|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 13, 2018 9:25:42 GMT -6
Part I is the smell test - yeah, it 'reminded' me.. ..but part II is a bit trickier - Describe what is similar. Honestly, you just have to listen: Sheeran then Gaye. And I don't think anyone here is going to be litigating this case, so it's more a matter of experiencing what's going on. I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying you think they are too similar. If so, EXACTLY what about them is similar? If we can't describe the similarity in words then we're all in deep trouble. If it's a "vibe," then there are a bazillion folk songs that ALL sound the same to me. Same exact C and G chord voicings with the same exact strum. I dunno, I wonder that we're getting to the point where ownership of composition/ideas is on a slow and painful road to anachronism. It's already becoming a parody of itself in certain sectors. Now ownership of "the recording/product" is a different story, but even there there's going to be grey area. |
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Jul 13, 2018 10:14:26 GMT -6
Intellectual propery rights of genetic material is even more scary, and if I remember correctly Monsanto regularly fucks organic farmers two ways; sues them for growing their product when the wind blows seeds in their fields as well as Frankensteinish mixing with the organic strain and totally messing with it's nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 13, 2018 12:29:59 GMT -6
I don't think this lawsuit is justified. If we're only suing now based on vibe, how about these 2?
Bruno and Cardi B -
Bel Biv Davoe -
Mashup -
Or Childish Gambino vs. Bootsy?
Childish -
Bootsy -
|
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 13, 2018 13:13:07 GMT -6
Honestly, you just have to listen: Sheeran then Gaye. And I don't think anyone here is going to be litigating this case, so it's more a matter of experiencing what's going on. I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying you think they are too similar. If so, EXACTLY what about them is similar? If we can't describe the similarity in words then we're all in deep trouble. If it's a "vibe," then there are a bazillion folk songs that ALL sound the same to me. Same exact C and G chord voicings with the same exact strum. I dunno, I wonder that we're getting to the point where ownership of composition/ideas is on a slow and painful road to anachronism. It's already becoming a parody of itself in certain sectors. Now ownership of "the recording/product" is a different story, but even there there's going to be grey area. I think you're looking for something I'm not willing to give. I'm keeping it simple, and LISTENING to the songs. And they are very similar. If you want to take it to a definitive point- then YOU have to do the listening. I understand that it's more interesting to get into the details, but I personally have enough BS details to keep track of (Tarriffs, Immigration, EPA, Collusion, How to diagnose bad ignition coils, etc...). I can't be a copyright lawyer too. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 17, 2018 20:37:16 GMT -6
But we’re musicians or work with musicians, and this matters. I once wrote and produced a commercial in the style of The Beach Boys. It didn’t use any melody or lyric, but it sounded like they could have done it. Fortunately Harry Fox realized this and let it be. Today, maybe I’d be screwed.
Sheehan’s song reminded me of Marvin Gaye’s song, but I don’t think it’s copyright infringement. If it is, everyone who ever played a Chuck Berry riff owes a lot of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 9:21:33 GMT -6
But we’re musicians or work with musicians, and this matters. I once wrote and produced a commercial in the style of The Beach Boys. It didn’t use any melody or lyric, but it sounded like they could have done it. Fortunately Harry Fox realized this and let it be. Today, maybe I’d be screwed. Sheehan’s song reminded me of Marvin Gaye’s song, but I don’t think it’s copyright infringement. If it is, everyone who ever played a Chuck Berry riff owes a lot of money. The Blurred Lines lawsuit was certainly a step in the wrong direction. That said, Robin Thicke did mention (pre-lawsuit) in casual conversation that he was looking to write a song like Gaye's 'got to give it up,' which probably had some bearing on the case. I agree that 'inspired by' is different than ripped off. What's you take on the famous 'he's so fine - my sweet lord,' suit? |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 9:29:26 GMT -6
More fun:
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 11:33:19 GMT -6
I think the George Harrison cop was done by accident. I bet if you looked further and carefully, you'd find other uses of those 3 notes before "He's So Fine". What bugged me is the song was about wanting to finding god and they sued him. Anyone with a conscience would have said give partial credit and then give the shared royalty to charity.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 14:33:16 GMT -6
The George Harrison thing is ancient history. What's setting the bar now is the Pharrell / Thicke case, and THAT one is all about "intent". It's scary, it's current, and it's what is setting precident TODAY. Without that case, I'd be willing to bet Sheeran would be enjoying millions in Tahiti instead of spending hours on the phone with his copyright attorney's.
Those who do "sound alike's" without proper releases and legal releases ahead of time should be shaking in their boots. The laws and times are a changin'....
