`United States Court of Appeals
`For the Seventh Circuit
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`VINCENT PETERS,
`professionally known as VINCE P,
`
`KANYE WEST, et al.,
`
`Plaintiff-Appellant,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
`No. 10 C 3951—Virginia M. Kendall, Judge.
`
`
`ARGUED MARCH 26, 2012—DECIDED AUGUST 20, 2012
`
`Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and BAUER and WOOD,
`Circuit Judges.
`WOOD, Circuit Judge. In 2006, Vincent Peters, whose
`stage name is Vince P, wrote, recorded, and distributed
`a song entitled Stronger. The song’s title comes from a
`key line in its “hook” (refrain or chorus). The line in turn
`draws from an aphorism coined by Friedrich Nietzsche:
`“what does not kill me, makes me stronger.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`Vince P believes that he had an opportunity to “make
`it” in the hip-hop recording industry—he needed only to
`find an executive producer. His search led him to John
`Monopoly, a business manager and close friend of
`Kanye West, one of hip-hop’s superstars. Vince P sent
`Monopoly a disc containing a recording of Stronger, and
`even secured a meeting with Monopoly, during which
`Vince P played his recording of Stronger for Monopoly.
`Monopoly was apparently impressed and agreed to be
`Vince P’s producer, so long as Vince P was funded by a
`record label. That funding never materialized, unfortu-
`nately, and so the proposed collaboration foundered.
`Shortly thereafter, Kanye West released a song entitled
`Stronger. West’s song also features a hook that repeats
`the Nietzschean maxim. Worse, according to Vince P,
`West’s song contains several other suspicious similarities
`to his song. Vince P tried to contact West, but he was
`turned away by West’s representatives. In response,
`Vince P registered his copyright in his version of
`Stronger with the U.S. Copyright Office and filed suit
`against West. The district court dismissed the com-
`plaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`be granted. We agree with the district court that the
`two songs are not similar enough
`to support a
`finding that copyright infringement has occurred, and
`we thus affirm.
`
`I
`Vince P describes himself in the complaint as an
`up-and-coming hip-hop artist and songwriter. In 2006,
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`3
`
`as he was beginning his career in music, he wrote and
`recorded a song entitled Stronger, which is about the
`competitive—indeed cutthroat—nature of the hip-hop
`and rap world. For clarity, we refer to this as Stronger
`(VP). Vince P’s music apparently captured the attention
`of someone at Interscope Records; that person told
`him that the company would devote “substantial re-
`sources” to producing Vince P’s inaugural album, but
`only if he could procure the services of a good executive
`producer.
`His search led him to John Monopoly, a well-known
`producer and—importantly for our purposes—a close
`friend and business manager to Kanye West. Vince P
`sent several of his songs to Monopoly, who liked what
`he heard enough to schedule a meeting. On November 12,
`2006, Vince P and Monopoly met at the latter’s home
`in Chicago, where Vince P played several of his re-
`cordings, including Stronger (VP). At the conclusion of
`their meeting, Vince P left a CD of some of his songs—
`including Stronger (VP)—with Monopoly. Eventually,
`Monopoly agreed to be Vince P’s executive producer,
`so long as Interscope Records was willing to fund the
`recording project. That funding, however, fell through,
`and so the project stalled.
`In July 2007, less than a year after the November 2006
`meeting between Vince P and Monopoly, West released
`his own single titled Stronger. (We call this Stronger (KW).)
`It was a huge hit. The song earned the #1 spot in
`several Billboard charts, the single sold over three
`million copies, and it eventually earned West a Grammy
`
`
`
`4
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`for Best Rap Solo Performance. Vince P, however, was
`not among its fans. He noticed what he thought were
`several infringing similarities between his 2006 song
`and West’s more recent release. Vince P also saw that
`Monopoly was listed as a manager on the notes to
`West’s album GRADUATION, on which Stronger (KW)
`appears. Vince P attempted to contact West, but he
`was
`rebuffed by West’s
`representatives, and so
`he
`turned
`to
`the
`federal courts. After
`formally
`registering his copyright in Stronger (VP) with the U.S.
