Justin Bieber and his mentor, Usher , were processed by singer Devin Copeland and composer Marcio Overton. The duo accused Bieber and Usher have infringed their copyright with the song “Somebody to Love” , but released a report which had exclusive access to the outcome of the case and in accordance with the decision of a judge, Justin and Usher won the legal dispute, since a jury selected interpreted the song was not a copy of the work of Devin and Marcio, but just like music.
The plaintiffs in the case were Devin “the Dude” Copeland and Marcio Overton , who claimed in a federal court in Virginia who were the authors of a song of similar title in 2008, which shares some of the same key elements, including a stretch ( “I I need someone to love … ” ) would be forever sung by people in the car and in the shower. For alleged plagiarism, the plaintiffs demanded $10 million in damages. But, a judge, Arenda Allen , dismissed as unfounded the claim based on this claim.
Copeland said he had met with members of a company called Media Sangreel presenting talents for record labels like Sony and Island. The Sangreel said they have expressed interest in promoting their songs, including “Somebody to Love” . The Sangreel then allegedly passed the copies to other artists, including Usher. A while later there were new negotiations with the mother and manager of Usher, but by 2009, communications with Copeland ended.
Usher then wrote the controversial song and released on the Internet.Bieber then recorded a version with the help of Usher and included in the album My World 2.0 . Another remix was released later.
Then came the lawsuit.
In the decision, Judge Allen did an analysis of the two parties to resolve the claims. One question was whether the songs were extrinsically similar because they both contain similar ideas. The next question was whether the songs were intrinsically similar – through a subjective test in how these ideas are expressed in the letter.
Then, the intrinsic issue presented a challenge to the judge, to find out which subjective opinions mattered most. According to the defense of Bieber, was the general public. According to the authors, were professional musicians. Of the judge stated, “Although the immediate buyers may be industry professionals, their purchase decisions are based on expected with the song appeal to consumers, and any damage caused to plaintiffs who accused the songs would be caused by the song public and it is up to the authors interpret as similar or not the claimed songs ” .
With that out of the way came from an analysis of the similarity.
“Having examined the song of the authors and the three songs accused, the Court considers that the songs can not be reasonably interpreted as being substantially similar” writes the judge. “Although the songs have accused some elements in common with the song of authors, the style, tone and theme differ significantly. ”
The judge added: “This is not a case in which a listener did not, the intention was to detect the differences and be willing to ignore them as regards [the songs], and aesthetic appeal as a whole instead. any listener who did not intend to spot the similarities between the songs would be inclined to ignore them, and consider that the songs have a different aesthetic appeal. therefore a conscientious juror could not conclude as a member of the public would interpret the aesthetic and appeal that the songs are similar ” .
Bieber and Usher won the case with the help of representatives Howard Weitzman and Jeremiah Reynolds office Kinsella Weitzman.