In 1985, John Fogerty was sued for plagiarizing himself. His former label, Fantasy Records, claimed his solo comeback single “The Old Man Down the Road” was a rewrite of “Run Through the Jungle,” a song he had written years earlier for Creedence Clearwater Revival. Because Fogerty had signed the copyright in “Run Through the Jungle” over to Fantasy, the label, not the songwriter, owned it. A federal jury cleared him in 1988, and the fight over his legal bills ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court, producing a 1994 decision that still governs how attorney’s fees are awarded in copyright cases.1Cornell Law Institute. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
Why Fogerty Didn’t Own His Own Song
The lawsuit was possible because of a contract Fogerty and CCR signed with Fantasy Records in 1968, revised in 1969. The deal required the band to assign their music publishing rights to Fantasy’s subsidiary, Jondora Music Publishing, and classified all recordings and copyright renewal rights as Fantasy property.2ResearchGate. The 1969 Creedence Clearwater Revival Recording Contract and How It Shaped the Future of the Group and Its Members
CCR broke up in 1972 after generating an estimated $150 million in worldwide sales on the Fantasy label.3Los Angeles Times. Fogerty Album Contains Thinly Veiled Indictment of Fantasy Records In 1980, to escape the deal entirely, Fogerty gave up his artist royalties to Fantasy owner Saul Zaentz. He would not receive royalties again for 25 years.4Concord. John Fogerty Regains Control Over Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs After Half-Century Fight The 1970 assignment of “Run Through the Jungle,” however, stayed put. Fantasy owned that copyright outright.
The 1985 Lawsuit
Fogerty returned to recording in January 1985 with Centerfield, released on Warner Bros. The album hit No. 1 on the Billboard chart, and its lead single, “The Old Man Down the Road,” climbed to No. 10 on the Hot 100.5Ultimate Classic Rock. John Fogerty Centerfield
On July 26, 1985, Fantasy filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Fogerty, Warner Bros., and affiliated parties, seeking $144 million.4Concord. John Fogerty Regains Control Over Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs After Half-Century Fight The allegation was that “The Old Man Down the Road” was “Run Through the Jungle” with new lyrics.6GWU Law MCIR. Fantasy v. Fogerty Because Fantasy held the copyright to the older song, the label was in the strange position of accusing the composer of stealing from himself.
Fogerty tried to get the case tossed on that ground, arguing that the author of both songs could not, as a matter of law, infringe his own work. The district court rejected the argument in 1987, holding that a beneficial owner could still infringe a legal owner’s exclusive rights and that even subconscious copying could support an infringement claim.6GWU Law MCIR. Fantasy v. Fogerty The case went to trial.
The Trial and the Guitar on His Lap
The trial took place in federal court in San Francisco in the fall of 1988. Over two weeks, Fogerty spent two days on the witness stand with a guitar on his lap, playing both songs for the jury and walking through the differences.7UPI. John Fogerty Wins Copyright Case His defense was that the similarities came from his consistent “swamp rock” style, not from copying. The court also considered other Fogerty compositions, including “Eye of the Zombie,” to show that the shared musical conventions belonged to his established sound.6GWU Law MCIR. Fantasy v. Fogerty
On November 7, 1988, the six-person jury returned a verdict for Fogerty after roughly three hours of deliberation. One juror said the panel leaned 5-1 for Fogerty from the start, saying “the proof was not there.”7UPI. John Fogerty Wins Copyright Case Fantasy’s attorney, Norman Rudman, later conceded that Fogerty’s courtroom performance was a “very significant part of the defense” and had “overawed” the jury.8Los Angeles Times. Fogerty Found Innocent of Plagiarism Charges The court concluded that while the songs might sound alike to a casual listener, they were “unequivocally distinct compositions.”9The IP Matters. Fantasy Inc. v. John Fogerty
Fogerty reported spending roughly $400,000 to defend the case.7UPI. John Fogerty Wins Copyright Case In a Rolling Stone interview, he framed the stakes broadly: “What’s at stake is whether a person can continue to use his own style as he grows and goes on through life.”9The IP Matters. Fantasy Inc. v. John Fogerty
The Fee Fight That Reached the Supreme Court
Winning did not end the case. Fogerty asked the trial court to make Fantasy cover his legal fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, which allows courts to “award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.” The court refused. Under the rule then followed in the Ninth Circuit, a prevailing defendant could only recover fees if the plaintiff’s suit had been frivolous or brought in bad faith. Fantasy’s claim was not deemed frivolous, so Fogerty got nothing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.1Cornell Law Institute. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
