Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialsummary judgmentcopyrightappellant
copyrightappellant

Related Cases

Charles Evans BMW, Inc. v. Williams, 196 Ga.App. 230, 395 S.E.2d 650, 13 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 128
View Case »
Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 57 USLW 2053, 1988 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,313, 7 U.S.P.Q.2d 1398, 15 Media L. Rep. 1620
View Case »
Fernandi v. Strully, 35 N.J. 434, 173 A.2d 277
View Case »
Masheter v. Boehm, 37 Ohio St.2d 68, 307 N.E.2d 533, 66 O.O.2d 183
View Case »
Herrell v. Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, 491 So.2d 1173, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1461
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1996 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,531, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9055, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1026, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4023, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6511

Facts

Appellants Robert Smith and Reynaud Jones, owners of song copyrights, alleged that musicians Michael Jackson, Rod Temperton, and Lionel Richie infringed on their copyrights by misappropriating musical motives from their songs. They registered copyrights for each song and claimed that the musicians' works, including 'We Are The World' and 'Thriller,' contained similarities to their own compositions. The district court dismissed the RICO claims, concluding they were based on copyright infringement, which is not a RICO predicate act, and granted summary judgment on most infringement claims, allowing only three to go to trial.

Appellants Robert Smith and Reynaud Jones, owners of song copyrights, alleged that musicians Michael Jackson, Rod Temperton, and Lionel Richie infringed on their copyrights by misappropriating musical motives from their songs.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the owners could maintain RICO claims based on copyright infringement and whether the musicians' works were substantially similar to the owners' copyrighted songs.

The main legal issues were whether the owners could maintain RICO claims based on copyright infringement and whether the musicians' works were substantially similar to the owners' copyrighted songs.

Rule

The court applied the principle that copyright infringement is not a predicate act under RICO, and that the presumption of originality from a copyright registration does not apply to the issue of copying.

The court applied the principle that copyright infringement is not a predicate act under RICO, and that the presumption of originality from a copyright registration does not apply to the issue of copying.

Analysis

The court found that the owners' RICO claims were essentially reformulated copyright infringement claims, as they were based on the same unauthorized use of copyrighted works. The court also determined that the presumption of originality did not apply to the scenes a faire analysis, and that the musicians did not need to show access to the scenes a faire. The jury's determination of no substantial similarity was upheld, as the court found that the evidence did not support the owners' claims.

The court found that the owners' RICO claims were essentially reformulated copyright infringement claims, as they were based on the same unauthorized use of copyrighted works.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decisions, concluding that the owners could not maintain their RICO claims and that the jury's finding of no substantial similarity was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed the district court's decisions, concluding that the owners could not maintain their RICO claims and that the jury's finding of no substantial similarity was supported by the evidence.

Who won?

The musicians prevailed in the case because the court found that the owners' claims were not substantiated by the evidence, particularly regarding the lack of substantial similarity between the works.

The musicians prevailed in the case because the court found that the owners' claims were not substantiated by the evidence, particularly regarding the lack of substantial similarity between the works.

You must be