{"id":3441,"date":"2015-03-29T21:52:08","date_gmt":"2015-03-29T21:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=3441"},"modified":"2016-08-20T01:27:31","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T01:27:31","slug":"the-messy-history-of-music-copyright-suits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/the-messy-history-of-music-copyright-suits\/","title":{"rendered":"The messy history of music copyright suits"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jeffrey Snyder<\/a>, Lebanon Valley College<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier this month, a jury found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams guilty of copyright infringement for their hit song \u201cBlurred Lines,\u201d and ordered the duo to pay $7.4 million to the estate of Marvin Gaye.<\/p>\n

The verdict has resulted in a whirlwind of reaction and analysis \u2013 most of it incredulous.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m a little bit shocked by it, quite frankly,\u201d country musician Keith Urban said<\/a>, while songwriter Bonnie McKee told People Magazine<\/a>, \u201cIt strikes fear into the hearts of songwriters.\u201d , the \u201cverdict could set a scary precedent.\u201d<\/p>\n

But \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d is only the latest copyright case in an industry rife with suits and counter-suits. The Gaye estate is no stranger to the game: in the early 1980s, they settled a $15 million lawsuit by David Ritz, who claimed co-writing credit for Gaye\u2019s mega-hit \u201cSexual Healing.\u201d And a 2012 article about a lawsuit Marvin Gaye III had leveled against Lenny Kravitz noted<\/a>, \u201cGaye III has also gone as far as to sue restaurants and radio stations for copyright infringement on songs.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even for Pharrell Williams, lawsuits are standard fare; he\u2019s frequently served as both plaintiff and defendant, going up against Trajik<\/a>, Peter Currin<\/a>, Geggy Tah<\/a>, Carla Boone<\/a>, YouTube<\/a> and Will.I.AM<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Music lawyer Kenneth Abdo perhaps put it best when he said<\/a>, \u201cThere is an old saying in the music industry\u2026if you get a hit, you will get a writ.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Pharrell Williams is no stranger to lawsuits.<\/span>
\nChristian Hartmann\/Reuters<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Lawyers lick their chops<\/h2>\n

On the surface, it would seem like copyright infringement is straightforward: either you lifted someone else\u2019s work and called it your own, or you didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Technically, in order to be found guilty of infringement, two things must be proven. First, there needs to be direct or indirect evidence of access to the original composition. If that\u2019s been established, \u201csubstantial similarity\u201d between the original and supposedly infringed-upon work needs to be determined.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the second factor that\u2019s ripe for conflicting interpretation \u2013 and exploitation. After all, what makes something substantially similar?<\/p>\n

But music copyright is muddled because ultimately it is decided by judges and juries who are \u201ceducated\u201d by music experts from both<\/em> sides, each of which insists that its interpretations \u2013 based on vague terms like \u201csubstantial,\u201d \u201cfeeling\u201d and \u201csimilar\u201d \u2013 are correct.<\/p>\n

So while most music fans remain blissfully ignorant of copyright law, behind the gold-record-lined walls there are throngs of lawyers working around the clock to defend their clients from \u201cthieves\u201d plundering their work, or from accusations by gold diggers looking for a quick buck.<\/p>\n

Outside the walls the public only sees the \u201cnoble\u201d attorneys who claim that they\u2019re keeping us from slipping into creative anarchy. But it\u2019s no coincidence that the greater the success of a hit song, the more shrill their \u201crighteous\u201d defense of artistic liberty becomes. In truth, these gimlet-eyed lawyers have been trained to detect the smallest possible copyright infractions \u2013 and are primed to strategically pounce.<\/p>\n

Artists learn the hard way<\/h2>\n

In 1992, the hip-hop group Arrested Development released their hit song \u201cTennessee.\u201d It soon caught the attention of Prince\u2019s lawyers because the group never got permission to use a sample of the word \u201cTennessee\u201d from Prince\u2019s song \u201cAlphabet St.\u201d<\/p>\n

This was a time when hip-hop and rap artists began to use sampling keyboards to build songs using segments of copyrighted sound recordings. Today, major artists know better than lift anything recognizable from other recordings without the proper license. But even now, newer artists often won\u2019t attempt to get clearance. They reason that if they\u2019re sued \u2013 well, their song must be a hit, so they\u2019ll be wealthy enough to settle out of court.<\/p>\n

As composer Carl Wiser recalled<\/a>, \u201cIt was our first record, we definitely weren\u2019t vets in the industry, we didn\u2019t understand all the game play and the rules. So we didn\u2019t ask for permission. I learned as a producer pretty quickly the laws of sampling: it\u2019s the wild, wild West out there.\u201d<\/p>\n