Martin - if your situation was in 2018, the ramifications would be significantly different.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2018 14:50:44 GMT -6
Part I is the smell test - yeah, it 'reminded' me.. ..but part II is a bit trickier - Describe what is similar. Honestly, you just have to listen: Sheeran then Gaye. And I don't think anyone here is going to be litigating this case, so it's more a matter of experiencing what's going on. Try Beatles vs Badfinger. Just because something reminds you a WHOLE LOT of something else - right to the point of being a "soundalike" does not mean that it's plagiarism.
|
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 14:52:21 GMT -6
The George Harrison thing is ancient history. What's setting the bar now is the Pharrell / Thicke case, and THAT one is all about "intent". It's scary, it's current, and it's what is setting precident TODAY. Without that case, I'd be willing to bet Sheeran would be enjoying millions in Tahiti instead of spending hours on the phone with his copyright attorney's. Those who do "sound alike's" without proper releases and legal releases ahead of time should be shaking in their boots. The laws and times are a changin'.... Martin - if your situation was in 2018, the ramifications would be significantly different. What about the recent Tom Petty (won't back down) and Sam Smith (stay with me) case? Was that justified? (settled out of court, btw) I'm just trying to figure the baseline where people here say- 'yes, that lawsuit was justified.' I agree that the Thicke case put everyone on notice in a bad way. The fact that he told people that he wanted to write a tune inspired by Gaye's is an important element. Yes, he intended to do what he did. I would think intent matters. |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 14:56:17 GMT -6
Honestly, you just have to listen: Sheeran then Gaye. And I don't think anyone here is going to be litigating this case, so it's more a matter of experiencing what's going on. Try Beatles vs Badfinger. Just because something reminds you a WHOLE LOT of something else - right to the point of being a "soundalike" does not mean that it's plagiarism.
Interesting example, considering Badfinger is playing a song that Paul wrote. Bands are allowed to sound like other bands. They just aren't allowed to take another person's song, change the words and call it theirs. I'm sure you know that. If this exploration into copyright infringement is to have value, we need to establish a baseline (examples) where people think it was clearly infringement. So far, it feels pretty one-sided with the general feeling of 'who's to say' what infringement is. |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 15:03:27 GMT -6
If it is, everyone who ever played a Chuck Berry riff owes a lot of money. Like the Beach Boys when they ripped off Sweet Little 16 and made it Surfin' USA. So much so, that they had to relinquish 100% of their royalties. Justified? |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 18, 2018 15:13:17 GMT -6
Hard to say, times are different now, Chuck was new then. Today, the fast 12 bar blues is a standard template people put their own thing on top of. Chuck Berry certainly didn't invent that.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 15:18:01 GMT -6
Try Beatles vs Badfinger. Just because something reminds you a WHOLE LOT of something else - right to the point of being a "soundalike" does not mean that it's plagiarism.
Interesting example, considering Badfinger is playing a song that Paul wrote. Bands are allowed to sound like other bands. They just aren't allowed to take another person's song, change the words and call it theirs. I'm sure you know that.
If this exploration into copyright infringement is to have value, we need to establish a baseline (examples) where people think it was clearly infringement. So far, it feels pretty one-sided with the general feeling of 'who's to say' what infringement is. The COURT has the right to say. It's backed up with precedent. Which is exactly what the Thicke/Pharrell case is - precedent. And what that, all the "old school" definitions are essentially rendered inappropriate. It's a new game. Siting old cases no longer has significant bearing. |
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 15:48:50 GMT -6
Interesting example, considering Badfinger is playing a song that Paul wrote. Bands are allowed to sound like other bands. They just aren't allowed to take another person's song, change the words and call it theirs. I'm sure you know that.
If this exploration into copyright infringement is to have value, we need to establish a baseline (examples) where people think it was clearly infringement. So far, it feels pretty one-sided with the general feeling of 'who's to say' what infringement is. The COURT has the right to say. It's backed up with precedent. Which is exactly what the Thicke/Pharrell case is - precedent. And what that, all the "old school" definitions are essentially rendered inappropriate. It's a new game. Siting old cases no longer has significant bearing. The VERY RECENT Sam Smith case is old school in it's precedent, so don't cherry pick. Those cases matter. And part of the precedent with Thicke was intent- he said he wanted to write a song like Gaye's. So he did. Then he preemptively sued. And he lost. I know you think the case precedent is solely with the 'vibe' of the song. It's not. The intent is attached to the precedent. I don't agree with the decision, btw. But the intent is the key. Copyright is a fickle beast. Led Zeppelin won the Stairway suit (very recent, btw)- they probably should have lost! Meanwhile, the Shake it Off lawsuit was Swiftly dismissed. That's right- I went there. You can cite precedent all you want, but I bet if this goes to trial, Sheeran will not be found liable (or at least not like Thicke!). Unless (like Thicke) he admits he was ripping off Gaye! Again, the fickle nature of songs and copyright. I do hope you compared the songs (Gaye and Sheeran), just for reference. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 16:19:52 GMT -6
I'm not sure why you think I was arguing against you. I was indeed citing that it was all about intent - nothing else in regards to the Thicke case. Certainly old school style cases will continue to come and go, but in the past, the definition of copyright infringement was tightly focused. At this point in time, the doors have been blown off the hinges (there are publishers getting sued for drum fills, simple rhythm guitar riffs, and arrangement similarities at this point in time), and the if the plaintiff can prove you wanted to get some mileage off their song by "conjuring up the vibe of it", they have (according the the precedent set on the Thicke case) a viable case. Whether or not they will win, and what the judgement will be is beyond my knowledge. Bottom line - your song can sound radically different, and if intent can be proven - like having a tight, high beach boy style harmony while singing about girls on the beach....there's your copyright infringement.
