Justin Bieber and Usher have successfully defended themselves in court against claims that they stole the hit song “Somebody to Love.” A judge in Virginia dismissed a lawsuit brought by Devin “the Dude” Copeland and Mareio Overton, who alleged copyright infringement over Bieber’s 2010 track, which features Usher.
Copeland and Overton claimed they wrote a song with a similar title in 2008, asserting it contained key elements, most notably the hook “I … need somebody to loooooove!” They argued this catchy phrase, popularized by the Justin Bieber and Usher song, was central to their original work and sought $10 million in damages for the alleged copyright theft.
However, U.S. District Judge Arenda Allen ruled in favor of Bieber and Usher, dismissing the case with prejudice on Friday. This legal victory concludes a contentious battle over the rights to a song that became a pop culture phenomenon.
The plaintiffs argued that they had shared their song “Somebody to Love” with Sangreel Media, a firm purportedly scouting talent for major music labels like Sony and Island. According to Copeland, Sangreel showed interest in promoting his music, including the song in question. They allegedly passed copies of his work to various artists, including Usher. Copeland stated there were subsequent discussions with Usher’s mother, who also managed him at the time, but communication abruptly ceased in 2009.
Following this, Usher wrote and released his own version of “Somebody to Love” online. Justin Bieber later recorded a version featuring Usher, which was included on his successful album My World 2.0. A remix of the track was also released, further solidifying the song’s popularity. This sequence of events led Copeland and Overton to file their lawsuit, claiming copyright infringement and seeking substantial financial compensation.
In her detailed ruling, Judge Allen employed a two-pronged legal analysis to evaluate the copyright infringement claims. The first part of the analysis examined whether the two songs were extrinsically similar – essentially, whether they shared similar ideas. The second, intrinsic test, assessed whether the expression of these ideas was substantially similar, a more subjective evaluation.
A key point of contention in the case was whose subjective opinion should hold greater weight in determining intrinsic similarity. Bieber’s legal team argued that the perception of the general public should be the deciding factor. Conversely, the plaintiffs contended that the opinions of music industry professionals should be prioritized. Judge Allen sided with the defense, stating, “Although the immediate purchasers may be industry professionals, their purchasing decisions are based on the song’s expected appeal to consumers, and any harm caused to plaintiffs by the accuse songs would be caused by the public construing Plaintiffs’ song as similar to the accused songs.”
Turning to the core issue of similarity, Judge Allen delivered a decisive verdict. “Having examined Plaintiffs’ song and the three accused songs, the Court finds that the songs cannot be reasonably construed as being substantially similar,” she wrote. She elaborated, “Although the accused songs have some elements in common with Plaintiffs’ song, their mood, tone, and subject matter differ significantly.”
Judge Allen further clarified her reasoning by referencing a legal standard for copyright infringement. “This is not a case where a listener who had not ‘set out to detect the disparities would be disposed to overlook them, and regard [the songs’] aesthetic appeal as the same.’ Instead, any listener who had not set out to detect the songs’ similarities would be inclined to overlook them, and regard the songs’ aesthetic appeal as different. Therefore, a reasonable juror could not conclude that a member of the public would construe the aesthetic appeal of the songs as being similar.” In essence, the judge found that the differences between the songs were readily apparent and outweighed any superficial similarities.
This ruling marks a significant win for Justin Bieber and Usher, affirming that their popular “Somebody to Love” song did not infringe on the copyright of the plaintiffs’ earlier work. Bieber and Usher were represented by the legal expertise of Howard Weitzman and Jeremiah Reynolds from Kinsella Weitzman, securing their victory in this copyright dispute.
