# Dark Horse copyright infringement -- what do you think?



## JohnG (Aug 2, 2019)

Katy Perry and Others Must Pay $2.8 Million Over ‘Dark Horse,’ Jury Says (Published 2019)


The jury had found that the singer, her record company and collaborators were liable for copyright infringement because parts of the song resembled a Christian rap song by the artist Flame.




www.nytimes.com





What do you think? 

I don't know the two songs well enough to have an opinion but I'm afraid for anyone writing in an established style. Blues, 4/4 rock, even hymns. Pretty tough to avoid _every_ piece ever written.


----------



## Daniel (Aug 2, 2019)

I am very sad about that,.. she is still my idol.
I believe her when she said don't ever listen previous song before. Now I am afraid writing my new song.


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 2, 2019)

There's IMO only one element of the backing track which sounds similar, the rest sounds nothing like the other. I think the verdict is ridiculous. This would mean a similar (repetitive, even nothing ingenious or special) motive in one instrument line could prove a disaster.


----------



## Daniel (Aug 2, 2019)

I strongly agree with Rick Beato in that youtube.


----------



## Zero&One (Aug 2, 2019)

Rick sums it up very well. As usual


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 2, 2019)

That's one jury I would have loved to been on. I would have sent a clear message to Flame: If you want to win a frivolous music lawsuit, you have make sure there are no musicians on the jury.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 2, 2019)

These copyright cases are getting crazy. Chord progressions are not copyrightable. Every melody is out there somewhere. These need to stop or good writers will quit writing at all.


----------



## rrichard63 (Aug 2, 2019)

How did Katy Perry and her lawyer get saddled with an expert witness weak enough to lose this suit?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2019)

My first question when I saw this a couple of days ago was - at the risk of sounding like I-1's pitch for his not having raped a woman he clearly did rape - why Katy Perry would even need to copy that crap.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 2, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> These copyright cases are getting crazy. Chord progressions are not copyrightable. Every melody is out there somewhere. These need to stop or good writers will quit writing at all.


Yes, it is getting ridiculous, and something, at some point, is going to have to give.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 2, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Yes, it is getting ridiculous, and something, at some point, is going to have to give.



Looser copyright laws sound good to me.


----------



## Alex Niedt (Aug 2, 2019)

It's like an artist suing another artist for drawing some circles and lines. You can't own the fundamentals. A song will always remind someone of another song, especially when we're talking about very minimal music based on the most common, popular foundations. Popular genres are built on tried-and-true clichés, so of course you can find hundreds and thousands of songs with the same rhythms, sounds, chord progressions, and simple melodic ideas. These things are so basic that mere probability guarantees they pop up repeatedly. The idea that it takes plagiarism to arrive at something like the "Dark Horse" beat for producers at that level is utterly ridiculous.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 2, 2019)

It's the sounding kind of alike versus exact copy that is a problem. Music that sells always sounds kind of alike in some ways. But when you start comparing a musical melody with a rap song with no real words in common? And say it is an exact copy because they you played an A here and used the word The over here. This is a problem. i didn't really see the blurred lines/Marvin Gaye thing either. Its starting to be very annoying.


----------



## JohnG (Aug 2, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> i didn't really see the blurred lines/Marvin Gaye thing either. Its starting to be very annoying.



Musically I didn't agree on the merits of the Blurred Lines either, regarding the narrow issue of "is it a copy?" 

However, if I remember accurately, it was a jury trial, and I think they erred fatally when they _freely admitted_ copying the feel and vibe of the song. They seemed to think because it was done in a drunken stupor that would make it ok.

To the jury, that is a "copy," even if, to a musicologist (or even a bar band singer), it's not.


----------



## Alex Niedt (Aug 2, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I think the problem was they _freely admitted_ copying the feel and vibe of the song.


If we can sue based on feel and vibe, literally everyone has potentially never-ending lawsuits on their hands


----------



## JohnG (Aug 2, 2019)

Alex Niedt said:


> If we can sue based on feel and vibe, literally everyone has potentially never-ending lawsuits on their hands



I think we all agree. Luckily, I don't have a bunch of number one hits....


----------



## jonathanparham (Aug 2, 2019)

I was a little surprised when I saw the story. I do Listen to Flame and I believe it may be Lecrae rappin on the song as well. I don't listen to that song of Flame in particular, but do like him as an artist, and have an earlier album. I was just surprised to see Flame a faith-based artist, who is good IMO but a fish in a musical ocean going up against a whale of an artist like Katy Perry. I wonder how it all came about.


----------



## rgames (Aug 2, 2019)

It's absurd.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 2, 2019)

jonathanparham said:


> I was just surprised to see Flame a faith-based artist, who is good IMO but a fish in a musical ocean going up against a whale of an artist like Katy Perry. I wonder how it all came about.



Good to see the little guy win for a change.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 2, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Good to see the little guy win for a change.



But this was one small win for man, one giant loss for mankind.


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 2, 2019)

This is getting crazy. That little melody line is kinda sorta close, but I doubt anyone would confuse the two songs, which is the whole point of copyright law. Copyright law was never intended to be an opportunistic _"Gotcha!"_ situation.

I could be mistaken, but I think the defendant can choose whether to have a jury decide or have the judge decide. If I ever get sued, then based on these recent cases as well as my experience on three juries I've served on, I'd definitely choose judge.


----------



## Living Fossil (Aug 2, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> These copyright cases are getting crazy. Chord progressions are not copyrightable. Every melody is out there somewhere. These need to stop or good writers will quit writing at all.