`Copyright Office, see 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), Reed-Elsevier
`v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237, 1241 (2010) (copyright reg-
`istration, while not jurisdictional, is a substantive re-
`quirement of infringement litigation), Vince P sued West
`in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`Illinois. That court dismissed Vince P’s complaint under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and he
`now appeals.
`
`II
`We review the district court’s order granting West’s
`motion to dismiss de novo. Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577
`F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir. 2009). We “construe the complaint
`in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” and we there-
`fore draw all plausible inferences in Vince P’s favor.
`Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
`As a practical matter for the present case, this means
`that we assume as true all of Vince P’s allegations re-
`garding Monopoly’s early access to Vince P’s song and
`his claims about the close relationship between Monopoly
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`5
`
`and Kanye West. We review de novo the district court’s
`determinations regarding the similarity between the
`two songs as well as its ultimate conclusion of nonin-
`fringement. Intervest Constr. Inc. v. Canterbury Estate
`Homes, Inc., 554 F.3d 914, 919-20 (11th Cir. 2008).
`Vince P’s complaint contains only one claim: his allega-
`tion that Stronger (KW) infringes his valid copyright in
`Stronger (VP). Proving
`infringement of a copyright
`owner’s exclusive right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (the
`reproduction right) requires proof of “(1) ownership of a
`valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements
`of the work that are original.” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural
`Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991); JCW Invs., Inc. v.
`Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007).
`
`A
`Copyright “registration made before or within five
`years after the first publication of the work shall con-
`stitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copy-
`right.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Vince P applied for copyright
`registration in Stronger (VP) on March 28, 2010, which
`is well within the statutory five-year window be-
`ginning in 2006. West appropriately does not challenge
`Vince P’s copyright registration, nor does he otherwise
`question the validity of Vince P’s copyright ownership
`in Stronger (VP). Vince P has thus made a prima facie
`showing of his ownership in the whole of the lyrics to
`his song.
`Nevertheless, whether the parts of that song that West
`allegedly copied are, on their own, entitled to copyright
`
`
`
`6
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`protection is a separate question. If the copied parts are
`not, on their own, protectable expression, then there can
`be no claim for infringement of the reproduction right.
`See Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp.,
`602 F.3d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 2010).
`
`B
`Satisfied that Vince P has shown valid copyright owner-
`ship, we turn our attention to the question of copying.
`The standard for copying is surprisingly muddled.
`Where direct evidence, such as an admission of copying,
`is not available (as is typically the case, see JCW, 482 F.3d
`at 915), a plaintiff may prove copying by showing that
`the defendant had the opportunity to copy the original
`(often called “access”) and that the two works are “sub-
`stantially similar,” thus permitting an inference that the
`defendant actually did copy the original. The various
`efforts to define these two key concepts, however, have
`unfortunately had the unintended effect of obscuring
`rather than clarifying the issues. This court has said
`that substantial similarity can be shown by evidence of
`“actual copying” and “improper appropriation.” Incredible
`Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1007, 1011
`(7th Cir. 2005). Thus, we permit copying to be proven by
`evidence of access, actual copying, and improper appro-
`priation. Vince P argues that we should adopt a hybrid
`of our own approach and the one that he argues prevails
`in the Second Circuit. That court, he contends, permits
`actual copying to be proven by “access” and “probative
`similarity” (which is distinct from substantial similarity).
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`7
`
`Appellant’s Br. at 26 (citing Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc.,
`964 F.2d 131, 140 (2d Cir. 1992)). Putting these tests to-
`gether, he seems to want us to require proof of access,
`improper appropriation, and actual copying by means
`of showing probative similarity and access (again).
`Other circuits have also had trouble expressing the
`test with any clarity. The First Circuit, for example,
`finds copying where the plaintiff has shown substantial
`similarity, access, and probative similarity. T-Peg, Inc. v.
`Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 111-12 (1st Cir.
