CHANGSTAR: Audiophile Headphone Reviews and Early 90s Style BBS

Lobby => Music and Recordings => Topic started by: Anaxilus on July 06, 2014, 12:03:38 PM

Title: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 06, 2014, 12:03:38 PM
Post your blatant audio ripoffs below!  :-0

1992
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MO7fkZc5o

2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgk3u44W2i4

 *:p
Title: Re: Copyright!
Post by: Hroðulf on July 06, 2014, 05:28:17 PM
That was no rip-off!

(http://mtvstat.in.com/f2ed1c729e39fae0d8877fad57d58853_ls_xl.jpg)
Title: Re: Copyright!
Post by: Deep Funk on July 06, 2014, 06:14:39 PM
Mimicry can be a form of flattery. Metallica's influence has been enormous.

When I had a job and more money I was a crate digger. James Brown, Funk, Soul and Hip Hop were on the menu for me. Copyright was never a big issue until "Paul's Boutique" by the Beastie Boys was released.

If anything a few of my favourite bands, Coroner and Gore were heavily influenced by Metallica. The Avenged Sevenfold track sounds inspired enough to be fun. Not Pantera or W.A.S.P fun but good for "hmmm, nice for a single listen".

When band A rips off band B and gives credit to band B, cool. When no credit is given where credit is due, not cool. The worst rip offs are bad rip offs. I prefer the Metallica track as it sounds more Metal for me. Avenged Sevenfold sounds a bit "meh" but at least they rock.

One Direction's rip off of the Who's "Baba O'Riley" did make my blood boil. No credit was given to The Who. Pete Townshend was okay with them using the sound of "Baba O'Riley" yet I still think he and the Who should be credited.

Rip offs are a subjective and complex matter. Horrible ones are on my list of music to ignore...
Title: Re: Copyright!
Post by: Alondite on July 06, 2014, 06:49:10 PM
That's not mimicry; the song is identical. Avenged Sevenfold is straight garbage, which is a pity considering how good an album "Waking the Fallen" was, and how much promise they showed on "Sounding the Seventh Trumpet."

Protest the Hero is what Avenged Sevenfold would probably be today if they weren't terrible...and were far more talented.
Title: Re: Copyright!
Post by: Deep Funk on July 06, 2014, 07:31:43 PM
Instrumentally the songs were identical despite Metallica having a different sound and heavier sound. Hence the word "mimicry". Thing is if imitation is not emulation, then is it immediately  poo ?

Often I would say yes. I was once at a Linkin Park concert. It was actually Dead By Sunrise with Chester of ... but I still call it Linkin Park and yes I was only slightly entertained. The best part of the entire concert was meeting two random metal heads and talking about other bands, solos and whatnot.

After the concert I came to the conclusion that Dead By Sunrise was still a Linkin Park rip off and thus poo. When imitation is not emulation in some way, it is worthy of ignoring.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on July 06, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
http://youtu.be/3L4YrGaR8E4

http://youtu.be/FAtvKYKSYgo

Megadeth stole their main riff directly from the verse riff from BOP.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Maxvla on July 07, 2014, 01:08:40 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uEMOeDZsA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J9haehfQeg

Later admitted infringement by Ghostbusters' producer, but thank God they did infringe. The Ghostbusters version is far superior.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 02:14:14 AM
1983
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wsMEj2ZfW8

1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAJfmx5aUWg
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on July 07, 2014, 03:21:18 AM
http://youtu.be/xd8AVbwB_6E

Led Zeppelin are legendary song stealers.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 04:49:33 AM
Led Zeppelin are legendary song stealers.

Yeah, I've heard about that.  As a rather big Led Zeppelin fan, that doesn't seem to bother me much as I can't stand and never listen to Stairway to Heaven as of the early nineties.  I immediately change the station anytime it comes on as it provokes my gag and vomit reflex.  I consider that song only appropriate for recreational use by poser or newb Zepp heads, or the highly self medicated.  ;)  If that pretentious song had to removed from their archives or rock history forever, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it myself.

But yeah, total jip.  What is it they say?  Good artists copy, great artists steal.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: anetode on July 07, 2014, 05:08:20 AM
(http://cdn.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/led-zeppelin-lawsuit-stairway-to-heaven-taurus-spirit.jpg)
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: OJneg on July 07, 2014, 05:32:51 AM
Funny how the LZ versions are usually head-and-shoulders above the originals...
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 06:08:59 AM
Still plenty of better songs to choose from.  Kashmir, Black Dog, Ramble On, Misty Mountain, No Quarter, Levee, Over the Hills, Trampled, etc, etc.

