The famous, pulsating theme song of “Hawaii Five-0” is at the heart of a new copyright infringement lawsuit against CBS. The legal action, brought by the children of the late Morton Stevens, the Emmy-winning composer behind the iconic tune, hinges on a Supreme Court ruling and questions of copyright reversion. Could this legal battle force a change to one of television’s most recognizable musical signatures?
The lawsuit, filed in California federal court, arrives decades after Stevens’ death in 1991. According to the complaint, the copyright renewal term for the “Hawaii Five-0 theme song” began roughly six years later. This timing is critical due to a copyright law provision: for works created before 1978, if the author dies before the original copyright term expires, the rights revert to their heirs. This legal nuance, highlighted by a Supreme Court decision involving legendary director Martin Scorsese’s film Raging Bull, is now empowering Stevens’ children to challenge CBS’s rights to the theme.
CBS reportedly filed a renewal registration for the “Hawaii Five-0 theme song” in 1997. However, the lawsuit contends that this renewal was made without proper rights. The original “Hawaii Five-0” series aired on CBS from 1968 to 1980. The current legal challenge might not have surfaced if CBS hadn’t revived the series in 2010 and if the Supreme Court hadn’t issued its ruling in the Raging Bull case.
The Ginsburg Precedent: The Raging Bull Ruling
The legal strategy employed by Stevens’ heirs is significantly bolstered by a Supreme Court decision penned by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The case involved Paula Petrella, whose father authored works forming the basis of Raging Bull. Like Stevens, Petrella’s father passed away before the original copyright term concluded. The core issue in the Raging Bull case was whether Petrella’s delayed lawsuit against MGM and 20th Century Fox should be dismissed due to the passage of time. Justice Ginsburg, however, ruled against a strict “sue now or lose forever” approach in copyright cases. This ruling potentially weakens CBS’s defense, despite their 1997 renewal, as it suggests the Stevens family’s claim isn’t automatically invalidated by the years that have passed.
Legal Expertise and Previous Battles
Representing the Stevens children is attorney Henry Gradstein, a lawyer with prior experience in “Hawaii Five-0” related legal disputes. Gradstein previously represented the ex-agent of Leonard Freeman, the creator of the original “Hawaii Five-0”, in a substantial $100 million lawsuit concerning the reboot. While Gradstein was unsuccessful in that earlier case, his familiarity with the intricate rights surrounding the show likely proved advantageous in identifying this new legal avenue. Gradstein’s firm, along with Robert E. Allen, also successfully represented the son of T. Rex frontman Marc Bolan in a copyright reversion case concerning song rights, demonstrating their experience in this specific area of law.
Damages and CBS’s Defense
The lawsuit alleges that CBS created a “new derivative recording” of the “Hawaii Five-0 theme song” for the reboot series and its soundtrack album, thus infringing on the Stevens family’s copyright. The Stevens family seeks actual damages and profits, or alternatively, statutory damages. They are also requesting an injunction, which, if granted, could potentially prevent CBS from using the current theme song. Justice Ginsburg’s Supreme Court opinion acknowledged that while the legal principle of laches (unreasonable delay) cannot prevent damage recovery within the statute of limitations, it could influence a judge’s decision on injunctive relief.
CBS has responded to the lawsuit with surprise and disappointment, stating that the claims from Stevens’ heirs, filed more than five years after the reboot premiered and without prior discussion, are “without merit.” A CBS spokesperson affirmed that they will “vigorously defend this case,” setting the stage for a potentially lengthy and complex legal battle over the rights to the iconic “Hawaii Five 0 theme song”. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the use of classic television theme music in reboots and derivative works, particularly in light of evolving copyright law and renewed attention to creators’ and their heirs’ rights.
