SAN FRANCISCO (LN) — U.S. District Judge Rita Lin dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by pro se plaintiff Viacheslav Shlapatskyi against YouTube, Google, and Alphabet, ruling that the musician failed to plausibly allege that defendants had access to his original composition, “I Scream.”
Shlapatskyi, representing himself, sued the companies alleging that multiple videos uploaded to YouTube reproduced protectable elements of his musical composition and sound recording. The complaint identified a track titled “joyful - chess (chess type beat)” uploaded by “John Doe 1” as the primary infringing work, along with several derivative uploads and songs by other accounts.
To state a claim for copyright infringement without direct evidence of copying, a plaintiff must plead that the defendant had access to the work and that the two works share similarities probative of copying, Judge Lin wrote. Where access is premised on a work’s presence on a digital-sharing platform, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that defendants had a “reasonable chance of seeing their work.”
The complaint did not allege that John Doe 1 had access to “I Scream” before uploading “Chess” on November 29, 2024, three days after Shlapatskyi recorded the song on November 26, 2024. Shlapatskyi did not distribute “I Scream” via a streaming service until January 9, 2025, according to the complaint.
Although some of the allegedly infringing works were uploaded after Shlapatskyi’s distribution of “I Scream,” Judge Lin found it implausible that those works were copying his independent work rather than “Chess.” The complaint described the later uploads as part of a “chess family of uploads,” and Defendants introduced a hyperlink showing “Chess” had more than 3 million views.
Shlapatskyi did not dispute that “I Scream” had only 114 views, while Defendants stated that figure. Given the disparity in popularity, Judge Lin wrote that it was not plausible that infringers accessed “I Scream” rather than the viral “Chess” track.
Shlapatskyi argued in an opposition brief that “I Scream” could have been shared via a digital link as early as November 26, 2024. However, Judge Lin noted this allegation was not in the complaint and that the mere existence of a sharable link does not come close to alleging access.
The plaintiff also argued that the similarities between the works alone satisfied his burden of pleading copying under the “striking similarity” standard. Judge Lin described this as a “high bar” requiring a plaintiff to plausibly allege that it is “virtually impossible that the two works could have been independently created.”
The complaint alleged that “I Scream” and “Chess” contained similar melodic sequences, listing 18 notes for “I Scream” and 24 notes for “Chess.” However, the complaint contained no other allegations of similarities, and Shlapatskyi did not allege the results of his analysis of the melodies or how they amounted to a striking similarity.
The various exhibits referenced in the complaint were never filed with the court. Judge Lin wrote that even if Shlapatskyi could allege the work was not kept under lock and key, he had not met the high bar of pleading a striking similarity.
The claims against Alphabet were dismissed on additional grounds that the complaint did not contain non-conclusory allegations that the parent company engaged in any conduct or exercised any control with respect to the events alleged.
Judge Lin granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, noting it was not clear that amendment would be futile. Shlapatskyi may file an amended complaint by June 8, 2026, but may not add new claims or parties or change allegations except to correct identified deficiencies.
Shlapatskyi’s motions for leave to substitute exhibits and to file supplemental evidence were denied without prejudice to filing the materials with any amended complaint.