I think copyright laws concerning compositions are too simplistic.
The question, if something is a rip-off, is just not one that can be answered mechanically.

I was always wondering a bit that it is completely ok to use someone's orchestration.
Or: in more modern music, there are very specific chords that have a value on the level of composition. (Just think at the famous "Sacre du Printemps" chord) You just can use them, nobody cares.

Also, with traditional tunes it's always been perfectly fine to reuse the chord progressions.
(The whole improvisation culture in Jazz music is based on reusing existing progressions.)

If it comes to melodies, the whole thing is much more complex than it appears when regarded in isolation.
A melodic line c-e-g is completely different when harmonised with C-major as it is if it's over a f-minor chord. (this is a very simple example, there would be countless more complex ones.)

On the other hand, there are cases, where you can smell the rip-off, although lots of notes have been changed.

We need lawyers who are able to articulate the substantial achievements in specific cases and more sophisticated criteria in order to get better results in such law suits.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 2, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> But this was one small win for man, one giant loss for mankind.



Not at all. We need more of these suits popping up. The little guy finally needs some justice and these copyright laws need to be changed to something sensible.

Why in the world does a copyright for a song last 70 years after the composer's death? 

Medicines that save lives don't get patent protection that long. Shorten the copyright to 40 years from the date of creation. After that, song goes into the public domain.

Times have changed and music is made in hours and released in seconds.


----------



## chillbot (Aug 2, 2019)

Living Fossil said:


> We need lawyers who are able to articulate the substantial achievements in specific cases and more sophisticated criteria in order to get better results in such law suits.



It's not the lawyers arguing in defense of US, it's the ones arguing for the money. And they are quite possibly building a case to present to a jury of people that know absolute zilch about music and theory. (Or, worse, people who THINK they know about music but at a first grade level.)

I recently had to deal with a musicologist and it left me dumbfounded. Either this guy was a total quack (possible) or the system is completely screwed (possibly both).

[EDIT:] I wrote out a lengthy and vague description of what I was dealing with because it was so unbelievable. But since there were lawyers involved I changed my mind and don't feel like I can post it here. You can always come find me in the vi-c discord chat room...


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 3, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Not at all. We need more of these suits popping up.



Really? So you would be in favor of musicians suing you and winning because they found a tiny part of one of your songs that bears resemblance to a tiny part to one of theirs? The precedent set by these lawsuits is that no two songs can share the same few notes in succession, even when they are completely different songs. Money-grab lawsuits like this put a stain on the music industry.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 3, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Not at all. We need more of these suits popping up. The little guy finally needs some justice and these copyright laws need to be changed to something sensible.


Yes, but do you really think these law suits are going to do that?



Desire Inspires said:


> Why in the world does a copyright for a song last 70 years after the composer's death?


That's a totally difference issue.


----------



## FinGael (Aug 3, 2019)

Alex Niedt said:


> It's like an artist suing another artist for drawing some circles and lines. You can't own the fundamentals. A song will always remind someone of another song, especially when we're talking about very minimal music based on the most common, popular foundations. Popular genres are built on tried-and-true clichés, so of course you can find hundreds and thousands of songs with the same rhythms, sounds, chord progressions, and simple melodic ideas. These things are so basic that mere probability guarantees they pop up repeatedly. The idea that it takes plagiarism to arrive at something like the "Dark Horse" beat for producers at that level is utterly ridiculous.



This.

If this development continues, probably someday some smart ass will get "a brilliant Idea" of suing every trailer composer who has used braams or trailer hits in their productions.


----------



## R. Soul (Aug 3, 2019)

Adam Neely explains it perfectly in this video.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 3, 2019)

Mike Greene said:


> I could be mistaken, but I think the defendant can choose whether to have a jury decide or have the judge decide. If I ever get sued, then based on these recent cases as well as my experience on three juries I've served on, I'd definitely choose judge.


One of the biggest problems is that the Musicologist is supposed to be an objective witness. However, as I've found recently, that just isn't the case. When they use the phrase "I know of no other", they are basically admitting that they are ignorant, but nobody ever picks them up on it. It's a racket and I know of at least one Publisher that is buying a catalogue, and then sending out copious demands for damages, on the grounds that some will stick, and for the unfortunate recipient, it will be cheaper just to pay them off.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 3, 2019)

#bachroyalties


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 3, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Yes, but do you really think these law suits are going to do that?



Yes. These big name producers and artists cannot continue to exploit unknown talent without a fair share of the profits. I mean, how much would it have cost Katy Perry and her team to simply clear the sample from Flame and Lecrae?


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 3, 2019)

OK, I see where you're coming from. You believe Katy DID rip off Flame. I think that's why some of us were confused by your comments. I (and I think a quite a few other musicians here) believe the tiny bit of similarity between the songs was purely coincidental and unintentional.

If a big name blatantly and intentionally does rip off a smaller artist, or any other artist for that matter, then yes, I believe a lawsuit is justifiable, and it is good to the the small guy win.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 3, 2019)

FinGael said:


> This.
> 
> If this development continues, probably someday some smart ass will get "a brilliant Idea" of suing every trailer composer who has used braams or trailer hits in their productions.


Some woman decided to copyright the word cocky in relation to romance novels series titles. The copyright office approved it without doing any search on the term or they would have found hundreds to thousands of books with cocky in its title and even series of books with cocky in the series name. She then tried banning all the other books on Amazon with this word in the title. Amazon deleted hundreds of books with reviews before it was stopped. There were a couple court cases and she ended up giving up the copyright, more because of the backlash she got from everyone. I don't remember if she actually lost or they just settled. 

