US court reinstates copyright suit against Justin Bieber, Usher

RICHMOND, Virginia: An appeals court has reinstated a $10 million lawsuit claiming singers Justin Bieber and Usher copied parts of a song written by two Virginia songwriters.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel said a jury should decide whether the song “Somebody to Love” — performed by the two stars — is intrinsically similar to a song of the same name copyrighted by Devin Copeland and Maerio Overton.
A judge in Norfolk dismissed the complaint last year, saying the two versions differed significantly in tone and lyrical content. The appeals court, which listened to all versions of the song, acknowledged the differences but said the choruses are similar enough that a reasonable jury might find in favor of the songwriters.
Attorneys for Bieber and Usher did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Duncan Byers, Copeland’s and Overton’s attorney, said the judges’ decision was “very significant.”
“I think it’s readily apparent, to anybody that listens to the important parts of the songs, that there are those striking similarities,” Byers said.
The case forced three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit — the youngest in her 50s and the eldest approaching 70 — to conduct a brief survey of music history and an in-depth assessment of the many versions of Bieber’s song, a hit particularly among teenagers and young adults. Their unanimous, 24-page opinion — authored by Pamela Harris and joined by Henry Floyd and James Wynn — began with a simple task: “listening to the songs in their entirety and side by side, to determine whether a reasonable jury could find that they are subjectively similar.”
The judges concluded initially that Bieber’s “Somebody to Love” and a Bieber-Usher remix version were “to our ears identical,” and for purposes of their opinion, could be lumped together with an Usher demo version of the song. Next, they turned to Copeland and Overton’s track. They noted some immediate, “striking” differences.
“Though all fall under the same broad umbrella of popular music, the Copeland song is squarely within the R&B subgenre, while the Bieber and Usher songs would be labeled dance pop, perhaps with hints of electronica,” Harris wrote.
But genre alone, the judges decided, cannot resolve a copyright case. That could have dire consequences. “For if a difference in genre were enough by itself to preclude intrinsic similarity, then nothing would prevent someone from translating, say, the Beatles’ songbook into a different genre, and then profiting from an unlicensed reggae or heavy metal version of ‘Hey Jude’ on the ground that it is different in ‘concept and feel’ than the original,” Harris wrote.
The judge wrote that Bieber’s and the Virginia pair’s songs were different in other ways. The verses, Harris wrote, “feature different vocal melodies and beats as well as different lyrical content,” and Bieber’s song ends more abruptly.