In January 1994, a federal jury in Los Angeles cleared Michael Jackson of stealing “Thriller,” “The Girl Is Mine,” and “We Are the World” from Reynaud Jones and Robert Smith, two aspiring songwriters who had grown up near the Jackson family in Gary, Indiana. The Smith and Jones lawsuit against Michael Jackson, joined by a third plaintiff named Clifford Rubin, went to a jury on three narrow claims after most of the case had already been thrown out. Jurors deliberated for roughly three to four hours before siding with Jackson and his co-defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that result in 1996.1Los Angeles Times. Jury Rules Jackson Did Not Steal Songs
Who Sued and What They Claimed
Reynaud Jones and Robert Smith were childhood neighbors of the Jacksons in Gary, Indiana, and both held registered copyrights on original compositions with titles including “What Will Become of the Children,” “Happy Go Lucky Girl,” “Don’t Let the Sunshine Catch You Crying,” “Run on Manchild,” “If There Be You,” and “Send Your Love.” Clifford Rubin of California joined them as a third plaintiff.2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson3Chicago Tribune. Trial Date Set for Jackson Accused of Stealing Songs
At the center of the case was a 1977 demo tape the plaintiffs said they had given to the Jackson family. They alleged that Jackson and his collaborators, songwriter Rod Temperton, producer Quincy Jones, and singer-songwriter Lionel Richie, later used musical ideas from that tape to build some of the biggest hits of the 1980s.1Los Angeles Times. Jury Rules Jackson Did Not Steal Songs
The infringement theory ran across four songs. “The Girl Is Mine,” the plaintiffs argued, borrowed motives from “Don’t Let the Sunshine Catch You Crying” and “Happy Go Lucky Girl.” “We Are the World” allegedly drew from “If There Be You” and “What Will Become of the Children.” “Thriller” was said to copy “Run on Manchild,” and “Another Part of Me” to lift from “Send Your Love.” Jones placed particular weight on his 1977 song “What Will Become of the Children” as the claimed source for the 1985 charity anthem “We Are the World.”2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson4Variety. Jackson No Tune Thief
Alongside copyright infringement, the plaintiffs brought claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging a coordinated scheme to steal their work.
What Survived to Trial
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and assigned to Judge Hupp, who cut it down considerably before any jury heard it.5FindLaw. Smith v. Jackson
The RICO counts went first. The court dismissed them under Rule 12(b)(6), finding they were copyright claims relabeled. Copyright infringement is not a predicate act under 18 U.S.C. § 1961, so the racketeering theory failed as a matter of law.2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson
Most of the copyright claims fell on summary judgment. The court applied the “scenes a faire” doctrine, which treats musical elements so common within a genre that they cannot be traced to any single writer as unprotectable. Defense experts testified that the short phrases, or motives, the plaintiffs pointed to were commonplace building blocks in popular music, and the court agreed that no one could monopolize them.2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson
Three claims survived to the jury:
- One motive from “What Will Become of the Children,” said to be infringed by “We Are the World”
- One motive from “Happy Go Lucky Girl,” said to be infringed by “The Girl Is Mine”
- Two motives from “Run on Manchild,” said to be infringed by “Thriller”
The Trial and the Verdict
Trial began in December 1993 in federal court in Los Angeles and ran three weeks. Jackson did not appear in person. He testified by videotaped deposition recorded in Mexico City on November 8 and 10, 1993.4Variety. Jackson No Tune Thief
The deposition drew its own dispute. Jackson’s attorney, Eve Wagner, submitted a sworn declaration saying she had met with him the day before and found him “glassy-eyed,” with slurred speech and difficulty staying awake, which she attributed to painkillers after oral surgery. The plaintiffs’ attorney, Howard Manning Jr., responded that Jackson’s demeanor during the deposition matched a 1989 deposition and showed no sign of impaired functioning.6Los Angeles Times. Jackson Deposition Health Concerns
The jury used a special verdict form built around the “intrinsic,” or lay listener, test: would a reasonable listener find the plaintiffs’ songs and the defendants’ songs substantially similar. On January 12, 1994, the nine-member panel returned a verdict for the defendants on all three surviving claims, concluding that the songs bore little resemblance to the plaintiffs’ works. Defense attorneys called the case “not based on evidence” but “based on fantasy.”1Los Angeles Times. Jury Rules Jackson Did Not Steal Songs4Variety. Jackson No Tune Thief
The Ninth Circuit Appeal
The plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit heard argument on April 9, 1996, and issued its decision on June 5, 1996, in Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 1996). Judge Hawkins wrote the opinion, and the panel affirmed the district court on every issue raised.7Leagle. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 12138CaseMine. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213
On the RICO dismissal, the court agreed that copyright infringement is not a RICO predicate act. Because the alleged distribution and marketing of the songs could not be treated as fraudulent independent of the underlying infringement theory, the racketeering counts failed.2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson
On scenes a faire, the panel upheld the finding that most of the motives at issue were unprotectable common musical elements. It also clarified that a copyright registration creates a presumption a work is valid, but that presumption does not stop a court from concluding that particular elements inside the work are too commonplace to protect.
On jury instructions, the plaintiffs argued the trial court should have made jurors consider access before evaluating similarity. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that access belongs to the objective “extrinsic” test, not the subjective “intrinsic” test that asks whether the songs sound alike to a lay listener.
On attorney’s fees, the defendants had asked for fees from the plaintiffs under the Copyright Act. The district court denied that request. The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion, noting the plaintiffs had not acted in bad faith and that their claims had enough factual and legal substance to survive summary judgment.2GWU Law MCIR. Smith v. Michael Jackson
Why the Case Still Gets Cited
Two threads from the ruling continue to matter in music copyright disputes. The scenes a faire holding reinforced that short, common musical phrases of only a few notes are not protectable, even when a plaintiff holds a valid registration on the larger composition. Courts have long recognized that music draws from a limited vocabulary of twelve notes, short sequences inevitably recur, and no one songwriter can claim ownership of them.9Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Scenes a Faire in Music Copyright
The RICO holding closed off a route plaintiffs might otherwise have used to escalate infringement claims into racketeering cases. Reframing an infringement theory as mail or wire fraud, the Ninth Circuit said, does not change what the claim really is.