Top 50 Led Zeppelin Songs:
 No. 50: ‘For Your Life‘
No. 49: ‘The Song Remains the Same‘
No. 48: ‘In the Evening‘
No. 47: ‘Good Times Bad Times‘
No. 46: ‘Ten Years Gone‘
No. 45: ‘The Wanton Song‘
No. 44: ‘Your Time is Gonna Come‘
No. 43: ‘All My Love‘
No. 42: ‘Houses of the Holy‘
No. 41: ‘Thank You’
No. 40: ‘Custard Pie’
No. 39: ‘Since I’ve Been Loving You‘
No. 38: ‘In the Light‘
No. 37: ‘The Rain Song‘
No. 36: ‘Four Sticks‘
No. 35: ‘Bron-Y-Aur Stomp‘
No. 34: ‘The Rover‘
No. 33: ‘The Ocean‘
No. 32: ‘You Shook Me‘
No. 31: ‘The Battle of Evermore‘
No. 30: ‘Fool in the Rain‘
No. 29: ‘Celebration Day‘
No. 28: ‘Nobody’s Fault But Mine‘
No. 27: ‘Communication Breakdown‘
No. 26: ‘Bring it on Home‘
No. 25: ‘Out on the Tiles‘
No. 24: ‘What is and What Should Never Be‘
No. 23: ‘Immigrant Song‘
No. 22: ‘Achilles’ Last Stand‘
No. 21: ‘Heartbreaker / Living Loving Maid‘
No. 20: ‘Gallows Pole‘
No. 19: ‘Dancing Days‘
No. 18: ‘Friends‘
No. 17: ‘Going to California‘
No. 16: ‘Trampled Underfoot‘
No. 15: ‘Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You‘
No. 14: ‘Over the Hills and Far Away‘
No. 13: ‘When the Levee Breaks‘
No. 12: ‘That’s the Way‘
No. 11: ‘Rock and Roll‘
No. 10: ‘No Quarter‘
No. 9: ‘How Many More Times‘
No. 8: ‘Misty Mountain Hop‘
No. 7: ‘Ramble On‘
No. 6: ‘In My Time of Dying‘
No. 5: ‘Dazed and Confused‘
No. 4: ‘Black Dog‘
No. 3: ‘Stairway to Heaven‘
No. 2: ‘Whole Lotta Love‘
No. 1: ‘Kashmir‘

Read More: Top 50 Led Zeppelin Songs | http://ultimateclassicrock.com/led-zeppelin-top-50-songs/?trackback=tsmclip
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on July 07, 2014, 06:16:08 AM
Funny how the LZ versions are usually head-and-shoulders above the originals...

Not everybody likes Robert Plant's vocals. I consider Ian Gillian and Dave Byron from that time to be better vocalists.

Hand-and-shoulders above, depends on you preferences I guess. When you prefer the Led Zeppelin Rock'N Roll antics I can understand. Led Zeppelin is a fun listen.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on July 07, 2014, 06:31:27 AM
But yeah, total jip.  What is it they say?  Good artists create.  Great artists steal?

The line is: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Famously uttered by one Steve Jobs, who then declared "thermonuclear war" against Samsung for copying his rectangles with rounded corners.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 06:40:29 AM
But yeah, total jip.  What is it they say?  Good artists create.  Great artists steal?

The line is: "Good artists copy, great artists steal." Famously uttered by one Steve Jobs, who then declared "thermonuclear war" against Samsung for copying his rectangles with rounded corners.

That's right.  I must have gotten a bad fortune cookie.  Fixed.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 06:41:58 AM

Btw, thanks for shedding light on the subject!  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWSCAm6qVHU

FU Stairway to Heaven!!   headbang
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: OJneg on July 07, 2014, 06:49:47 AM
Funny how the LZ versions are usually head-and-shoulders above the originals...

Not everybody likes Robert Plant's vocals. I consider Ian Gillian and Dave Byron from that time to be better vocalists.

Hand-and-shoulders above, depends on you preferences I guess. When you prefer the Led Zeppelin Rock'N Roll antics I can understand. Led Zeppelin is a fun listen.

