Stephanie Iken, Attorney at Law

The lawsuit over My Sweet Lord occupies a strange place in music history. The song remains beloved, but to songwriters, the case remains unsettling. In reaching the decision in this case, the court introduced a form of liability that does not depend on intent, memory, or deliberate copying. For songwriters, the ruling altered how similarity is judged and how risk is understood.

The decision continues to shape copyright litigation decades later, often without full examination of how the court reached its conclusion.

The songs at issue

My Sweet Lord appeared on George Harrison’s 1970 album All Things Must Pass. It became his first number-one single and marked a successful transition into his post-Beatles career.

The plaintiffs, Bright Tunes Music Corp., owned the copyright to He’s So Fine, a 1963 hit recorded by The Chiffons. Bright Tunes alleged that My Sweet Lord copied the earlier song’s melody.

The lawsuit focused on musical similarity rather than lyrical content or theme.

The procedural path of the case

Bright Tunes filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Richard Owen. Harrison testified. Musicologists testified. The court reviewed recordings, transcriptions, and expert analysis.

Harrison denied deliberate copying. He described writing My Sweet Lord as a sincere expression rooted in spiritual devotion. He acknowledged familiarity with He’s So Fine as a popular song from the early 1960s.

The court accepted Harrison’s testimony as truthful.

The court’s reasoning

Judge Owen concluded that the two songs shared a substantially similar melodic structure. He focused on the sequence of notes and their placement within the composition. The analysis did not depend on identical phrasing throughout the song. Repetition of a distinctive melodic pattern carried weight.

The court then addressed intent. Harrison had not set out to copy He’s So Fine. The judge stated that this absence of intent did not resolve the legal question. Instead, the court introduced the concept that copying could occur subconsciously.

The opinion described the process as one where a songwriter internalizes a familiar melody and later reproduces it without conscious awareness. Familiarity combined with similarity satisfied the standard for infringement.

This finding became the defining feature of the case.

Subconscious infringement enters copyright law

The ruling established that liability can attach even when copying occurs without awareness. Memory, exposure, and similarity formed the basis of infringement. Intent no longer served as a gatekeeper.

Under this framework, a songwriter’s sincerity offers no defense once substantial similarity and access are established. The inquiry shifts away from motive and toward outcome.

This approach reshaped copyright analysis. Courts could now find infringement without bad faith, imitation, or deliberate borrowing.

Remedies and aftermath

The case did not end with the initial ruling. Subsequent proceedings addressed damages and ownership. Harrison ultimately paid substantial sums and acquired rights connected to He’s So Fine through later transactions.

The legal consequences extended beyond financial liability. The ruling became a reference point in later disputes involving popular music.

Songwriters began confronting a new reality. Familiarity with existing music became a source of risk rather than inspiration alone.

Why this case still casts a long shadow

The My Sweet Lord decision altered how courts think about creativity. Popular music relies on shared structures, common progressions, and cultural memory. “Subconscious copying” still stands as binding law.

Later cases involving artists across genres have cited the Harrison ruling when similarity disputes arise. Musicologists analyze melodic fragments with heightened scrutiny. Artists face claims grounded in resemblance rather than replication.

As a lawyer, this case reveals how copyright law prioritizes protection of expression over inquiry into intent. As a Beatles fan, it is difficult to reconcile that outcome with the spirit in which the song was written.

Closing thoughts

The My Sweet Lord case shows how law can reach deeply into the creative process. It imposes liability based on resemblance shaped by memory rather than design. That approach continues to influence songwriting litigation.

George Harrison’s experience stands as a warning to artists working inside a shared musical tradition. Familiar sounds carry legal weight. Creativity operates within a system that does not ask why a song sounds the way it does.