Photo of Sandra Crawshaw-Sparks

Sandra Crawshaw-Sparks

Subscribe to Sandra Crawshaw-Sparks's Posts

Sandra (Sandy) Crawshaw-Sparks is a senior partner in the Litigation Department, and Chair of the firm’s Entertainment, Copyright and Media Practice Group. Sandy maintains a bi-coastal practice, specializing in a wide variety of litigation and transactional matters in the entertainment industry with a special focus on music.

A well-known and respected entertainment industry litigator with over 35-years of success, Sandy represents the most iconic names in music on recording, publishing, licensing and management contracts, copyright and trademark infringement claims, unfair competition claims, and the rights of privacy and publicity.

While she fiercely fights high-profile battles for her entertainment clients and wins some of the most visible cases in the media today, Sandy also negotiates pre-litigation and pre-trial resolutions of highly sensitive and confidential personal and entertainment-related disputes, protecting her clients and their reputations from unwarranted media scrutiny and creative distraction. She is also recognized as an expert in the law respecting court approval of personal services contracts with minors.

Sandy is the National Legal Counsel for the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. (the not-for-profit organization responsible for the GRAMMY Awards) and she has long served on the Board of Directors of the GRAMMY Museum’s Entertainment Law Initiative, which promotes discussion and debate about the most compelling legal issues facing the music industry.

Over the course of her career, Sandy's clients have included: Madonna; Lady Gaga; Sting; The Police; Britney Spears; Shania Twain; Luther Vandross; U2; Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails; Amerie; Fiona Apple; Hall & Oates; Matisyahu; Meat Loaf; Debbie Gibson; Sally Hershberger; Judd Hirsch; Living Colour; and Just Blaze.

Sandy has also represented numerous entertainment industry leaders, including: Chris Blackwell; Jimmy Iovine; and Russell Simmons. The music industry companies she has represented include: Live Nation; Sony Music Entertainment (including Arista Records, J Records, Jive Records, Provident Music Group, RCA Records, Zomba Recording Corp., and Verity Records); Universal Music Group (including Interscope Records, Def Jam Records, Geffen Records, GRP Records, MCA Music Publishing, MCA Records, Island Pictures, Island Music, Island Records, Mercury Records, Motown Records, and PolyGram Records); Warner Bros. Records; Warner/Chappell Music; BMG Rights Management; Primary Wave Music Publishing; Kobalt Music Publishing; the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences; American Recordings; Cash Money Records; EMI-Capitol Music Group; EMI Music Publishing; Gee Street Records; IslandLife; the Island Trading Company; JB Music Publishing; Jellybean Recordings Inc.; Palm Pictures; Maverick Recordings; Rykodisc, Inc.; Vagrant Records; and Wind-Up Records.

Contact:Read more about Sandra Crawshaw-Sparks

In a narrowly drawn, yet significant decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that Google LLC’s (“Google”) copying of some of the Sun Java Application Programming Interface (API) declaring code was a fair use as a matter of law, ending Oracle America Inc.’s (“Oracle”) infringement claims over Google’s use of portions of the Java API code in the Android mobile platform. (Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956, 593 U.S. ___ (Apr. 5, 2021)).  In reversing the 2018 Federal Circuit decision that found Google’s use of the Java API packages was not fair use, the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision (Justice Barrett did not take part in the case) found where Google reimplemented the Java user interface, taking only what was needed to allow outside developers to work in a new and transformative mobile smartphone program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use as a matter of law. This decade-long dispute had been previously dubbed “The World Series of IP cases” by the trial court judge, and like many classic series, this one culminated in a winner-take-all Game 7 at the highest court.

Oracle is one of the most notable Supreme Court decisions affecting the software and technology industry in recent memory since, perhaps, the Court’s 2010 Bilski patent opinion, its 2012 Jones decision on GPS tracking, privacy and the Fourth Amendment and its 2005 Grokster decision on copyright inducement in the peer-to-peer network context, and certainly the most notable decision implicating fair use since its well-cited 1994 Campbell decision that expounded on the nature of “transformative” use. It was no surprise that this case attracted a stack of amicus briefs from various technology companies, organizations, and academia. In the months following oral argument, it was difficult to discern how the Court would decide the case – would it be on procedural grounds based on the Federal Circuit’s standard of review of the jury verdict on fair use, on the issue of the copyrightability of the Java API packages, directly on the fair use issue, or some combination.  The majority decision is a huge victory for the idea that fair use in the software context is not only a legal defense but a beneficial method to foster innovation by developing something transformative in a new environment on top of the functional building blocks that came before. One has to think hard to recall an opinion involving software and technology that referenced and applied the big picture principles of copyright – “to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good,” as the Supreme Court once stated in a prior case – so indelibly into the fair use analysis.

The decision is also notable for the potential impact on copyright’s “transformative use test.” By considering Google’s intent for using the Java API code, the Court’s discussion of what constitutes a “transformative” use appears to diverge somewhat from recent Circuit Court holdings outside the software context.  The decision may redirect the transformative use analysis going forward, or future decisions may cabin the holding to the software context.