Maybe I'm getting carried away. I just hate when people say an artist "stole" another artists songs. It's not as if their rendition adds nothing to the original. It's not as if their performances added nothing to the world of music. Led Zeppelin (or any other artist who's done similarly) aren't akin to patent trolls; they had to add some sort of original thought to make the piece their own. It's really only with the commercial aspect of the music industry that a song can be "stolen".
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 06:58:15 AM
Funny how the LZ versions are usually head-and-shoulders above the originals...

Not everybody likes Robert Plant's vocals. I consider Ian Gillian and Dave Byron from that time to be better vocalists.

Hand-and-shoulders above, depends on you preferences I guess. When you prefer the Led Zeppelin Rock'N Roll antics I can understand. Led Zeppelin is a fun listen.

Maybe I'm getting carried away. I just hate when people say an artist "stole" another artists songs. It's not as if their rendition adds nothing to the original. It's not as if their performances added nothing to the world of music. Led Zeppelin (or any other artist who's done similarly) aren't akin to patent trolls; they had to add some sort of original thought to make the piece their own. It's really only with the commercial aspect of the music industry that a song can be "stolen".

Hmm...I'm not in total agreement with that.  I think the majority of this stuff is blatant short cuts to cash in on a commercial market and take the easy way out.  Every case needs to be examined but I think we already have quite a few links that show a very non-artistic and wholly commercial intent by a number of 'artists'. 

Music is a very pervasive sub conscious thing that sort of permeates all aspects of culture.  Once it gets out there, it sort of permeates the ether of our existence without even being fully aware of its presence.  So it's very easy to inadvertently regurgitate a distant memory or experience without being fully aware.  That's just an honest mistake.

I think we want to be focusing on pretty clear and deliberate fraud by those looking to make a buck the easy way.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on July 07, 2014, 07:19:06 AM
True, for the serious copyright infringement with malicious and greedy intent only three words are required: follow the money...

The worst case in music, for me was "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Freddy Mercury. Then I heard Vanilla Ice. Fuck Vanilla Ice.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on July 07, 2014, 07:49:28 AM
Since you started off posting Metallica as the stole-e, here's them as the blatant stole-ers.

http://youtu.be/V6Dfo4zDduI

http://youtu.be/zowid7KAmnM
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on July 07, 2014, 07:52:19 AM
And I probably don't need to post the Metallica song that stole from this.

http://youtu.be/letLBUrt7yA
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on July 07, 2014, 08:18:44 AM
And I probably don't need to post the Metallica song that stole from this.


Hush little baby, don't say a word, and nevermind that noise you heard!  :P
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on July 07, 2014, 09:51:13 AM
Shall we include Ma Rainey, Chuck Berry and Dick Dale to add a full leg sweep to who ripped of who in Rock, Hard Rock, Metal and everything that followed?

As long as the artist plays in an engaging way and gives credit where credit is due, all is good for me. When the engagement is  poo I find that the worst.

If I have to mention Vanilla Ice again, Jim Carrey did it better.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: 6 on July 07, 2014, 06:11:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/8QykauA8p14
Wire - Three Girl Rhumba 1977

http://www.youtube.com/v/ilKcXIFi-Rc
Elastica - Connection 1995
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: 6 on July 07, 2014, 06:24:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/7xL1ffMlzKY
The Beatles - Tomorrow Never Knows 1966


http://www.youtube.com/v/qkkMz2awmbI
The Chemical Brothers - Setting Sun 1997
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: anetode on July 07, 2014, 06:50:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZRNq33Obk

Daft Punk - Discovery
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on August 15, 2014, 08:05:48 AM
2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LuSP4QaXiQ

2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jNBuEqD4E
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: aufmerksam on August 15, 2014, 06:01:23 PM
heh, its like a family tree:

2008

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LuSP4QaXiQ

2005

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jNBuEqD4E

1999, Dirty Deeds, "Cyber Babe"
http://www.amazon.de/gp/recsradio/radio/B000025A8D?ie=UTF8&track=009&disc=001 (http://www.amazon.de/gp/recsradio/radio/B000025A8D?ie=UTF8&track=009&disc=001)

I remembered hearing about Velvet Revolver settling some claim with a song, even better that it turns out to be this one. http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/velvet-revolver-settles-plagiarism-claim-out-of-court-awards-uk-songwriter-share-of-hit/ (http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/velvet-revolver-settles-plagiarism-claim-out-of-court-awards-uk-songwriter-share-of-hit/)
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on August 15, 2014, 08:02:25 PM
Nice catch!
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: LFF on August 16, 2014, 01:26:36 AM
Reminds me of this age old tale...