This lesson in copyright law cost Arrested Development $100,000.<\/p>\n

But Prince\u2019s attorneys were strategic in their pursuit. As Wiser explained<\/a>, the lawyers only raised a fuss once \u201cthe song moved up the chart the album got to #3 on the pop charts. And once it went down, the very week it went to #4, we got a call from Prince\u2019s representation. They waited for that song to sell as many possible copies as they could wait for.\u201d<\/p>\n

Settling out of court like this is the usual outcome of such disputes. In 1986, the road manager for the group America heard Janet Jackson\u2019s new song \u201cLet\u2019s Wait Awhile\u201d while driving. He pulled over to a phone booth and called the band asking if they\u2019d heard the song and how it sounded like \u201cDaisy Jane.\u201d Months later he received a 10% \u201cfinder\u2019s fee\u201d after America and Jackson settled.<\/p>\n

In 1997, while writing his mega-hit \u201cBitter Sweet Symphony,\u201d Richard Ashcroft of the Verve negotiated the cost to use a sample from the Rolling Stones’ \u201cThe Last Time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ashcroft\u2019s reward for trying to follow the letter of the law? The Stones sued anyway, claiming that the use of the sample was more integral to the song than had been originally negotiated. In the end, The Verve was ordered to hand over royalties and songwriting credits to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.<\/p>\n

When asked if the Verve got a fair shake, Richards responded<\/a>, \u201cI\u2019m out of whack here, this is serious lawyer shit.\u201d<\/p>\n

This reaction is typical of musicians who prefer to leave the law to their retained lawyers and record labels. In many cases, entertainment lawyers are like ambulance chasers: they\u2019re the ones that convince composers that they\u2019re owed money for infringements they\u2019d otherwise never notice.<\/p>\n

Out of consideration for reputation \u2013 and because it\u2019s cheaper \u2013 most musicians hope to settle nuisance cases to make them disappear.<\/p>\n

After all, what\u2019s $100,000 when you\u2019re raking in millions?<\/p>\n

George Harrison gently weeps<\/h2>\n

But it\u2019s George Harrison\u2019s 1976 case that draws the most parallels to \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d \u2013 for the \u201cyou\u2019ve got to be kidding!\u201d reaction in the press, the immense popularity of both parties involved and the huge amount of money at stake.<\/p>\n

In 1962 the girl-group quartet The Chiffons recorded Ronald Mackand\u2019s song \u201cHe\u2019s So Fine.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Chiffons’ 1962 hit \u2018He\u2019s So Fine.\u2019<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Eight years later, George Harrison released the song \u201cMy Sweet Lord.\u201d Mackand had passed away, but the publishing company that represented his widow, Bright Tunes Music, brought Harrison to court, claiming that he had unlawfully copied \u201cHe\u2019s So Fine.\u201d<\/p>\n

In Bright Tunes Music v. Harrison Music, the judge determined that although the accused, George Harrison, didn\u2019t consciously copy parts of \u201cHe\u2019s So Fine,\u201d he had nonetheless heard<\/em> the song \u2013 which proved access to the original version.<\/p>\n

Next the judge determined that \u201csubstantial similarity\u201d existed. With both criteria accounted for, he slapped Harrison with a guilty verdict and ordered Harrison to fork over $1.6 million (more than $6 million today) of the $2.1 million he\u2019d earned from \u201cMy Sweet Lord.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to the judge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Harrison\u2019s subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not remember\u2026I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that \u201cMy Sweet Lord\u201d is the very same song as \u201cHe\u2019s So Fine\u201d with different words.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The music world was shaken to its compositional core (You mean you can be sued for what\u2019s in your subconscious?<\/em>).<\/p>\n

Can you subconsciously copy something?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cIt made me so paranoid about writing,\u201d Harrison recalled, \u201cthat I didn\u2019t even want to touch the guitar or piano in case I touched somebody\u2019s note.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the wake of \u201cBlurred Lines\u201d the music world has again likened the verdict to the death of composing.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe owe it to songwriters around the world to make sure this verdict doesn\u2019t stand,\u201d said<\/a> Pharrell\u2019s attorney Howard King, one of Forbes’ Power 100 Lawyers in Entertainment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But in the end, it\u2019s all just the shuffling of money. Business as usual. Composers will compose and lawyers will sue.<\/p>\n

Welcome to the music industry.<\/p>\n

\"The<\/p>\n

This article was originally published on The Conversation<\/a>.
\nRead the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jeffrey Snyder, Lebanon Valley College Earlier this month, a jury found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams guilty of copyright infringement for their hit song \u201cBlurred Lines,\u201d and ordered the duo to pay $7.4 million to the estate of Marvin Gaye. The verdict has resulted in a whirlwind of reaction and analysis \u2013 most of it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":40,"featured_media":6753,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[40],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3441"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/40"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3441"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3441\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6754,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3441\/revisions\/6754"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3441"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3441"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3441"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}