Expert witness
Forensic musicology for copyright litigation. Independent analysis of the musical evidence, explained clearly to attorneys, judges, and juries.
Dr Bennett serves as an expert witness in music copyright cases in the United States and United Kingdom. He works with attorneys from early case assessment and complaint analysis through expert reports, rebuttal reports, depositions, and trial testimony.
Areas of expertise include musical similarity, copying and derivation, protectable and unprotectable elements, Prior Art, authorship, sampling, and sound recording comparison. Case materials may include pleadings, opposing expert reports, discovery, audio files, session materials, and transcriptions, with the aim of identifying the musicological issues most relevant to the dispute. Dr Bennett has a comprehensive understanding of expert disclosure requirements, rules of evidence, deposition practice, and attorney workflows, and also develops exhibits and demonstratives including annotated scores, audio comparisons, waveform and spectral analyses, charts, and video presentations.
All work is independent and evidence-led, providing clear, technically rigorous musicological analysis for counsel, judges, and juries.
Dr Bennett also contributes to Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs on music copyright and forensic musicology, presenting to attorneys and industry counsel on substantial similarity, expert musicological evidence, and developments in music copyright litigation. Recent presentations include Loeb & Loeb’s IP/Entertainment CLE conferences, the Copyright Society, and the American Musicological Society Continuing Legal Education Seminar. He is listed with Expert Institute as a forensic musicology and song similarity expert witness.
In the United States, his expert work is prepared in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, and the reliability and admissibility principles established under Daubert and its progeny. In England and Wales, it complies with CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35. He has extensive knowledge of US and UK case law relating to music copyright infringement.
Recent cases
Artist Revenue Advocates, LLC v. Kanye Omari West
Expert musicologist for Plaintiffs in this copyright action concerning Ye’s “Hurricane” and “Moon” and the asserted work “MSD PT2.” The analysis addressed multiple versions of the songs, alleged sampling, and audio sample-detection testing. Dr Bennett was deposed and gave expert testimony at trial, including preparing video and audio exhibits for the jury. The court discussed his conclusions in a 2026 ruling.
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2024–2026 • docket
Browne v. Donalds (“Fish Market”)
Defense expert musicologist in the consolidated “Fish Market” litigation concerning the musical foundations of rhythmic patterns in reggaeton and related genres. The work included analysis of the asserted musical elements and plaintiffs’ transcriptions, an affirmative expert report, rebuttal analysis of opposing experts, and Prior Art research.
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2021–2026 • docket
Hernandez v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
Defense expert musicologist in copyright litigation concerning Karol G’s “Gatúbela” and the asserted earlier work “Punto G.” Dr Bennett’s analysis addressed melodic similarity, reggaeton genre conventions, Prior Art and filtration of commonplace musical elements, together with quantitative apportionment of the allegedly shared material. His declaration and expert report were filed with the court in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2025–2026 • docket
Hines v. EMI Music, Inc
Expert musicologist for Plaintiff in copyright litigation concerning Jay-Z’s “Paper Chase,” Timbaland’s “Toe 2 Toe,” and Ernie Hines’ “Help Me Put Out The Flame (In My Heart).” Dr Bennett’s report analyzed the melodic and rhythmic content of the disputed three-bar guitar riff, comparative similarity in the later works, and relevant Prior Art. The report was attached to the complaint and expressly discussed by the court in its 2021 opinion denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Video testimony relating to sample detection was submitted to the court.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2020–2024 • docket