The Original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Af372EQLck


The Rip-Offs:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajCYQL8ouqw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAlS4lKxpZ4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzkG6Xu6lUE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oofSnsGkops


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw6DEVo4GZU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfNmyxV2Ncw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvAPUKhBumU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmSdTa9kaiQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-dcwGvQhmg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa6rq9bZCrY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esLRlir7eyk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG8lyFwopyg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foyAOoVagWw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RjI44WXKMI



I know there are a few others too....
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Marvey on August 16, 2014, 02:37:25 AM
Luis wins.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: anetode on August 16, 2014, 03:06:37 AM
Ah yes, I love those four chords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

There's no true creativity, only iterative progress.

And copyright law  headbang
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Armaegis on August 16, 2014, 06:18:44 AM
Or this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: LFF on August 16, 2014, 07:05:37 AM
LOL! As I said...there a lot more that use those same chords.


After Pachelbel, I think these next two are the winners for being ripped off/using samples.


1) The Amen Break - you've probably heard this beat HUNDREDS of times.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac




2. Girl Talk!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqOgJrvnJvg


If you guys haven't heard Girl Talk...then I HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend you take a listen. This dude takes samples from EVERYWHERE and mashes them up to make some good albums. They are especially great for those late night parties!  :)p1  If you guys are wondering what makes up each song, then here is some help (http://www.mashupbreakdown.com/).


(http://media.514blog.com/Girl-Talk-talks-about-new-album-Pitchfork-Interview.jpg)



Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on August 16, 2014, 08:09:01 AM
The break beat from James Brown & The JBs' "Funky Drummer" by Clyde Stubblefield, the break beat from Lynn Collins' "Think (About It)" and the "Amen" break beat got me into music.

A "Blind Man Can See It..."  p;)
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: aufmerksam on August 16, 2014, 12:58:27 PM
Reminds me of this age old tale...


The Original:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Af372EQLck


The Rip-Offs...

I am just really glad that Vitamin C made the list
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Kunlun on August 16, 2014, 06:39:17 PM
The Original:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3YUsJcY9NY




rip-offs  ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysr-xMMvquI




and




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=149jGeIlx3I

Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on August 17, 2014, 06:25:39 AM
Copy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A-EkV3pGJ8

Original :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEpPkkFHRyM
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Marvey on August 17, 2014, 06:32:02 AM
LOL. Can someone explain to me how those Arch Enemy chicks do those vocals?
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on August 17, 2014, 03:33:41 PM
There are a few gals that do it. Gossow is above average for women that can do harsh vocals, but there's really only one or maybe two that are exceptionally good.

http://youtu.be/fCMcu18sigc
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Armaegis on August 17, 2014, 04:08:37 PM
So this little girl is well on her way then...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhQK-6iI7cI
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Marvey on August 17, 2014, 04:50:53 PM
The vocals in the music video sound like they are processed. Curious about what the sound engineers run the vocals through.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: DaveBSC on August 17, 2014, 09:17:48 PM
The vocals in the music video sound like they are processed. Curious about what the sound engineers run the vocals through.

She multi-tracked her vocals quite a bit on that album. Beyond that I don't know. Here's a pretty extreme rarity, a band with a female harsh vocalist who also plays bass. If she played lead guitar rather than bass, she would basically be a unicorn.

http://youtu.be/v7g7ZrdmJk8
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on August 18, 2014, 12:53:12 PM
That hair is copyright Joni Mitchell, isn't it?
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: ultrabike on August 29, 2014, 08:53:51 PM
Star Trek...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTaSjS1pwhQ&list=PLxuaaONzLc3e1-s_zVsJJqXwvPLFE4Vig
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on October 03, 2014, 01:49:50 AM
2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekt6PELAcEg

1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_JPt3vdRso
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on October 22, 2014, 02:50:24 AM
2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PU4d5Iogd4

1989

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9fqDdEmARk
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: kothganesh on October 22, 2014, 11:54:52 AM
Don't forget the controversy between George Harrison and the Chiffons on "My Sweet Lord". The latter had a song called "he's so fine". Talk of subconscious plagiarism.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Thujone on October 22, 2014, 12:00:43 PM
Pink Floyd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmADpBu_ZCA