`2006). The formulation found in the Second Circuit re-
`quires proof of improper appropriation and actual
`copying; the latter is shown by proving access and proba-
`tive similarity. Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351 F.3d 46,
`51 (2d Cir. 2003); Laureyssens, 964 F.2d at 140. The
`Eleventh Circuit
`takes still a different approach,
`requiring either “striking similarity” or access and merely
`probative similarity. Peter Letterese & Assocs. v. World
`Institute of Scientology Enterprises, 533 F.3d 1287, 1300-01
`(11th Cir. 2008); see also La Resolana Architects, PA v.
`Reno, Inc., 555 F.3d 1171, 1178-79 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying
`same test). See also Universal Furniture Int’l, Inc. v.
`Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417, 435 (4th Cir. 2010)
`(access, intrinsic similarity, and extrinsic similarity); Frye
`v. YMCA Camp Kitaki, 617 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2010)
`(same); Armour v. Knowles, 512 F.3d 147, 152 (5th Cir.
`2007) (factual copying and substantial similarity, where
`factual copying is shown either by striking similarity, or
`access and probative similarity); Bridgeport Music, Inc. v.
`UMG Recordings, Inc., 585 F.3d 267, 274 (6th Cir. 2009)
`(access and substantial similarity, or “a high degree of
`
`
`
`8
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`similarity”); Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d 199,
`207-08 (3d Cir. 2005) (access, copying, and improper
`appropriation).
`Despite all of this confusing nomenclature, this strikes
`us as a “pseudo-conflict”: despite the conflicting and
`confusing verbiage, the outcomes do not appear to
`differ. Jendusa-Nicolai v. Larsen, 677 F.3d 320, 322-23
`(7th Cir. 2012); see also Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v.
`Anodyne Therapy, LLC, 626 F.3d 958, 960-62 (7th Cir. 2010)
`(describing a pseudo-conflict in trademark law). Funda-
`mentally, proving the basic tort of infringement simply
`requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant had an
`actual opportunity to copy the original (this is because
`independent creation is a defense to copyright infringe-
`ment), and that the two works share enough unique
`features to give rise to a breach of the duty not
`to copy another’s work. Our analysis will follow this
`structure.
`
`i
`We begin with the question of opportunity. We
`already know (for purposes of this Rule 12(b)(6) inquiry)
`that Monopoly had access to Vince P’s song and that
`Monopoly has a close relationship with West. These
`allegations are more
`than enough
`to support an
`inference that West had an opportunity to copy Stronger
`(VP). Not only did Monopoly actually hear Vince P’s
`song: he also twice received copies of it, once before
`their November 2006 meeting and again on a CD during
`that meeting. Furthermore, Monopoly is credited with
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`9
`
`acting as West’s manager on the GRADUATION album.
`This evidence of close collaboration between West and
`Monopoly suggests that Monopoly may have passed
`Vince P’s song on to West during the production of the
`album, and that West could have used that song in
`crafting his own hit single. Viewed together, these al-
`legations, taken as true, suggest that Monopoly and
`West had ample access to Stronger (VP), and that this
`access gave West an opportunity to copy the song.
`
`ii
`But even assuming that West had the opportunity to
`copy the lyrics to Stronger (VP), the question remains
`whether the complaint plausibly alleges that he actually
`did so. Before we can answer this question, we must
`confront the differences among the circuits about the
`relation between proof of access and evidence of similar-
`ity. Some circuits follow an “inverse ratio” rule, under
`which the strength of proof of similarity varies inversely
`with the proof of access (i.e., strong proof of access allows
`for only weak proof of similarity, and vice versa). Three
`Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 485 (9th Cir. 2000);
`see also Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc., 607 F.3d 620
`(9th Cir. 2010); Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d
`283, 293 (6th Cir. 2004); Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony
`California, Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(applying Ninth Circuit
`law). Other courts have
`rejected the inverse-ratio rule. After following that rule
`for several decades,
`the Second Circuit expressly
`rejected it in 1961, concluding that the rule “confuses
`
`
`
`10
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`more than it clarifies.” Arc Music Corp. v. Lee, 296 F.2d
`186 (2d Cir. 1961).
