Copeland v. Bieber
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
789 F.3d 484 (2015)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Devin Copeland (plaintiff), a rhythm-and-blues (R & B) artist who performed as De Rico, wrote and copyrighted several songs for a planned album, including a track called “Somebody to Love.” Copeland then entered a professional relationship with Sangreel Media, a company that connected artists with major record labels. Copeland gave Sangreel Media copies of his songs so that Sangreel Media could give them to clients for promotional purposes. Usher Raymond IV (defendant), a popular R & B artist better known as simply Usher, was presented with promotional copies of Copeland’s music. Usher’s manager contacted Copeland to discuss plans for a collaboration, but these plans never materialized. A few months later, Usher posted a demo version of a song called “Somebody to Love” on his YouTube channel. The same song became a hit for Usher’s protégé, Justin Bieber (defendant). Copeland brought a copyright-infringement action against Usher, Bieber, and other associated parties, alleging that the popular Usher-Bieber “Somebody to Love” infringed his earlier song of the same name. Bieber and Usher moved to dismiss the action, and the motion was granted. Copeland appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
