The Isley Brothers’ Case Study.

The Isley Brothers’ Case Study.

Issue.

The issue, in this case, is the infringement of the copyrights of the Isley Brothers by Michael Bolton and Andrew Goldmark. Michael’s ‘Love is a wonderful thing’ had infringed on the Isley Brothers’ copyrights for a song with the same name. It was found that there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellants could access the song by the Isley Brothers. It was also found that the two songs were too similar. Since the Brothers had already registered a complete copy of that song, there was subject matter jurisdiction in the case. Sufficient evidence also pointed to the fact that profits made by Michael could be attributed to infringement of the Brothers’ song. For instance, 66 percent profit gotten from the commercial use of Michael’s song could be attributed to the copyright infringement.

Rule.

According to copyright rules, it was ruled that Michael was guilty of copyright infringement as there was a lot of concrete evidence to support the same. For a case of copyright infringement to hold, the plaintiff must provide proof of ownership of copyrights and infringement by the defendant, that is, prove that the defendant had directly or otherwise copied some work of the plaintiff that was already copyright protected (Chen, 79). The Brothers provided this proof, and that is why the court ruled that they should be paid for damages by Bolton, Sony, and Goldmark.

Application.

The relevant rules of copyright infringement could be applied in this case as follows. First of all, it was proved that Bolton had access to the song of the Brothers, proof of access demands that the defendant should be in a position to copy or view the plaintiff’s work (Hampel, 421). In the view of Jaeger (91), it could be described as having a reasonable opportunity or possibility of viewing the copyright-protected work of the plaintiff. In this case, there was evidence that Bolton had access to the song, ‘Love is a wonderful thing’ by the Brothers. The Brothers presented evidence showing that Bolton and Goldmark had grown up listening to and singing songs sung by groups such as theirs. Bolton agreed to this by testifying that he had grown up listening to songs by black singers and that he was also a lead singer for a band that used to perform covers for such songs.

In addition to proof of access to their song, the Brothers also proved that there was substantial similarity between their song and that sung by Bolton. Under the rule of law, substantial similarity is directly linked to access (Jaeger, 109). The higher the proof of access, the higher the substantial similarity is bound to be found. In this case, since the Brothers had proved that Bolton and Goldmark had access to their song, then there was proof of substantial similarity in the two songs. It was found that the two songs shared about five elements. These are; the title phrase, shifted Cadence, instrumental figures, the verse and chorus relationship, and the face end.

Furthermore, the Brothers proved that there was the attribution of profits from Bolton’s and Goldmark’s song to the Isley Brothers’ song. In this case, the plaintiff is required to provide evidence of profits that are attributed to the infringement of the copyrights (Savage, 112). They are then allowed to recover these profits arising from the infringement.  Having been proven that about 66 percent of the profits from the commercial use of Bolton’s song could be attributed to infringement, it was only fair for the Brothers to be paid for damages.

Conclusion.

Since the Isley Brothers succeeded in proving that was a case of copyright infringement by Bolton, Goldmark, and Sony productions, they, therefore, had all the rights to win this case. This is because they provided evidence that Bolton had access to their song and that there was substantial similarity between the two songs. They also proved that there was the attribution of profit from Bolton’s song to theirs. Although Bolton denied ever having heard the Brothers’ song, which had been recorded about twenty-five years before his, the court found out that his undertaking could have been unconscious. However, this did not stop the court from imposing the liability arising from the disputed works despite the difference in years of production. There were arguments that Bolton had tried to buy the remaining catalog of the Isley Brothers from one of them, Robert, but the deal was not a success. Therefore, the dispute between the two parties was viable. Therefore, with all the evidence pointing that the defendants (Bolton, Goldmark, and Sony productions) were guilty of copyright infringement, the plaintiff (the Isley Brothers) should win the case and get the necessary damages paid to them by the defendants. Alternative outcomes arising from ambiguities in the relevant facts and rules, in this case, could be that the case would be nullified. However, this could not happen since the evidence pointing to copyright infringement was weighty than the accusations raised by the defendants. It can then be said that the case was justly ruled.

Works cited.

Chen, Ping-Hsun. “Rethinking the access’ Element in Copyright Infringement Cases About Popular Music.” NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Management 1.2 (2012): 189-199.

Hampel, Sherri Carl. “Are Samplers Getting a Bum Rap: Copyright Infringement or Technological Creativity.” U. Ill. L. Rev. (1992): 559.

Jaeger, Christopher Brett. “Does That Sound Familiar: Creators’ Liability for Unconscious Copyright Infringement.” Vand. L. Rev. 61 (2008): 1903.

Savage, Patrick E., et al. “Quantitative evaluation of music copyright infringement.” Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Folk Music Analysis. 2018.