`This court’s rule has not been so explicit, although
`we have occasionally endorsed something that comes
`close to this inverse approach. In Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d
`896, 903 n.4 (7th Cir. 1984), we held that “degree of sim-
`ilarity required to establish an inference of access
`[should be] in an inverse ratio to the quantum of direct
`evidence adduced to establish access.” More recently, we
`noted that “similarity that is so close as to be highly
`unlikely to have been an accident of independent
`creation is evidence of access.” Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories,
`Inc., 132 F.3d 1167, 1170 (7th Cir. 1997) (emphasis in
`original); but see id. (noting that such similarity cannot
`be evidence of access when both are copies of something
`in the public domain). See also Alex Kozinski, How I
`Narrowly Escaped Insanity, 48 UCLA L. REV. 1293, 1302
`(2001) (describing personal experience of very close
`similarity between a popular movie and a novel he
`was writing, but then noting that the movie producers
`could not have seen his uncompleted manuscript). Thus,
`in both Selle and GMA Accessories, we noted that evidence
`that two works are very similar can suggest that the
`alleged infringer had access to the original.
`Notably, however, we have never endorsed the other
`side of the inverse relation: the idea that a “high degree
`of access” justifies a “lower standard of proof” for sim-
`ilarity. Three Boys Music, 212 F.3d at 485. As we ex-
`plained above, evidence of access is required because
`independent creation is a defense to copyright infringe-
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`11
`
`ment, and so a plaintiff must show that the defendant
`had an opportunity to copy her original work. This issue
`is independent of the question whether an alleged
`infringer breached his duty not to copy another’s work.
`See GMA Accessories, 132 F.3d at 1170. Once a plaintiff
`establishes that a defendant could have copied her
`work, she must separately prove—regardless of how
`the opportunity was—that
`good or restricted
`the
`allegedly infringing work is indeed a copy of her origi-
`nal. In this case, Vince P has adequately pleaded
`that West had an opportunity to copy his song, but that
`does not help him prove similarity. Vince P must show
`that West actually copied his song by pointing to sim-
`ilarities between the two works. We are not persuaded
`that the similarities alleged by Vince P rise to the level
`of copyright infringement.
`For the benefit of readers interested in coming to
`their own conclusions about these two songs, we have
`included the full lyrics to each one in the Appendix to
`this opinion. For present purposes, however, we give
`the two “hooks,” which provide the backdrop to the
`discussion that follows:
`
`Stronger (VP) [Hook]
`What don’t kill me make me stronger
`The more I blow up the more you wronger
`You copied my CD you can feel my hunger
`The wait is over couldn’t wait no longer
`
`
`
`12
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`Stronger (KW) [Hook]
`N-N-N-now th-th-that don’t kill me
`Can only make me stronger
`I need you to hurry up now
`Cause I can’t wait much longer
`I know I got to be right now
`Cause I can’t get much wronger
`Man I’ve been waitin’ all night now
`That’s how long I’ve been on ya.
`Three features in particular of Stronger (KW) form
`the basis of Vince P’s argument that West’s song
`infringes his. First, he notes that the hooks of both songs
`derive from the same common maxim and that they
`implement similar rhyme schemes (stronger, wronger,
`etc.). Second, he points to the songs’ shared title, which
`again derives from Nietzsche. Finally, he notes that both
`songs contain “incongruous” references to the British
`model Kate Moss, who is not usually featured in rap
`or hip-hop lyrics.
`Nietzsche’s phrase “what does not kill me, makes me
`stronger” comes from TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS (1888).
`Although the fact that both songs quote from a 19th
`century German philosopher might, at first blush, seem
`to be an unusual coincidence, West correctly notes that
`the aphorism has been repeatedly invoked in song lyrics
`over the past century. Notably, an even more recent
`popular song—one that held the top spot
`in the
`Billboard Hot 100 chart at about the same time as oral
`argument in this case—also shares this key feature
`with both West’s and Vince P’s songs. See Gary Trust,
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`13
`
`Kelly Clarkson Returns to Hot 100 Peak, The Wanted Hit
`Top 10, BILLBOARD, available at http://www.billboard.com/
`#/news/kelly-clarkson-returns-to-hot-100-peak-the-10063
`16152.story (last visited July 13, 2012) (discussing Stronger
`(What Doesn’t Kill You), performed by Kelly Clarkson).
