IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Or.: Infringement claim fails in longstanding pastoral music dispute, (Jul 30, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The lawsuit involved a longstanding dispute between two prominent figures in the Catholic liturgical music world.

A songwriter and her Christian music publisher did not infringe upon the copyright to a musical composition written in 1980 by another songwriter who also specializes in pastoral worship themes, the District Court for the District of Oregon has held. The court, in a decision that adopts the initial finding of an advisory jury, also found that the copyright infringement claim was independently barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel (Ambrosetti v. Oregon Catholic Press, No. 3:21-cv-00211-IM (D. Or. Jul. 28, 2026)).

The lawsuit arises out of a longstanding dispute between two prominent figures in the Catholic liturgical music world. On the one side is Vincent Ambrosetti, a prolific songwriter who has composed more than 400 works of sacred music, including the 1980 song “Emmanuel” (on YouTube here, Spotify here). On the other side is Oregon Catholic Press, a major Catholic music publisher formerly led by industry veteran Owen Alstott. In 1993, that press published “Christ Be Our Light” (on YouTube here, Spotify here), a song composed by British musician (and Alstott’s wife) Bernadette Farrell.

Ambrosetti sued Farrell and OCP in the Northern District of Indiana for copyright infringement in 2020. (The case was originally dismissed for lack of proper registration but Ambrosetti later filed a new complaint after remedying the registration deficiency; the case was later transferred to the District of Oregon.) The district court granted summary judgment against Ambrosetti in 2024, finding that Ambrosetti had not introduced sufficient evidence to show that Farrell had access to his song or that the two works were strikingly similar—the burden Ambrosetti would have to surpass in order to make out an infringement claim in the absence of a showing of access.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial in 2025. The court of appeals held that Ambrosetti presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Farrell had access to his song, particularly given the work’s distribution within the same liturgical music community during the relevant period. The court of appeals also found that a reasonable jury could conclude, on the basis of the report of Ambrosetti’s musicologist, that the two works were strikingly similar.

On retrial, an advisory jury found that the two works were not substantially similar, leading to this opinion.

Substantial similarity. The trial court agreed with the advisory jury. Perhaps notably, although the Ninth Circuit placed great weight on the report of Ambrosetti’s musicologist in concluding that a jury could find striking similarity, the trial court’s analysis of the same report, combined with his testimony at trial, led it to conclude that the two works were not even substantially similar. For example, the court noted, Ambrosetti’s musicologist’s listing of similarities between “Christ Be Our Light” and “Emmanuel” included “commonplace elements that he conceded on the stand must be filtered out of the analysis.” Moreover, in reaching his conclusions regarding the significance of the similarities between the two works, the court found, the musicologist “double- or even triple-counted the same elements using different terminology, which further call[ed] into question the reliability of his analysis.” By contrast, the court noted, it found Farrell's expert more credible and accorded her testimony greater weight.

The court’s differing assessments of the two musicologists proved central to its finding on substantial similarity. Under the extrinsic test, the court noted, “the two songs differ substantially.” Indeed, the court noted, the lyrics, harmonies, choruses, introductions, and fourth phrases of the verses were all different. Farrell’s work, for example, the court noted, “modulates to G major for the chorus, whereas ‘Emmanuel’ remains in E minor throughout.” This is “qualitatively important,” the court noted, “because lyrics are an important element of a song; because melody is fundamentally inseparable from harmony; and because the chorus, the ‘refrain,’ is the critical ‘center’ of a song.”

The two works were also dissimilar under the Ninth Circuit’s “intrinsic” test, the court found. For one thing, the court noted, the songs conveyed “entirely different messages” through their lyrics. Ambrosetti’s song, for example, the court observed, told the story of the nativity “through narrative in the verses.” Farrell’s work, by contrast, the court emphasized, “has lyrics that express a need in the first two phrases, followed by a request (or challenge) in phrases three and four, followed by the chorus, which expresses the religious message of the hymn.” The rhythms also create “a wholly different feel in the verses,” the songs have “different melodic contours,” and the modulation of the chorus in Farrell’s work “creates an ‘arrival point’ not present” in the Ambrosetti work, the court found. Therefore, the court concluded, “the two songs are not substantially similar in total concept and feel.”

Equitable estoppel. The court also found that the case failed on another ground not reached by the jury—the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Back in 2016, the court noted, Oregon Catholic Press had sued Ambrosetti for copyright infringement over a different song. The parties entered into a settlement agreement the next year that, among other things, granted Ambrosetti a license in the song and released any claims accrued by the parties as of the date of the agreement. Because the alleged infringement in this case took place after the date of the agreement, the release did not apply. However, that did not end the matter, the court found. Ambrosetti knew about the alleged similarities between the songs as well as his potential legal claims when negotiating that agreement, the court noted. His “failure to speak” about the potential claim at the time, the court found, misled the Press into “negotiating to its detriment in the absence of such information.” He was therefore “equitably estopped from asserting his copyright infringement claim,” the court concluded.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-00211-IM.

Judge: Immergut, K.

Attorneys: Donald J. Schmid (Law Offices of Donald J. Schmid) for Vincent A. Ambrosetti. Michael C. Willes (Willes Law, PC) for Oregon Catholic Press.

Companies: Oregon Catholic Press

Cases: Copyright OregonNews