When a “Documentary” Isn’t Fair Use: A U.S. Court Draws the Line on Music Copyright

A recent U.S. federal court ruling has sent a strong signal to filmmakers working with music: calling a project a documentary does not automatically make extensive use of copyrighted songs legal. In a case that underscores the limits of fair use, a judge ruled that British filmmaker Robert Carruthers infringed music copyrights by releasing films that functioned less like critical documentaries and more like unlicensed “greatest hits” compilations.

The Lawsuit and the Fair Use Question

The lawsuit, first filed in 2019, was brought by Universal Music Group and ABKCO Music against Carruthers and his company, Coda Publishing. The music companies argued that the films required proper sync licences—permissions Carruthers failed to obtain. While U.S. copyright law allows limited use of protected works under the fair use doctrine, that exception applies only under specific circumstances, such as when the use is educational, transformative, or minimal.

Why the Court Rejected Fair Use

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Katherine Failla agreed with the plaintiffs, concluding that the documentaries did not meet fair use standards. Reporting by Law360 highlighted her criticism of the films’ structure: although they included commentary, it largely consisted of “hot takes” rather than substantive analysis. Interviewees described songs as “awful” or performances as “embarrassing,” but those remarks were paired with lengthy segments of uninterrupted music. The judge also noted that the films competed commercially with the original recordings, further undermining the fair use defense.

Failla was also sharply critical of Carruthers and co-defendant Gwilym Davies, saying they attempted to distance themselves from the documentaries despite running the company that produced them. She described Carruthers as adopting a “best defence was a good offence” approach, including efforts to pressure the UK-based Music Publishers Association through what she called “unfounded allegations” of serious misconduct. A third defendant, Clare Gambold, was not ruled against because her precise role remained unclear.

What This Ruling Means Going Forward

The ruling reinforces a critical point for filmmakers and content creators: fair use is not a blanket exemption. Labeling a project as a documentary does not excuse extensive, commercially competitive use of copyrighted music. For anyone working with well-known songs, this case is a reminder that proper licensing isn’t just good practice—it’s essential.