## Facts

- Three Boys Music Corporation owned the copyright to the Isley Brothers’ song “Love Is a Wonderful Thing,” written and registered in 1964 and released as a single in 1966.
- The Isley song received limited commercial success but some radio and television exposure, including in Connecticut, where Michael Bolton and Andrew Goldmark lived when they were teenagers.
- In 1990, Bolton and Goldmark co-wrote a song also titled “Love Is a Wonderful Thing,” released in 1991 and achieving significant commercial success.
- Three Boys sued Bolton, Goldmark, and related music publishing and recording entities in the Central District of California for copyright infringement.
- A jury found infringement and awarded approximately $5.4 million in damages and profits; the district court denied post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
- Defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on access and substantial similarity, federal jurisdiction based on the registration deposit copy, the profits attribution and deductions (including Sony’s claimed tax/NOL offsets), and denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Bolton and Goldmark had access to the Isley song.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of substantial similarity between protectable elements of the works, permitting an inference of copying absent direct proof.
3. Whether the court had subject-matter jurisdiction in light of defendants’ claim that the copyright registration lacked a “complete copy” deposit.
4. Whether the evidence supported the jury’s attribution of profits to the infringing elements of the accused song.
5. Whether Sony Music could reduce profits by deducting tax-related items, including a Net Operating Loss (NOL) carryforward.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in full.
- The jury’s access finding was supported by circumstantial evidence, including defendants’ exposure to the relevant music and evidence suggesting possible copying while writing the accused song.
- The jury’s substantial similarity finding was supported by evidence of similarities in protectable musical elements; the jury was entitled to credit plaintiffs’ experts and reject defendants’ independent-creation account.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction was proper because the jury could reasonably find that a complete copy had been deposited with the Copyright Office, supporting a valid registration.
- The jury’s attribution of profits to infringement was supported by the evidence.
- Sony Music was not entitled to deduct its NOL carryforward (or related tax-based offsets as presented) from profits attributable to infringement.
- Denial of a new trial was not an abuse of discretion because the proffered evidence was not shown to warrant a different result.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright infringement requires proof of (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of protected expression; absent direct proof, copying may be inferred from access plus substantial similarity.
- Access may be proven by circumstantial evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer that the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to encounter the work.
- Substantial similarity in musical works turns on similarity in protectable elements (evaluated through extrinsic and intrinsic analyses), and appellate review of a jury verdict asks whether substantial evidence supports the verdict; credibility and weight of expert testimony are for the jury.
- A valid copyright registration supporting federal jurisdiction may be sustained where the factfinder reasonably concludes the deposit-copy requirement was satisfied.
- In awarding infringer’s profits, the factfinder may attribute profits to infringement based on the record; corporate tax attributes such as an NOL carryforward are not automatically deductible as “costs” to reduce profits attributable to infringement.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld a jury verdict finding that Bolton and Goldmark infringed the Isley Brothers’ copyrighted song, concluding that the record supported access and substantial similarity, that registration and jurisdiction were adequately established, that the profits award (without the claimed NOL/tax offsets) was supported by the evidence, and that the district court acted within its discretion in denying a new trial.


Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000)