Phantom of the Opera (main theme):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRT4IIkbJe0


aaaand

Billy Idol (1982):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9j6DE6RnSk

Heart (1990):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Nt3ff3P04
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: kothganesh on October 22, 2014, 02:58:44 PM
I saw a youtube video featuring Ritchie Blackmore where he was candid about "lifting" riffs from Rick Nelson (Summertime) for DP's Black Night; Hendix, and Eric Clapton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7r_4CijBWk

Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on October 22, 2014, 03:27:32 PM
I'm sure a lot of stuff happens live, especially among the more improvisational bands. There's a guitar snippet on one of the Greatful Dead Dick's-Pick's recordings that I am sure is a fragment of another song from another genre in another world.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on October 22, 2014, 03:42:34 PM
Deep Purple came from a time where sometimes albums were born from jam sessions with one-take recordings. Taking cues from others was and still is happening among musicians because one version leads to another until a masterpiece is created that gets all the attention.

From Deep Purple fast forward to Dream Theater and Muse, without the liberty to take cues from others how can bands and musicians evolve? At least Blackmore is honest about his "influences". Shall we go back to Blues, Chuck Berry, Country and Dick Dale & the Del-Tones?

Some musicians are pretentious enough to claim they are genius and when you hear their "influences" you just go "Oh, so that is all?" I have that "Oh, so that is all?" reaction with Metallica. I like Metallica but sometimes their attitude in their music is just distracting from the music experience. In that case I especially appreciate Frank Zappa. He made music and whether you liked it was up to you...
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: 6 on January 27, 2015, 06:34:09 PM
From the Guardian...

After settling a copyright claim from Tom Petty, Sam Smith’s representives have issued a statement about the similarities between Smith’s global hit Stay With Me and Petty’s 1989 hit I Won’t Back Down. From now on Stay With Me is to be co-credited to the writers of I Won’t Back Down, Petty and Jeff Lynne.

“Recently the publishers for the song I Won’t Back Down, written by Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, contacted the publishers for Stay With Me, written by Sam Smith, James Napier and William Phillips, about similarities heard in the melodies of the choruses of the two compositions,” the statement said. “Not previously familiar with the 1989 Petty/Lynne song, the writers of Stay With Me listened to ‘I Won’t Back Down’ and acknowledged the similarity.

https://www.youtube.com/v/pB-5XG-DbAA

“Although the likeness was a complete coincidence, all involved came to an immediate and amicable agreement in which Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne are now credited as co-writers of Stay With Me along with Sam Smith, James Napier and William Phillips.”

The Sun reported last weekend that the case had been settled out of court last October, with Petty and Lynne to receive 12.5% of royalties from the song.

Smith is one of the favourite to win major awards at both the Grammy and Brit awards next month, with five nominations for the Brits and three for the Grammys.

https://www.youtube.com/v/nvlTJrNJ5lA
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: 6 on March 07, 2015, 06:16:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/v/MbQiVQuiu04
The Beatles Taxman


https://www.youtube.com/v/fdSqpT6gfDU
The Jam Start
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: 6 on March 12, 2015, 07:24:01 AM
Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke to pay $7.4m to Marvin Gaye's family over Blurred Lines

From the Guardian...

A jury awarded Marvin Gaye’s children nearly $7.4m on Tuesday after determining singers Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams copied their father’s music to create Blurred Lines, the biggest hit song of 2013.

Marvin Gaye’s daughter Nona Gaye wept as the verdict was being read and was hugged by her attorney, Richard Busch.

“Right now, I feel free,” Nona Gaye said after the verdict. “Free from ... Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s chains and what they tried to keep on us and the lies that were told.”

The verdict could tarnish the legacy of Williams, a reliable hit-maker who has won Grammy awards and appears on NBC’s music competition show The Voice.

An attorney for Thicke and Williams has said a decision in favor of Gaye’s heirs could have a chilling effect on musicians who try to emulate an era or another artist’s sound.

The Gayes’ lawyer branded Williams and Thicke liars who went beyond trying to emulate the sound of Gaye’s late-1970s music and copied the R&B legend’s hit Got to Give It Up outright.


https://www.youtube.com/v/fp7Q1OAzITM

“They fought this fight despite every odd being against them,” Busch said of the Gaye family outside court.

Thicke told jurors he didn’t write Blurred Lines, which Williams testified he crafted in about an hour in mid-2012.

