," which has more than a billion streams on Spotify alone.
After an 11-day jury trial in a Los Angeles federal court, jurors returned a complete defense verdict for Derulo last week.
Litigation Daily: Who were your clients and what was at stake here?
Josh Rosenberg: We represented multi-platinum recording artist and songwriter Jason Derulo and the record label Sony Music Entertainment, through its division Columbia Records.
There was a lot of stake in this case for both of our clients. The plaintiff was seeking copyright ownership in both the sound recording and the musical composition of “Savage Love (Laxed – Siren Beat)”, which was a chart-topping, 4x Platinum song in 2020. That meant a lot of money was at stake. And the case raised the stakes even higher for the music industry if the jury had accepted the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff was a session musician who received both the money and the credit that he asked for, and then, almost three years later, demanded more. If the plaintiff had prevailed, it would have set a precedent that anyone who didn’t sign a document could come out of the woodwork and claim they were an “author.” Paperwork is obviously important, but this is a creative industry built on trust in collaborators and amazing art resulting from the creative process.
Additionally, the case presented a novel question for copyright law because the plaintiff sought an alternative claim that the audio recording of the song from the first recording session was itself a copyrightable work, and so he argued that the commercially-released version of “Savage Love” was a derivative work of that first session. This would mean that every draft or version of a work-in-progress like a novel, screenplay or song would be a copyrightable work, and the actual finished version of the work would somehow be a derivative work. The jury correctly rejected that notion because the issue of authorship turns very much on intent, and authors typically do not intend drafts or works-in-progress to be finished works.
How did this matter come to you and the firm?
This case was referred to me in August 2023 when I was a partner at Venable. I brought the case with me when I joined Sheppard in August 2025.
Who was on your team and how did you divide the work at trial?
I was first chair and lead trial counsel. I handled the jury selection; delivered opening and closing arguments; argued jury instructions; cross-examined plaintiff Matthew Spatola; and conducted the direct examination of Derulo. Overall, I examined nine of the 16 witnesses who testified at trial.
Kent Raygor joined the trial team only a few weeks before the trial started on April 21, 2026, and got up to speed very quickly. Kent’s key role was cross-examining the plaintiff’s musicology expert and examining our two musicology experts. Kent has an undergraduate degree in music theory and composition, is an accomplished musician and very much “spoke the language” of musicology.
Allison Wong was the lead associate on the case and, notably, this was her first trial. She examined three critical witnesses at trial. Sheppard–and I–think it is very important for associates to get as much trial experience as they can, especially when it comes to jury trials in the entertainment industry, which are exceedingly rare.
Alyssa Stolmack is a first-year associate who dove into the deep end of this trial after only seven months of experience as a lawyer. She was a crucial member of the team, helping with exhibits, research and witness preparation.
I also need to note that we had professional staff, including my long-time legal assistant, who were invaluable helping with technical evidence and keeping things running smoothly.
The starting point for this song was “Laxed – Siren Beat” by New Zealand artist Jawsh 685, which had already gone viral during the pandemic. In what ways did that make your path to no joint authorship easier, and how might it have made it more difficult?
I believe it made our job easier (but the job is never easy) because the case focused on the new elements that were added to the pre-existing sound recording and musical composition for “Laxed – Siren Beat.” We argued that the plaintiff merely replicated Jawsh 685’s pre-existing music on a different instrument, and any modifications by the plaintiff were insignificant and commonplace. Equally important, at all times, the plaintiff worked under the direction and supervision of Derulo, who decided whether and to what extent any of the plaintiff’s guitar parts were included, and also sang to the plaintiff how Derulo wanted him to play.
What were your major trial themes and how did you drive them home with jurors?
We had several themes: “There’s a difference between playing music and creating music”; “Memories fade but the documents don’t lie”; and most importantly, focus on “the words on the page.”
This was especially important because this case concerned events that occurred six years ago, in 2020. I drove these themes home during the opening statement and with every witness. I would always ask, “Please focus on the words on the page.”
During my closing argument, I talked about the origins of the “words on the page” theme. After the verdict, the jurors were asked about which evidence they relied on the most and they said, “the documents.”
How did you attempt to make dense musicology testimony digestible for jurors with no music background?
This was certainly a challenge, with industry terms like “sound recording,” “musical composition,” “master points,” “publishing splits” and “royalties.” There also was testimony about credits and the differences between “writer” and “producer” credits versus an “instrumentalist credit” (like guitar and bass). We had very experienced musicologists comparing the derivative work “Savage Love (Laxed – Siren Beat)” to the original work “Laxed – Siren Beat” and conducting what’s called a “filtration” analysis to eliminate the unprotected elements (e.g., the pre-existing music from “Laxed – Siren Beat”) and focus on the plaintiff’s actual contributions by using a “prior art search” that compared the plaintiff’s contributions to pre-existing, commonplace guitar work. Kent did a fantastic job simplifying all of this for the jury.
What role did expert testimony play—especially rebuttal experts—in undermining plaintiff’s claims?
We had two excellent musicologists who provided opinion testimony that we relied on to argue that the plaintiff did not make an independently copyrightable contribution to “Savage Love (Laxed – Siren Beat)”, which is just one of the four elements that the plaintiff had to prove to be deemed a joint author. Under the law, a mere copyrightable contribution is not sufficient to establish that one is an “author” as defined by the U.S. Copyright Act and case law interpreting it.
How did Jason Derulo’s testimony fit into the broader story you wanted to tell the jurors about this case?
This case was incredibly important to Derulo. He attended every single day of the trial, except for one day where he had to fly to New York for the Met Gala due to contractual obligations. But he flew back that same night on a red-eye flight, got a few hours of sleep and, the very next morning, was intensely cross-examined by the plaintiff’s counsel. Derulo stood his ground firmly but patiently. He responded to questions truthfully, openly, carefully and with reference to documents (the “words on the page” theme).
How did try to strike the right balance between your arguments about credibility of the plaintiff and issues about technical proof for his copyright claim in closing argument?
I did not have to spend too much time during the closing argument on the credibility of the plaintiff because I repeatedly impeached him with his prior testimony during his deposition and with documents that flatly contradicted his testimony. In fact, the plaintiff chose to testify again as the last witness in the case, and I further demonstrated his lack of credibility utilizing the same methods. The closing argument was the very next day, so the plaintiff’s lack of credibility was likely fresh in the minds of the jury.
In the closing argument, I mostly focused on the documents and the elements that the plaintiff needed to prove to win his case. I used the analogy of four legs on a chair: Without just one leg, the chair falls and so does his case. The plaintiff had the burden to prove every one of the four elements for joint authorship, which included (from Jury Instruction No. 17):
What is disputed is whether Spatola is a joint author of Savage Love. Spatola claims joint authorship of both the Savage Love Musical Composition and the Savage Love Sound Recording. In order to prevail on this claim, Spatola must therefore prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
- Each author made a substantial and valuable contribution to Savage Love;
- Each author must have intended that his contribution be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole;
-
Each author must have contributed material to the joint work which could have been independently copyrighted; and
- Each author must be a person to whom the work owes its origins and who superintended the whole work.
What can other recording artists—and their lawyers—take from how this litigation unfolded?
Eventually, the truth will come out. But, especially with a case about events that occurred several years ago, it is incredibly important to document as much as you can. The words on the page in the documents were the most credible evidence in the case. A witness can try to change their testimony, but no one can change the words on the page.
What will you remember most about this trial?
Working with amazing clients and an incredible team, and receiving a big hug from Derulo’s mother after we received the verdict in our favor. That meant the world to me.