That “dual standard” produced an asymmetry: prevailing plaintiffs in copyright cases were awarded fees almost automatically, while prevailing defendants had to clear a much higher bar. Federal circuits had split on the question, and the Supreme Court took the case to resolve it.10Justia. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517
On March 1, 1994, in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, the Court unanimously reversed. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the Court, held that prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants must be treated alike under Section 505.1Cornell Law Institute. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. The Court rejected both the dual standard and the “British Rule,” which would have made fee awards automatic. Fee decisions would instead rest in the trial court’s discretion, guided by factors such as frivolousness, the parties’ motivations, objective unreasonableness, and the need for compensation and deterrence.10Justia. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517
The reasoning rested on the purpose of copyright law. The Court noted that the Copyright Act exists to promote creative expression for the public good, and that defendants who raise meritorious defenses advance that goal just as much as plaintiffs who win infringement claims. Parties in copyright suits, the Court observed, can range from “corporate behemoths to starving artists.”10Justia. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517
On remand, the district court awarded Fogerty $1,347,519.15 in attorney’s fees, without any finding that Fantasy had acted in bad faith. The court reasoned that his defense served the purposes of the Copyright Act by securing public access to an original work and “paving the way for future original compositions—by Fogerty and others—in the same distinctive ‘Swamp Rock’ style and genre.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award on August 26, 1996.11Harvard Cyber Law. Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 94 F.3d 553
What the Ruling Changed
The Supreme Court’s ruling became the controlling standard for attorney’s fee awards in all federal copyright litigation. Before the decision, prevailing plaintiffs in circuits that used the dual standard recovered fees roughly 98 percent of the time, while defendants rarely did. Afterward, plaintiffs received fees about 76 percent of the time and defendants about 55 percent.12Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal. Attorney’s Fees Under Section 505 of the Copyright Act
Application in the lower courts was uneven. Some treated the Court’s suggested factors as a near-mandatory checklist, effectively requiring defendants to prove bad faith before recovering fees. Others applied a more liberal standard. Scholars noted that this inconsistency undercut the Court’s stated goal of evenhanded treatment.12Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal. Attorney’s Fees Under Section 505 of the Copyright Act
Beyond the fees question, the underlying verdict stood for a musical point: a signature style does not itself count as copyright infringement. Two songs could share a “swamp rock” sound and still be distinct compositions.
Getting the Songs Back
The verdict cleared Fogerty of infringement but did not return his catalog. He tried in 1989 to buy back his publishing rights from Zaentz, with concert promoter Bill Graham acting as a mediator. The talks collapsed in the early 1990s when Zaentz doubled the asking price.4Concord. John Fogerty Regains Control Over Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs After Half-Century Fight Zaentz sold Fantasy Records to Concord Music Group in 2004, and Concord reinstated and increased Fogerty’s artist royalties, which had been withheld since 1980.13Billboard. John Fogerty Buys Control of Publishing for Creedence Clearwater Revival Catalog Zaentz died in 2014.14BPR. Saul Zaentz, Oscar Winner Who Feuded With John Fogerty, Dies
On January 12, 2023, Fogerty purchased a majority interest in the worldwide publishing rights to more than 65 CCR songs from Concord for an undisclosed sum. Concord retained the master recordings and continues to administer Fogerty’s share of the publishing catalog for a limited period.15Variety. John Fogerty Acquires Rights to Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs The deal covered “Bad Moon Rising,” “Have You Ever Seen the Rain,” “Proud Mary,” and “Fortunate Son,” among others.16BBC News. John Fogerty Buys Back Rights to Creedence Clearwater Revival Songs On his website, Fogerty put it plainly: “As of this January, I own my own songs again.”17JohnFogerty.com. CCR Publishing