Now titles are not copyrightable according to the law. Same with scales and chord progressions. But Amazon, a company with lawyers, doesn't seem to know this. So it's very likely 9 people will not understand this either. I'm with Mike on this. A judge may agree it sounds similar but if the law only protects words and melodies, that should be all she/he will judge on. 

I'm all for giving the little guy credit, but it has to be more than a couple notes that aren't even in the melody.


----------



## MauroPantin (Aug 3, 2019)

I guess we will all be writing our descending lines in phrygian mode when we need a minor feel from now on, just in case. But then maybe we'll get sued by the flamenco people? This is all very confusing.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 3, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> OK, I see where you're coming from. You believe Katy DID rip off Flame. I think that's why some of us were confused by your comments. I (and I think a quite a few other musicians here) believe the tiny bit of similarity between the songs was purely coincidental and unintentional.
> 
> If a big name blatantly and intentionally does rip off a smaller artist, or any other artist for that matter, then yes, I believe a lawsuit is justifiable, and it is good to the the small guy win.



I don’t know if Katy Perry herself ripped anyone off. She may not have written the song. But whoever wrote the music and lyrics from “Dark Horse” did copy from the other song. It could or could not have been intentional, but there were enough similarities to me. I see where the jury would declare there was infringement.

But all of this stuff is beyond most of our grasp. Lawyers get paid good money to argue the ins and outs of copyright law. Anyone could get sued for infringement, but these things usually only go to court when big money is involved. I don’t make enough money from music to buy bubblegum.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 3, 2019)

its defnitly worrisome since its basically what we call "reference track".. for which a comparison of korngold would of landed john williams in hot water.

Seems they are going after "malicious intent" which again.. reference tracks for us. They intented to sound like that, and therefore get the money for which they would of earn. they changed the melody, chords and arrangement but still... if a jury of peers and lawyers dont mention the big band era of this sort of issues then its like they are arguing that "Prodox" chinese hand bag looks like that "Prada" bag even though the P was changed by a "d" and that sort of "counterfeit" argument which is not really fall in the music category.

It seems we are re-discovering things again... from minor stuff to all these legal issues that where already settled. from trump to space travel and everything in between. Facebook and a new generation with the attention spam of a tick now have to re-figure out these crap that previous generations already figured out. Did they even show other pop tracks that sound also similar... basially almost everything hiphop done in the past decade sounds like that.

I suggest we all target that musicologist who sold himself out and IM him in FB, IG and do facebook groups and forums just to bash on him for siding on something so wrong just for the money.


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> The little guy finally needs some justice and these copyright laws need to be changed to something sensible.


Favoring the little guy is not the right approach. Favor the guy who is in the right.

In this case, the little guy was in the wrong.

rgames


----------



## VinRice (Aug 3, 2019)

Melody - different, harmony - different, lyrics - different, key - different, tempo - different. Lead line in the backing - similar but not identical. A lead line rhythm that is a trope in HipHop (which is what the writers chose it presumably, to get that 'urban' cred). Clearly a completely baseless complaint that sets a precedent for literally thousands of potential writs, and provides Flame with priceless publicity. SAD!


----------



## jbuhler (Aug 3, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> I suggest we all target that musicologist who sold himself out and IM him in FB, IG and do facebook groups and forums just to bash on him for siding on something so wrong just for the money.


Sure dox the musicologist because Perry’s lawyers weren’t with it enough to be able to develop a reasonable argument or find their own credible expert witness to effectively refute him.


----------



## TGV (Aug 3, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> Amazon, a company with lawyers, doesn't seem to know this.


I think the issue in this case is that Amazon wants to avoid one thing in particular: liability. Amazon gets an injunction? Amazon complies, certainly if it's small fish. Because then damages are for the claimant (if that's the correct word). If Amazon wouldn't, and it turns out the claimant has a case, they'll sue Amazon. That's what the lawyers are for.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 3, 2019)

TGV said:


> I think the issue in this case is that Amazon wants to avoid one thing in particular: liability. Amazon gets an injunction? Amazon complies, certainly if it's small fish. Because then damages are for the claimant (if that's the correct word). If Amazon wouldn't, and it turns out the claimant has a case, they'll sue Amazon. That's what the lawyers are for.


They probably figured the self published authors whose books they removed wouldn't be able to come after them.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 3, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I don’t know if Katy Perry herself ripped anyone off.



When I said "Katy Perry" I was referring to Katy Perry et al., meaning every defendant.




Desire Inspires said:


> but there were enough similarities to me.



I respect your opinion, and the two songs obviously do share a smidgen of similarity, but I disagree about there being "enough" similarities to qualify as copyright infringement. Every song created on earth shares a similarity with another, whether it's meter. tempo, groove, chords, chord progressions, instrumentation, parts of lyrics, parts of a melody, etc. With millions of musicians on this planet composing music with the same 12 notes, sooner or later one musician is going to put a few of those notes in the same sequence as another. It's inevitable. We all know this. But, to the delight of many a greedy lawyer, your average juror does not. Until this changes, all of us songwriters and composers (including you, DI) are sitting ducks.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 3, 2019)

rgames said:


> Favoring the little guy is not the right approach. Favor the guy who is in the right.
> 
> In this case, the little guy was in the wrong.
> 
> rgames



Not at all. The little guy had his intellectual property copied and used with no chance to negotiate a fair price for that use.