`The ubiquity of this common saying, together with its
`repeated use in other songs, suggests that West’s title
`and lyric do not infringe on Vince P’s song. Acuff-Rose
`Music, Inc. v. Jostens, Inc., 155 F.3d 140, 144 (2d Cir. 1998);
`Selle, 741 F.2d at 901.
`Next, Vince P claims that West’s song infringes on the
`rhyme pattern he uses in the hook. But this argument
`misapprehends the nature of Vince P’s rights. Copyright
`protects actual expression, not methods of expression. 17
`U.S.C. § 102(b); Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 104 (1879). Just
`as a photographer cannot claim copyright in the use of
`a particular aperture and exposure setting on a given
`lens, no poet can claim copyright protection in the
`form of a sonnet or a limerick. Similarly, Vince P cannot
`claim copyright over a tercet. See Steele v. Turner Broad.
`Sys. Inc., 646 F. Supp. 2d 185, 192 (D. Mass. 2009) (“A
`common rhyme scheme or structure does not qualify as
`original expression protectable under federal copyright
`law.”). (We note for the sake of precision that, although
`Vince P seems to be claiming protection over a “triple
`rhyme,” a closer examination of his lyrics reveals that he
`actually uses a soft quadruple monorhyme (stronger,
`wronger, hunger, longer). West, by contrast, uses two soft
`four-line schemes (stronger and longer, and wronger and
`“on ya.”).) Nor are we persuaded that the particular
`rhymes of stronger, longer, and wronger qualify for
`
`
`
`14
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`copyright protection. See Prunte v. Universal Music Grp.,
`699 F. Supp. 2d. 15, 29 (D.D.C. 2010) (no protection for
`rhyming “-ill” sound).
`We turn then to the songs’ references to Kate Moss,
`a well-known supermodel. In Vince P’s song, the line is
`“Trying to get a model chick like Kate Moss”; in West’s
`it is “You could be my black Kate Moss tonight.” Vince P
`argues that his lyrical reference to Kate Moss “as a
`paragon of female beauty” is so unique as to “undermine[]
`the possibility of coincidental similarity.” We cannot go
`that far. In the first place, the lines are entirely different.
`In the second, analogizing to models as a shorthand
`for beauty is, for better or for worse, commonplace in
`our society. The particular selection of Kate Moss, who
`is very famous in her own right, adds little to the
`creative choice. And finally, the name alone cannot con-
`stitute protectable expression. Feist, 499 U.S. at 347;
`Schroeder v. William Morrow & Co., 566 F.2d 3, 5 (7th
`Cir. 1977).
`Even viewing all of these elements in combination, we
`conclude that Vince P has not plausibly alleged that
`Stronger (KW) infringes on Stronger (VP). Vince P’s theory
`is that the combination of the songs’ similar hooks, their
`shared title, and their references to Kate Moss would
`permit a finding of infringement. But, as we have dis-
`cussed, in the end we see only two songs that rhyme
`similar words, draw from a commonplace maxim, and
`analogize feminine beauty to a specific successful model.
`These songs are separated by much more than “small
`cosmetic differences,” JCW, 482 F.3d at 916; rather, they
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`15
`
`share only small cosmetic similarities. This means that
`Vince P’s claim for copyright infringement fails as
`a matter of law. The judgment of the district court
`is AFFIRMED.