Williams told jurors that Gaye’s music was part of the soundtrack of his youth. But the seven-time Grammy winner said he didn’t use any of it to create Blurred Lines.

Gaye’s children – Nona, Frankie and Marvin Gaye III – sued the singers in 2013 and were present when the verdict was read.

The verdict may face years of appeals.

Blurred Lines has sold more than 7.3m copies in the US alone, according to Nielsen SoundScan figures. It earned a Grammy nomination and netted Williams and Thicke millions of dollars.

The case was a struggle between two of music’s biggest names: Williams has sold more than 100m records worldwide during his career as a singer-producer, and Gaye performed hits such as Sexual Healing and How Sweet It Is (To be Loved by You) remain popular.

During closing arguments, Busch accused Thicke and Williams of lying about how the song was created. He told jurors they could award Gaye’s children millions of dollars if they determined the copyright to Got to Give It Up was infringed.

Howard King, lead attorney for Williams and Thicke, told the panel that a verdict in favor of the Gaye family would have a chilling effect on musicians who were trying to recreate a genre or homage to another artist’s sound.

King denied there were any substantial similarities between Blurred Lines and the sheet music Gaye submitted to obtain copyright protection.


https://www.youtube.com/v/yyDUC1LUXSU

Williams has become a household name – known simply as Pharrell – thanks to his hit song Happy and his work as a judge on the The Voice. He wrote the majority of Blurred Lines and recorded it in one night with Thicke. A segment by rapper TI was added later.

Williams, 41, also signed a document stating he didn’t use any other artists’ work in the music and would be responsible if a successful copyright claim was raised.

Thicke testified he wasn’t present when the song was written, despite receiving credit.

The trial focused on detailed analyses of chords and notes in both Blurred Lines and Got to Give It Up.

Jurors repeatedly heard the upbeat song Blurred Lines and saw snippets of its music video, but Gaye’s music was represented during the trial in a less polished form. Jurors did not hear Got to Give It Up as Gaye recorded it, but rather a version created based solely on sheet music submitted to gain copyright protection.

That version lacked many of the elements – including Gaye’s voice – that helped make the song a hit in 1977. Busch derisively called the version used in court a “Frankenstein-like monster” that didn’t accurately represent Gaye’s work.

An expert for the Gaye family said there were eight distinct elements from Got to Give It Up that were used in Blurred Lines, but an expert for Williams and Thicke denied those similarities existed.

Gaye died in April 1984, leaving his children the copyrights to his music.

Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Kunlun on March 12, 2015, 12:41:01 PM
A lawyer was telling me that this is very likely to be reversed on appeal. Apparently, Robin Thicke came off as "massively unlikeable", but the actual musical similarities are not that strong.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: gelocks on March 12, 2015, 03:40:45 PM
Well... to me the bass line is actually REALLY REALLY Similar... but, is that enough to actually go through all of this?!?!
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on March 12, 2015, 05:58:04 PM
Depends on how you define musical similarity in court. If the defense is able to exempt tone of the instrument from the dialogue then they will have a much stronger case. The Thicke rhythm is closer to a latin rhythm like Chaka Khan or Miami Sound Machine than Marvin Gaye to me. Gloria Estefan should call her lawyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBM3RlgjhQQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObjLb6ElTvs
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on March 13, 2015, 06:21:28 AM
The "Blurred Lines" case is clear for me. When I listen to it and then to Marvine Gaye's track they sound too similar. I have hard time believing that the creators of "Blurred Lines" did not notice.

Anaxilus, in the 60ties and 70ties African rhythms and Latin rhythms were also an influence on the Funk and Soul scene. You might have a point.
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Anaxilus on March 13, 2015, 06:37:58 AM
Anaxilus, in the 60ties and 70ties African rhythms and Latin rhythms were also an influence on the Funk and Soul scene. You might have a point.

...and then back again to Africa. They keystone is actually Jazz.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highlife)

https://youtu.be/H1A4RVcQY4A
Title: Re: Copyright!?
Post by: Deep Funk on March 13, 2015, 10:45:36 PM
Listen carefully to Curtis Mayfield's earlier work. He loved mixing up his musical influences and adding his flavour to the composition.

Copyright should be more a matter of fair use principles instead of IP this, IP that. Per industrial sector "in context" you can then make codes of conduct and basic rules of how and when to use someone else's work for one's own work.

Just my opinion. Copyright and IP-legislation is a minefield and the legal sector is reaping the benefits.