----------



## Hywel (Aug 3, 2019)

I knew neither of these songs prior to reading about this action. 
Having listened to them both now they are completely different songs that share a motif. The motif is a prominent part of the song for the winner of the case but a background element for the loser. 
I don’t know much about law but it strikes me that this case should be treated more as a sample used without permission type of ruling rather than copyright infringement of an entire song. 
I may have misunderstood the ruling however not being a lawyer myself.


----------



## jonathanparham (Aug 3, 2019)

R. Soul said:


> Adam Neely explains it perfectly in this video.



My wife and I got a kick out of his take


----------



## JohnG (Aug 3, 2019)

this is just unbelievable. as someone else asked, "where was Katie Perry's musicologist???"


----------



## rgames (Aug 3, 2019)

Great video by Adam Neely!


----------



## Daryl (Aug 4, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Not at all. The little guy had his intellectual property copied and used with no chance to negotiate a fair price for that use.


That was not necessarily the case. There was no proof of copying. There was proof of similarity. However, for me, the question was does that simple riff, even when it's not identical, create a new Copyright? The answer, also for me, is "no".


----------



## Daryl (Aug 4, 2019)

Hywel said:


> Having listened to them both now they are completely different songs that share a motif. The motif is a prominent part of the song for the winner of the case but a background element for the loser.



Except that it's not exactly the same, and as you point out, they serve different purposes, and and are not the same song at all.



Hywel said:


> I don’t know much about law but it strikes me that this case should be treated more as a sample used without permission type of ruling rather than copyright infringement of an entire song.
> I may have misunderstood the ruling however not being a lawyer myself.



There was no sample used, so it couldn't be tried under that. However, the interesting thing will be in the ruling as to how much of the song gets awarded. It won't be 100%.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 4, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Yes. These big name producers and artists cannot continue to exploit unknown talent without a fair share of the profits.


Actually, it's the other way round. "Big name" Publishers are going after everything they can, as they are losing so much money due to the ease of self producing.


Desire Inspires said:


> I mean, how much would it have cost Katy Perry and her team to simply clear the sample from Flame and Lecrae?


And this is why it's dangerous for amateurs to give their opinion. It wasn't a sample.


----------



## lpuser (Aug 4, 2019)

Very interesting observations in the video above. Is there any chance to dispute the ruling? Somebody clearly seems to have a severe hearing problem.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 4, 2019)

Daryl said:


> And this is why it's dangerous for amateurs to give their opinion. It wasn't a sample.



There is nothing dangerous about my opinion. "Dark Horse" contained similar elements from the song "Joyful Noise". The lawyers for Katy Perry et al were not able to defend their clients. A jury agreed that there was infringement. So the case makes sense to me.


----------



## AllanH (Aug 4, 2019)

This is really a terrible verdict. It appears, that a simple motif of about 8 notes embedded somewhere in the background of a track is sufficient to trigger a copyright violation. This is certainly a gift to the lawyers; there must be millions of similar cases just waiting to be found.

ADDED: this is very similar to the IP suits on the technology side. There are companies extracting billions a year from technology companies over suspect patent infringement. This "copyright infringement" business will now become a "legit" industry.


----------



## Kony (Aug 4, 2019)

There goes that 12 bar blues track I was working on....


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 4, 2019)

Kony said:


> There goes that 12 bar blues track I was working on....



No, you'll be fine... as long as you change your track to 13 bars with unrecognizable chord progressions, don't use any guitars or harmonicas, make it a happy song, and call it the "reds".


----------



## Daryl (Aug 4, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> There is nothing dangerous about my opinion. "Dark Horse" contained similar elements from the song "Joyful Noise". The lawyers for Katy Perry et al were not able to defend their clients. A jury agreed that there was infringement. So the case makes sense to me.


Yes there is. You said it was a sample. It wasn't. You were wrong


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 4, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Yes there is. You said it was a sample. It wasn't. You were wrong


Okay, it wasn’t a sample. I’ll give you that. They didn’t sample the Master Recording. 

But “Dark Horse” used portions of “Joyful Noise”.

In either case, it was infringement.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 4, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Okay, it wasn’t a sample. I’ll give you that. They didn’t sample the Master Recording.



As I said.


Desire Inspires said:


> But “Dark Horse” used portions of “Joyful Noise”.
> 
> In either case, it was infringement.


I disagree. There are three things that have to be proved.

1. That is it is the same, or similar enough to class as the same.
2. That there is no way they could have written it without hearing the "original".
3. And this is the most important one, that the "original" is actually original enough to generate a new Copyright.

The last is the one that is really dangerous, because there is nothing original in the riff in Joyful Noise. The originality (if any) comes from the composition. Once you can start claiming that little two or three note riffs are Copyright, it is game over for the majority of media composers. Everything is related to what came before. it has to be, as we are writing within a diatonic landscape.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 4, 2019)

Daryl said:


> As I said.
> 
> I disagree. There are three things that have to be proved.
> 
> ...



We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Stalemate, bro!

The case could be appealed and then appealed again. These things can drag on in court for years with no one winning except the lawyers. So only time will tell how they all play out.


----------



## zigzag (Aug 5, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> There is nothing dangerous about my opinion. "Dark Horse" contained similar elements from the song "Joyful Noise". The lawyers for Katy Perry et al were not able to defend their clients. A jury agreed that there was infringement. So the case makes sense to me.


Every song contains similar elements from other songs. Can you name one song that doesn't?

