Devin Copeland v. Justin Bieber
789 F.3d 484
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Devin Copeland (aka De Rico) wrote and copyrighted an R&B song titled “Somebody to Love” on his 2008 album My Story II and provided promotional copies to Sangreel, which circulated them to industry figures including Usher.
- Usher posted a demo titled “Somebody to Love”; Justin Bieber later released an album version and a Bieber–Usher remix of a song with the same title in 2010.
- Copeland sued Bieber and Usher for copyright infringement, alleging access via Sangreel and substantial similarity between his chorus and the defendants’ choruses.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity; the district court granted the motion based on intrinsic-similarity analysis focused on differences in mood/tone.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo, treated the intended audience as the general public, listened to all four recordings, and evaluated whether the songs’ choruses (the hooks) were similar enough to permit a jury question.
- The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding a reasonable jury could find intrinsic similarity based on the choruses’ melody, rhythm, and prominence despite genre and verse differences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the intended-audience for intrinsic similarity is the general public or industry professionals | Copeland: intended audience was industry professionals (who received his demo) whose impressions matter for market harm | Bieber/Usher: music is commercial popular music; intended audience is the general public | Court: intended audience is the general public for popular music; industry impressions derive from expected public reaction |
| Whether analytic dissection (filtering unprotectable elements) must precede intrinsic-similarity analysis | Copeland: intrinsic comparison should be confined to original elements after dissection (argues Ninth Circuit approach) | Defendants: Fourth Circuit precedent rejects dissection for intrinsic test; whole-work comparison appropriate | Court: affirmed that analytic dissection is not applied to intrinsic analysis; evaluate total concept and feel |
| Whether intrinsic-similarity questions can be resolved on a motion to dismiss | Copeland: intrinsic similarity is subjective and should be reserved for the jury (relies on Ninth Circuit Shaw rule) | Defendants: district court may decide intrinsic similarity as a matter of law where no reasonable jury could find similarity | Court: did not adopt Shaw wholesale but held that dismissal is permissible in some cases; here dismissal was erroneous because reasonable jury could find similarity |
| Whether the songs are intrinsically substantially similar | Copeland: choruses (lyric, melody, rhythm, hook) are similar and central to each song’s effect | Bieber/Usher: overall mood, genre, verses, and other differences defeat substantial similarity as a matter of law | Court: choruses are prominent, share lyric delivered with similar melody/rhythm, and could lead a reasonable jury to find intrinsic similarity; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (copyright requires originality and protectable elements)
- Universal Furniture Int’l, Inc. v. Collezione Europa USA, Inc., 618 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes extrinsic vs. intrinsic tests; analytic dissection applies to extrinsic only)
- Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir. 1990) (intended-audience formulation for intrinsic-similarity analysis)
- Lyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) (total concept and feel; intended audience can be nonpurchasing ultimate audience)
- Peters v. West, 692 F.3d 629 (substantial-similarity review de novo)
- Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir. 1990) (intrinsic-similarity as jury question — relied on by plaintiff but not adopted here)