It's happening. Especially in the production music world where I mostly work. It's scaring the living **** out of publishers right now who commissioned entire albums "in the vibe of....xyz".
|
|
|
|
Post by happychap on Jul 18, 2018 16:52:47 GMT -6
I'm not sure why you think I was arguing against you. I was indeed citing that it was all about intent - nothing else in regards to the Thicke case. Certainly old school style cases will continue to come and go, but in the past, the definition of copyright infringement was tightly focused. At this point in time, the doors have been blown off the hinges (there are publishers getting sued for drum fills, simple rhythm guitar riffs, and arrangement similarities at this point in time), and the if the plaintiff can prove you wanted to get some mileage off their song by "conjuring up the vibe of it", they have (according the the precedent set on the Thicke case) a viable case. Whether or not they will win, and what the judgement will be is beyond my knowledge. Bottom line - your song can sound radically different, and if intent can be proven - like having a tight, high beach boy style harmony while singing about girls on the beach....there's your copyright infringement. It's happening. Especially in the production music world where I mostly work. It's scaring the living **** out of publishers right now who commissioned entire albums "in the vibe of....xyz". I understand. Can you point us to any other cases that have been won solely on the merits of being inspired by a vibe? Of course there was the Tom Waits/Doritos case that was way before the Thicke case. But just like Huey Lewis and Ghostbusters, Doritos approached Tom first, and after he said 'no,' they hired a 'Tom Waits sound-a-like' and did their commercial. Waits quickly sued and won based on his vibe (his vibe, not any particular song, mind you). So this isn't exactly new. But there it was again- intent! If Doritos just did the spot and never approached Waits, I doubt there'd be a case. My point earlier is that so far, no one here seems to point to a case that they agree was copyright infringement. That's just as troubling, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 18:46:58 GMT -6
Intent is the word of the year in copyright cases. In some instances - like with your Waits example - it's pretty simple to prove. Other times, it will be virtually impossible and you'll have to fall back on the traditional musicologist approach of analyzing melody, lyric, key, tempo, arrangement, etc. to prove your case.
In the area of production music, this is extremely problematic. As you'll get a brief to create a classic rock CD (or fill in your personal blank) and some knucklehead moron at the library will name the songs stupid names like ZZToppings, Van Halo, The Stoney Rolls, etc. to draw people to the track they EMULATE. AKA the music that HUGELY inspired the copy. And that right there is a huge ball of intent. BTW, of course they make the composers / writers sign indemnity clauses that protects the library and victimizes the writer. This is the entire MO of some libraries, and they have huge catalogs of tracks and albums that were created with the INTENT of copying / imitating - as close as was TRADITIONALLY possible (pre-Thicke/Gaye suit) the originals. Those companies are getting constant nuisance suits now, and are crapping their pants daily I'd guess.