Not every element of the song should be copyrightable. For example, if I use a flute in a song, I shouldn't be able to sue every artist that used that similar element (a flute). Agree?

What is more, that main element from "Joyful Noise" that was similar, actually wasn't an original element. It appears in many compositions that are older that "Joyful Noise". Listen here for examples. We could argue that this element is already a copy.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Aug 5, 2019)

zigzag said:


> Every song contains similar elements from other songs. Can you name one song that doesn't?
> 
> Not every element of the song should be copyrightable. For example, if I use a flute in a song, I shouldn't be able to sue every artist that used that similar element (a flute). Agree?
> 
> What is more, that main element from "Joyful Noise" that was similar, actually wasn't an original element. It appears in many compositions that are older that "Joyful Noise". Listen here for examples. We could argue that this element is already a copy.



I am done arguing. I benefit nothing from the conversation.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 5, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> I am done arguing. I benefit nothing from the conversation.



Only an open mind can benefit from an opposing opinion. DI, every beat you create is probably more infringing on other musicians' copyrights than Dark Horse. The only difference is that the musicians whose work you unwittingly "steal" haven't heard your beats, or if they have, they don't care because they are intelligent enough to know that beats/songs, just by sheer chance, can and usually do share similar elements.


----------



## sourcefor (Aug 5, 2019)

Its all bull....This and the Blurred lines fiasco!!! Too much suing going to make up for lost money on free downloads!!! I get that people want credit for what they wrote but you cannot copyright a scale or similar notes, i don't think they ripped the songs off maybe just borrowed the idea!!!!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Aug 5, 2019)

different melodic pattern, different context, and focusing on a tiny part of the track out-of-context. And of course, a jury of cloth-eared simpletons who don't understand how music is constructed gave the wrong verdict. Rick Beato amongst others has done a good video on this.


----------



## patrick76 (Aug 9, 2019)

Here we go again...the flood gates are open.








Lady Gaga slams claim she stole ‘Shallow’ from unknown songwriter


Gaga’s team is branding as a “brazen shakedown.”




pagesix.com


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 9, 2019)

patrick76 said:


> Here we go again...the flood gates are open.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A "renowned and respected musicologist and professor" supports the claim. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it is the same clown from the Dark Horse case.


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 9, 2019)

Sovereign said:


> A "renowned and respected musicologist and professor" supports the claim. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if it is the same clown from the Dark Horse case.



Or a different hired clown.

I know what I am going to do this weekend. I am going through all of the music I have written in the past 30 years to see if there is something that is remotely similar to something else. I am sure I have done something that has one or two notes in it.


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 9, 2019)

To me, this is all just another symptom of the historical slashing of arts/music education budgets and education budgets in general. The majority of the jury clearly had no understanding whatsoever of how music works and there was certainly very little critical thinking going on.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 9, 2019)

Shallow was released last fall, and yet it seems Ronsen didn't think it infringed on his copyright at the time. It only infringed on his copyright _after_ Katy Perry lost her lawsuit. Gee, I wonder why. There mu$t be a rea$on. Hmmmm.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 9, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Shallow was released last fall, and yet it seems Ronsen didn't think it infringed on his copyright at the time. It only infringed on his copyright _after_ Katy Perry lost her lawsuit. Gee, I wonder why. There mu$t be a rea$on. Hmmmm.



Now Polka$ound, don’t be $keptical. I’m $ure there are $everal hone$t and legitimate rea$on$ for thi$ $uper timely law$uit.


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 9, 2019)

Two factors are playing a huge part in this nonsense. The first is that pop music went more and more into simple directions. Minimal approaches make it hard not to sound derivative and this ultimately leads me to the next point which is: People with no or loose knowledge about music shouldn't decide on any of those cases.

On the other hand, if those popular "artists" see the threat of beeing sued, maybe they finally try to write some more original music.


----------



## robgb (Aug 9, 2019)

JohnG said:


> What do you think?


Ridiculous. Listen to the two songs. There's nothing there. Nothing. These kinds of lawsuits are the new patent trolls, in my opinion, taking advantage of the courts and ill-informed juries.

This guy sums it up nicely:


----------



## TimCox (Aug 9, 2019)

Claims like this _shouldn't_ go to a jury. An impartial jury of non-musicians on a copyrighted music dispute is _not _impartial.


----------



## MikeH (Aug 9, 2019)

TimCox said:


> Claims like this _shouldn't_ go to a jury. An impartial jury of non-musicians on a copyrighted music dispute is _not _impartial.



Exactly. It’s like my mom who thinks anything with strings is Star Wars (sorry mom!).


----------



## jbuhler (Aug 9, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Shallow was released last fall, and yet it seems Ronsen didn't think it infringed on his copyright at the time. It only infringed on his copyright _after_ Katy Perry lost her lawsuit. Gee, I wonder why. There mu$t be a rea$on. Hmmmm.


This claim should be harder to convince even a fairly ignorant jury because it is a gesture heard in countless pieces before and it does not have a distinctive performance hook as in the Perry/Flame case. I'm pretty certain the thing that got the verdict in the latter case was that the offending bit was detachable as a riff in the way that samples are, and this allowed an argumentative line developed in case law on sampling to work its way into the Perry case. As I understand the testimony in the Perry case (going from news reports and inferences rather than the testimony, which I haven't seen), the argument was not that Dark Horse infringed because it used that particular melodic pattern (the much ridiculed lifting from the minor scale), but rather because the realization of the Dark Horse synth bit conformed in several particulars with the realization of the Joyful Noise synth bit. There's still a lot wrong with that argument, I wouldn't defend it, and I continue to be surprised that Perry's lawyers weren't able to effectively rebut it, but given how sampling law has developed I can see how someone might try to make that argument and how jurists might be convinced by it if the defense didn't take it seriously. But there is none of that that I can see in this Gaga/Ronsen case.


