On the surface, music copyright cases may seem straightforward: if two songs sound alike, there is likely infringement, right? Longtime readers know this is not true, though. In fact, IP law imposes two major hurdles: showing the accused had a reasonable opportunity to hear the original work (“access”) and proving the songs share original, protectable elements rather than common musical building blocks.

We have seen several cases over the past few years dismissed due to their “similarities” falling into that latter category, common musical building blocks, and the following case hinged on that factor as well. However, in this instance, the deciding factor was the plaintiff’s choice of their “expert.”

What happened?

Karol G and DJ Tiësto Versus René Lorente-García

A U.S. federal judge in the Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit in summary judgment brought by composer René Lorente-García against Colombian singer Karol G and Dutch DJ Tiësto over their 2021 hit “Don’t Be Shy.” Lorente-García’s suit claimed the track copied the melody, rhythm, harmony, and structure of his 1998 composition “Algo Diferente” and was seeking $3 million in damages for alleged emotional distress, reputational harm, and more.

Lorente-García’s first hurdle was access. His song had garnered only a few hundred views on YouTube and a few thousand streams on Spotify. The judge concluded those numbers were too low to plausibly suggest Karol G or Tiësto had heard it before creating “Don’t Be Shy.” As the court made clear, simply having music available online doesn’t prove anyone (especially high-profile artists) actually found and listened to it.

But that was just the beginning. As mentioned above, the biggest thing that killed Lorente-García’s case was his choice of expert.

The IP Lesson: Your Expert Is Your Linchpin

In copyright disputes – especially in music – the expert’s role is pivotal. Judges and juries depend on forensic musicologists to explain whether similarities are meaningful and legally protectable. In this case, Lorente relied on Richie Viera to make those connections.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the judge found Viera unqualified to offer the level of expert testimony the law demands. During his deposition, he misidentified chords and keys, struggled with basic music theory, and failed to consider “prior art” (existing songs that used similar melodies and rhythms long before “Algo Diferente” was written). 

In copyright law, this matters because prior art can strip away claims of originality. If an element has been widely used before, it generally cannot be claimed as exclusive.

The defense’s expert, Dr. Lawrence Ferrara, took the opposite approach, carefully mapping the two songs and showing that the alleged overlaps were standard musical devices found in countless other works. His testimony painted a clear picture: the similarities were part of the shared language of music, not original creative expression.

Because of this, the court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Karol G, Tiësto, and their label partners, dismissing the case entirely. While the lack of access played a role, the judge’s opinion made it clear: weak, unqualified expert testimony can doom a copyright case, no matter how passionate the plaintiff.

As of August 6, 2025, Rene Lorente-Garcia has filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  So we shall see if the appellate court agrees with the District Court’s ruling. 

What Musicians Can Learn from This Case

For creators, the takeaway is twofold. First, copyright protects only original expression, not the raw “grammar” of music like chord progressions or common rhythms. Second, and potentially even more crucial, if you ever bring or defend an infringement case, your expert must be credible, qualified, and thorough. A strong, well-documented analysis can be the deciding factor between protecting your rights and watching your claim collapse.

In the end, this ruling reinforces that not every musical echo is an infringement, and the law’s checks and balances (like requiring expert proof) help ensure that copyright remains a shield for true originality, not a weapon against the shared artistry that keeps music evolving.

Think you might have a claim or are worried about protecting your work? Reach out.