What is copyright? Who knows. The CC folks would like us to believe it's an antiquated 20th century anachronism. One thing is for sure....it's not the same thing it was 10 years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2018 19:26:03 GMT -6
If it is, everyone who ever played a Chuck Berry riff owes a lot of money. Like the Beach Boys when they ripped off Sweet Little 16 and made it Surfin' USA. So much so, that they had to relinquish 100% of their royalties. Justified? 100%? I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure it was 50%, for the music half. Brian Wilson got the lyric portion. Buty that was a clear cut case of appropriating the music, note for not. It wasn't a BS "look and feel" issue. |
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2018 19:45:09 GMT -6
Intent is the word of the year in copyright cases. In some instances - like with your Waits example - it's pretty simple to prove. Other times, it will be virtually impossible and you'll have to fall back on the traditional musicologist approach of analyzing melody, lyric, key, tempo, arrangement, etc. to prove your case. In the area of production music, this is extremely problematic. As you'll get a brief to create a classic rock CD (or fill in your personal blank) and some knucklehead moron at the library will name the songs stupid names like ZZToppings, Van Halo, The Stoney Rolls, etc. to draw people to the track they EMULATE. AKA the music that HUGELY inspired the copy. And that right there is a huge ball of intent. BTW, of course they make the composers / writers sign indemnity clauses that protects the library and victimizes the writer. This is the entire MO of some libraries, and they have huge catalogs of tracks and albums that were created with the INTENT of copying / imitating - as close as was TRADITIONALLY possible (pre-Thicke/Gaye suit) the originals. Those companies are getting constant nuisance suits now, and are crapping their pants daily I'd guess. What is copyright? Who knows. The CC folks would like us to believe it's an antiquated 20th century anachronism. One thing is for sure....it's not the same thing it was 10 years ago. Copyright is melody and lyrics. That's what's in the statute.
I am a strong believer in and supporter of copyright.
I am an equally strong opponent of copyright trolls who have nothing to do with the creation of thw works in question and are only out to rip off artists who lack deep enough pockets to defend themselves in our financially biased legal system.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2018 19:53:50 GMT -6
I'm not sure why you think I was arguing against you. I was indeed citing that it was all about intent - nothing else in regards to the Thicke case. Certainly old school style cases will continue to come and go, but in the past, the definition of copyright infringement was tightly focused. At this point in time, the doors have been blown off the hinges (there are publishers getting sued for drum fills, simple rhythm guitar riffs, and arrangement similarities at this point in time), and the if the plaintiff can prove you wanted to get some mileage off their song by "conjuring up the vibe of it", they have (according the the precedent set on the Thicke case) a viable case. Whether or not they will win, and what the judgement will be is beyond my knowledge. Bottom line - your song can sound radically different, and if intent can be proven - like having a tight, high beach boy style harmony while singing about girls on the beach....there's your copyright infringement. It's happening. Especially in the production music world where I mostly work. It's scaring the living **** out of publishers right now who commissioned entire albums "in the vibe of....xyz". I understand. Can you point us to any other cases that have been won solely on the merits of being inspired by a vibe? Of course there was the Tom Waits/Doritos case that was way before the Thicke case. But just like Huey Lewis and Ghostbusters, Doritos approached Tom first, and after he said 'no,' they hired a 'Tom Waits sound-a-like' and did their commercial. Waits quickly sued and won based on his vibe (his vibe, not any particular song, mind you). So this isn't exactly new. But there it was again- intent! If Doritos just did the spot and never approached Waits, I doubt there'd be a case. My point earlier is that so far, no one here seems to point to a case that they agree was copyright infringement. That's just as troubling, imo. No? "He's So Fine""My Sweet Lord". The melody is identical. Not a fragment, the entire melody. Harrison didn't even contest once he realized what had happened.
There are many, many others that can be easily looked up should one choose to do so. The UCLA Law School* had a web page listing significant cases going back to the 1890s. I'm not certain if it's still up or is now behind a paywall, but I used to have it bookmarked. I'll see if I can find it - it's quite educational and should be required reading for all judges sittin on music copyright cases.
* - EDIT: It appearsd that either I had the law school wrong or that the archive has been transferred from UCLA to USC.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 19:54:24 GMT -6
Agreed John. On the basics. But the courts are re-defining copyright with their decisions. Just as they are re-defining what marriage is, what free trade is, what tax law is. Precedent is critical in our judicial system and it is process of redefining copyright with the Thicke case. I suspect we will see significant redefinition of it over the next 20-40 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 18, 2018 21:42:03 GMT -6
Agreed John. On the basics. But the courts are re-defining copyright with their decisions. Just as they are re-defining what marriage is, what free trade is, what tax law is. Precedent is critical in our judicial system and it is process of redefining copyright with the Thicke case. I suspect we will see significant redefinition of it over the next 20-40 years. The Thicke case does not set a valid precedent. "Winning" via deeper pockets is not precedent setting. I do not believe that ANY case has been taken far enough to set as precedent sufficiently binding to overturn written statute.
A lower court cannot set precedent in the light of prior statute and precedent. The Thicke verdict was an anomlalous (and egregious) error that was never taken far enough to be definitive and is widely considered by those specializing in copyright law to be wrong. A decision by one ignorant judge in a lower appeals court is not definitive, nor does it set a valid precedent.
If anything, there is ample existing precedent to counteract the Thicke case - if anyone had the wherewithall to take the case far enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 18, 2018 22:05:54 GMT -6
Let's hope so.
|
|