----------



## J-M (Aug 9, 2019)

To put it in simple terms, it's complete bullshit.


----------



## pinki (Aug 9, 2019)

ghostnote said:


> On the other hand, if those popular "artists" see the threat of being sued, maybe they finally try to write some more original music.


----------



## robgb (Aug 9, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> the argument was not that Dark Horse infringed because it used that particular melodic pattern (the much ridiculed lifting from the minor scale), but rather because the realization of the Dark Horse synth bit conformed in several particulars with the realization of the Joyful Noise synth bit.


If you listen to the two songs, even that claim is spurious. From what I can gather—according to the court documents—it seems that part of the claim was that Dark Horse is devil music and tarnished this Christian man's reputation because of a VERY VAGUELY similar riff. And I suspect this was probably the biggest reason he won. The jury—undoubtedly largely Christian themselves (as are most Americans)—probably ruled based on emotion rather than logic.

I could be wrong.


----------



## jbuhler (Aug 9, 2019)

robgb said:


> If you listen to the two songs, even that claim is spurious. From what I can gather—according to the court documents—it seems that part of the claim was that Dark Horse is devil music and tarnished this Christian man's reputation because of a VERY VAGUELY similar riff. And I suspect this was probably the biggest reason he won. The jury—undoubtedly largely Christian themselves (as are most Americans)—probably ruled based on emotion rather than logic.
> 
> I could be wrong.


It‘s more than vaguely similar even if it wasn’t identical. I don’t think Dark Horse copied it, however. I still wonder about Perry’s lawyers.


----------



## WaveRider (Aug 9, 2019)

I absolutely hate Katy Perry as a person, but I have to say I think she got a raw deal here.


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 9, 2019)

MikeH said:


> Exactly. It’s like my mom who thinks anything with strings is Star Wars (sorry mom!).



No birthday gift for you this year.

Trial by jury. What's that about anyway.


----------



## robgb (Aug 10, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> It‘s more than vaguely similar even if it wasn’t identical.


I would agree if they weren't completely different synth sounds in two different keys, and if the Dark Horse version was more than a simple backing riff through only part of the song. If you isolate them, they share a similar series of notes, but that's all. In the context of their respective songs, the similarity is vague.


----------



## Dynamoe (Aug 10, 2019)

I’m afraid that everyone is loosing here. Except the lawyers who are laughing all the way to the bank!


----------



## TimCox (Aug 10, 2019)

MikeH said:


> It’s like my mom who thinks anything with strings is Star Wars (sorry mom!).


Wait. It's not?!


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 10, 2019)

I did notice on the court files that the plaintiffs wanted a jury trial. I am not sure if the defendants had a choice in it. But it makes me think of that woman who got millions of dollars from McDonald's because they didn't warn her the coffee was hot. I think it eventually got overturned, not that you hear about that part. Hopefully they appeal this.


----------



## ism (Aug 10, 2019)

I can’t believe what i’m Reading here - am I the only one who actually likes Katy Perry?


----------



## jbuhler (Aug 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> I would agree if they weren't completely different synth sounds in two different keys, and if the Dark Horse version was more than a simple backing riff through only part of the song. If you isolate them, they share a similar series of notes, but that's all. In the context of their respective songs, the similarity is vague.


The synth timbres are superficially similar. The keys in this case immaterial. I agree that competent lawyering ought to have been able to show the synth sounds were in reality completely different and pointed to a different tradition of influence.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Aug 10, 2019)

What a load of bovine excrement.


----------



## robgb (Aug 10, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> The synth timbres are superficially similar.


I don't even think they're superficially similar. Joyful Noise has a high-pitched, echoing tone with a kind of cut-off swoop to it.

Dark Horse, on the other hand has an airy synth sound with longer notes.

Two different settings on your typical synth. Neither of which the songwriters or producers originated.


----------



## ghostnote (Aug 10, 2019)

ism said:


> I can’t believe what i’m Reading here - am I the only one who actually likes Katy Perry?


Do you mean her music or...?


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 10, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> I did notice on the court files that the plaintiffs wanted a jury trial. I am not sure if the defendants had a choice in it. But it makes me think of that woman who got millions of dollars from McDonald's because they didn't warn her the coffee was hot. I think it eventually got overturned, not that you hear about that part. Hopefully they appeal this.



The McDonalds case is often misunderstood and misrepresented. See below. She didn't get millions, she got about $600,000 after settling and her lawsuit was only originally brought for medical expenses ($20,000) because the coffee was actually so hot (near boiling point) that she required serious surgery. McDonalds themselves in the course of the lawsuit acknowledged that the temperature of their coffee was dangerous and had had many previous complaints to the same. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 10, 2019)

ism said:


> I can’t believe what i’m Reading here - am I the only one who actually likes Katy Perry?


I like some of her stuff and have nothing against her as a person. But I'm also a female singer, so I like stuff I can sing along with.


----------



## jbuhler (Aug 10, 2019)

robgb said:


> I don't even think they're superfically similar. Joyful Noise has a high-pitched, echoing tone with a kind cut-off swoop to it.
> 
> Dark Horse, on the other hand has an airy synth sound with longer notes.
> 
> Two different settings on your typical synth. Neither of which the songwriters or producers originated.