`
`
`
`16
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`APPENDIX
`
`Stronger
`Vince P
`
`Chorus (2x)
`What don’t kill me make me stronger
`The more I blow up the more you wronger
`You copped my CD you can feel my hunger
`The wait is over couldn’t wait no longer
`
`Verse 1:
`I came from the bottom of the bottom
`To make it to the bottom
`Snuck in the back door now I got
`A&R’s back then should have signed
`Said I wasn’t gangsta said I couldn’t rhyme
`Vince P why don’t you stick to making beats
`You know what how bout I rap on my beats
`Make my own tracks stack my own stacks
`I’m hot you a loser and that’s a fact
`I’m bout to take you back when emcees was real
`Didn’t care where you from or if you had a deal
`Fist fights no guns no body packing steel
`Family reunions food on the grill
`This ain’t my barbeque but can I get a plate
`I’m still real hungry and I just ate
`This ain’t my barbeque but can I get a plate
`I’m still real hungry and I just ate
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`17
`
`Chorus (2x) [as before]
`
`Verse 2:
`I ain’t from Europe but I wear Lacoste
`And every day I hustle like Rick Ross
`Trying to get a model chick like Kate Moss
`Then trade her to another team like Randy Moss
`I’m the chosen one cause I got the force
`And I’m the unsigned hype but I’m not in the source
`All these dudes in Chicago tried to diss me
`Cause on the low they girls they kiss me
`And when I’m on the road you know they miss me
`Check out my MySpace check the Bentley
`I’m moving on up like George and Weezy
`And money on my mind like Little Weezy
`I’m the brand new kick pusher music distributor
`And make crazy rhymes like I’m related to Luda
`You can find me at the Croc Lounge
`Or at the Funky Buddha
`Catch a plane from O’Hare straight to Burmuda
`Check my lex diamonds call me Lex Luther
`Don’t like guns but my beats are ruggas
`Can’t you feel how these horns going right
` through you
`Can’t you feel how these horns going right
` through you
`I’m Vince P and I’m going to the top
`And I won’t stop till I get to the top
`
`
`
`18
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`You know my rhymes is hot and you know
` my beats is hot
`You know Vince P is going going to the top
`
`Chorus (2x) [as before]
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`19
`
`Stronger
`
`Kanye West
`
`Chorus:
`N-N-N-now th-th-that don’t kill me
`Can only make me stronger
`I need you to hurry up now
`Cause I can’t wait much longer
`I know I got to be right now
`Cause I can’t get much wronger
`Man, I’ve been waitin’ all night now
`That’s how long I’ve been on ya
`
`Verse 1:
`I need you right now
`I need you right now
`Let’s get lost tonight
`You could be my black Kate Moss tonight
`Play secretary I’m the boss tonight
`And you don’t give a f*** what they all say right?
`Awesome, the Christian in Christian Dior
`Damn they don’t make ‘em like this anymore
`I ask, cause I’m not sure
`Do anybody make real sh*t anymore?
`Bow in the presence of greatness
`Cause right now thou has forsaken us
`You should be honored by my lateness
`That I would even show up to this fake sh*t
`So go ahead go nuts go ape sh*t
`Especially in my Pastelle or my Bape sh*t
`
`
`
`20
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`Act like you can’t tell who make this
`New gospel homey take six, and take this, haters
`
`Chorus [as before]
`
`Verse 2:
`I need you right now
`I need you right now
`me likey
`I don’t know if you got a man or not,
`If you made plans or not
`If God put me in your plans or not
`I’m trippin’ this drink got me sayin’ a lot
`But I know that God put you in front of me
`So how the h*ll could you front on me
`There’s a thousand you’s there’s only one of me
`I’m trippin’, I’m caught up in the moment right?
`This is Louis Vuitton Don night
`So we gon’ do everything that Kan like
`Heard they’d do anything for a Klondike
`Well I’d do anything for a blonde d*ke
`And she’ll do anything for the limelight
`And we’ll do anything when the time’s right
`ugh, baby you’re makin’ it (harder, better,
` faster, stronger)
`
`Chorus [as before]
`
`Verse 3:
`I need you right now
`I need you right now
`
`
`
`No. 11-1708
`
`21
`
`You know how long I’ve been on ya?
`Since Prince was on Apollonia
`Since O.J. had Isotoners
`Don’t act like I never told ya (x6)
`Baby you’re making it (harder, better,
` faster, stronger)
`
`Chorus [as before]
`
`8-20-12