## Facts

- Devin Copeland (performing as “De Rico”) and Mareio Overton wrote and recorded songs for Copeland’s album *My Story II*, including a song titled “Somebody to Love.”
- Copeland registered copyrights in the *My Story II* songs, including “Somebody to Love,” in 2008.
- In 2009, Copeland provided copies of *My Story II* to Sangreel Media to distribute promotional copies to music-industry figures, including Usher Raymond IV.
- Copeland alleged Usher’s representatives expressed interest in collaboration, but no collaboration occurred.
- Months later, Usher posted a demo titled “Somebody to Love,” and a reworked version became a commercial hit for Justin Bieber; multiple defendants released recordings titled “Somebody to Love.”
- Copeland and Overton sued under the Copyright Act, alleging three defendants’ recordings titled “Somebody to Love” infringed their earlier copyrighted song.

## Issues

1. Whether, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court could conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could find the songs intrinsically similar when assessed by the general public based on their “total concept and feel.”
2. Whether similarity concentrated in a song’s chorus can be sufficiently significant to support intrinsic similarity at the pleading stage.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true and assessing the works as wholes from the general public’s viewpoint, the court concluded a reasonable jury could find intrinsic similarity.
- The court held the choruses were similar enough, and important enough to the songs’ overall effect, that dismissal on the pleadings was improper.
- The court did not decide ultimate infringement and declined to address additional arguments after finding vacatur warranted on intrinsic-similarity grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright infringement requires a valid copyright and copying of protectable original elements; copying is commonly shown by access plus substantial similarity.
- The Fourth Circuit distinguishes extrinsic similarity (objective comparison of protectable expression) from intrinsic similarity (ordinary observer assessment).
- Intrinsic similarity is evaluated from the intended audience’s perspective (here, the general public) and considers the works’ “total concept and feel.”
- At the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, dismissal is proper only when it is clear that no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity after considering the pleadings and the works themselves.
- Similarity in a prominent, perception-driving component of popular music (such as a chorus) can support a plausible claim of intrinsic similarity even if other portions differ.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that alleged similarities in the songs’ choruses, viewed in the context of the songs as wholes and their overall effect on ordinary listeners, were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find intrinsic similarity; therefore, the copyright complaint should not have been dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).


Copeland v. Bieber, 789 F.3d 484 (4th Cir. 2015)