From the standpoint of production, I agree completely. But I can see why a jury given no evidence to the contrary and no framework for thinking about synth sounds might conclude they sounded similar enough. I kind of want to get my hands on the court transcript to find out if Perry’s lawyers presented any evidence rebutting the claim of similarity in synth timbre.


----------



## ism (Aug 10, 2019)

ghostnote said:


> Do you mean her music or...?


music. Not Beethoven, but occasionally kind of fun. And there is an emotional quality to her singing really that really does stand out from the usual set of I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Brittneys .


----------



## artomatic (Aug 10, 2019)

Ridiculous!
The jury was tone deaf on this one. 
Never mind the lame musicologist.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 10, 2019)

prodigalson said:


> The McDonalds case is often misunderstood and misrepresented. See below. She didn't get millions, she got about $600,000 after settling and her lawsuit was only originally brought for medical expenses ($20,000) because the coffee was actually so hot (near boiling point) that she required serious surgery. McDonalds themselves in the course of the lawsuit acknowledged that the temperature of their coffee was dangerous and had had many previous complaints to the same.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit-stella-liebeck


Yes but read that the jury gave her $2.9 million. I know she didn't sue for it and agree she should have got something more than they offered. But juries don't often follow the law and are influenced by things that are not necessarily includable in the decision they are supposed to be making. This is why plaintiffs like jury trials.


----------



## robgb (Aug 10, 2019)

jbuhler said:


> Perry’s lawyers presented any evidence rebutting the claim of similarity in synth timbre.


I have to believe her legal team failed her. I'm sure they all thought the guy winning was about as likely as Trump winning the presidency. Sometimes we get complacent.


----------



## robgb (Aug 10, 2019)

ism said:


> music. Not Beethoven, but occasionally kind of fun. And there is an emotional quality to her singing really that really does stand out from the usual set of I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Brittneys .


I gained respect for Perry when I saw her playing guitar and singing without the aid of the production wizards. She was really very good. Same for Taylor Swift. I think it's easy to dismiss these pop princesses, but, for some of them, behind all the whiz-bang there actually is a lot of talent.


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 10, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> Yes but read that the jury gave her $2.9 million.



I'm aware, thats why I said $600,000* after settling.* The point is that this case is very often mentioned as a watershed moment and text book example of frivolous lawsuits when that's simply not accurate.

And if you spilled coffee on yourself, burning yourself so badly that you had to have reconstructive surgery on your genitals because the multi-billion dollar corporation providing the coffee intentionally heated it to near boiling point despite knowing it was dangerous to do so having received many complaints in the past, you might have something to say to that coffee provider too. And in that case, maybe 2.9 million might seem a lot more reasonable.


----------



## Kony (Aug 10, 2019)

I'm not sure what difference it would make if the synth sounds were completely identical. Are the sounds copyrighted? Put another way, are identical snare sounds playing a particular rhythm (in different songs) the subject of copyright lawsuits?


----------



## robgb (Aug 10, 2019)

Kony said:


> Put another way, are identical snare sounds playing a particular rhythm (in different songs) the subject of copyright lawsuits?


Give it time.


----------



## TimCox (Aug 11, 2019)

Kony said:


> I'm not sure what difference it would make if the synth sounds were completely identical. Are the sounds copyrighted? Put another way, are identical snare sounds playing a particular rhythm (in different songs) the subject of copyright lawsuits?


They're all stolen from sounds created by Richard Wright and all of the synth pioneers of the 70s and 80s anyway


----------



## Zero&One (Aug 14, 2019)

I see Lady Gaga is the newest victim of this. Crazy world


----------



## rollasoc (Aug 14, 2019)

From now on, I am only going to write my songs using midi. With each bar having random 1/128th or 1/64th notes at velocity 1, along with some normal notes at normal velocities. Then when they try and compare the sheet music of my song with others, mine will be a jumbled mess, which they will never untangle. Mwahhhhh.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 14, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> From now on, I am only going to write my songs using midi. With each bar having random 1/128th or 1/64th notes at velocity 1, along with some normal notes at normal velocities. Then when they try and compare the sheet music of my song with others, mine will be a jumbled mess, which they will never untangle. Mwahhhhh.


Won't matter. If you actually have notes, you'll be infringing.


----------



## ThePrioryStudio (Aug 14, 2019)

chillbot said:


> It's not the lawyers arguing in defense of US



Exactly this. It doesn't matter if it was ripped off, doesn't matter if it sounds similar or not similar at all. That's almost the most irrelevant part about it. The lawyers made a case and drained each side for their fee. That's it! It's wealth generation, simply.

As far as musically speaking, I'm sure KP's side wished they'd hired Rick Beato given his excellent synopsis


----------



## reddognoyz (Aug 14, 2019)

It's a crap decision decided by a group of people unequipped to be able to differentiate between what is common and what is intrinsic to the song. I feel it's coincidence, it's such a common phrase.


----------



## rollasoc (Aug 14, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Won't matter. If you actually have notes, you'll be infringing.


So a two bar 8 note melody can be seen as the same as a 264 note two bar melody. Interesting......


----------



## José Herring (Aug 14, 2019)

It doesn't bode well for commercial music. Every established style is recognized by similar rhythms and chords. Now some ass can sue a new artist because 10 years ago he wrote a Reggae tune. These lawsuits are just a money grab and a deliberate attempt to hammer at the music industry. The flip side of this is that these lawsuits are similar to Nestle trying to put a patent on water or Monster cable trying to place intellectual property rights on the term "monster". But, because it's music and it's more subjective, then people don't see it for the absurdity of what it really is. It's like somebody suing somebody because he used the clave rhythm in a Latin tune. Give me a f***in' break already.


----------



## averystemmler (Aug 14, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> So a two bar 8 note melody can be seen as the same as a 264 note two bar melody. Interesting......



But you'll notice you said "note" twice. Intrinsically similar. You've proven it yourself!


----------



## mac4d (Aug 16, 2019)

So here are the intro lyrics from Joyful Noise by Flame, put out in 2008.

You know what it is
I love it
Yeah
I love it
Let's talk about it..

I present the above lyrics here for fair use educational purposes, in order to inform the general public, and possibly some copyright infringement concerned artists, the following...

In 2007, T.I. put out a rap song called: You Know What It Is. 
T.I. and guest rappers use phrase 'you know what it is' 7 times in song. These exact words, not just similar. Exact same 5 words, and if one were to get picky about it, exact same 15 letters (think 15 notes for the musical equivalence).

Not only that, but if you listen to this song, there's a prominent mono sawtooth portamento patch, very similar to what Flame used.

And just overall, these songs have very similar hip-hop feel, groove, vibe. I very much doubt a layman jurist who doesn't listen to rap or hip-hop would be able to tell these songs apart easily, if at all. It's like for people who are not fans of jazz, jazz all sounds the same to them (actual people have told me this). Same with classical. And a number of styles like polka, or big band... but i digress...

Moving on..
In 1995, Tim McGraw put out a country song called: I Like it, I Love it. 
Tim sings the words 'I love it' twice in each chorus (there are 3 choruses).

This song was a big hit. I don't listen to country stations, but even I remember hearing this song, likely Top 40 radio. From genius.com: “I Like It, I Love It” is the first single off of McGraw’s 3x multi-platinum album, All I Want.

Anyway, Tim sings the exact same 3 words that Flame appropriated and used in his song 13 years later. Even the exact same 7 letters.

Interestingly Tim says 'I love it' twice in his chorus, and Flame says 'I love it' twice in his intro. 
Coincidence? hmmmm...I think not!

In 1964, The Beatles put out a rock song called: She Loves You. In this song they say 'Yeah' many times. This was a big hit for them. The Beatles were very popular!
Exact same word, 4 letters, is lifted by Flame in 2008 for his song. Scandalous!

In 2002, Clipse put out a rap song called: Let's Talk About it.
In this hip-hop rap song, rapper Jermaine Dupri raps 'Lets talk about it' 6 times in a chorus. There are 3 choruses so he raps this phrase 18 times. Exact same phrase that Flame lifted and used 6 years later in his song. And without even asking permission! Exact same 15 letters.

Now Flame might claim he never heard the Clipse song, but I'll bet money he heard Salt-N-Pepa's 1991 humongous hit: Let’s Talk About Sex.
So he clearly heard 'let's talk about' before his 2008 song, and likely, as a christian artist he would have to change 'sex' to 'it' so as not to offend his christian audience, cause you know, they don't like sex.

Flame didn't create one new original lyric phrase in his song's entire intro, it's all lifted from elsewhere. And he has the gall to go after Katy Perry for a background accompaniment mono portamento synth part, playing an ultra basic melodic phrase, repeating in a 2 or 1 bar loop, reminiscent of a gazillion other hip-hop songs.

Worse than that. They actually let this ridiculous case go to trial. Can't the court system find better things to do than waste time on an 8th or 16th note arpeggiator generated loop of the 1st phrase of 3 Blind Mice with the 3rd flatted? (Oh, how innovative! Must've taken them days to do.)


----------



## rollasoc (Aug 16, 2019)

Kony said:


> Put another way, are identical snare sounds playing a particular rhythm (in different songs) the subject of copyright lawsuits?


So if I take a stock EZDrummer midi pattern with the stock kit. Release my song, then you use the same pattern and kit. Can I sue you?


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 16, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> So if I take a stock EZDrummer midi pattern with the stock kit. Release my song, then you use the same pattern and kit. Can I sue you?


Or worse, an EZKeys midi phrase. I chose that specific chord progression to use with that specific phrase, I should be able to go after anyone else who uses it, right?


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 16, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> So if I take a stock EZDrummer midi pattern with the stock kit. Release my song, then you use the same pattern and kit. Can I sue you?



No.



dzilizzi said:


> Or worse, an EZKeys midi phrase. I chose that specific chord progression to use with that specific phrase, I should be able to go after anyone else who uses it, right?



And no.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

I think the likelihood of any of us being sued and losing under the same premise as Katy Perry is very small, because we're not multi-millionaires. I believe the jury in this case was swooned by the plaintiff's legal team into thinking $2.7 million is a drop in the bucket for the defense, who could and therefore should pony it up to the little guy.

There are a lot of people in the world who hate wealthy people just because they're wealthy. Get people like that on a jury, and they won't think twice about siphoning a few million dollars away from a mega pop star.

I believe that's how Flame won the case.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> So if I take a stock EZDrummer midi pattern with the stock kit. Release my song, then you use the same pattern and kit. Can I sue you?



You could, but since we're talking about percussion and not tones, I doubt anyone would take your case unless there were additional compositional elements similar between our two songs.



dzilizzi said:


> Or worse, an EZKeys midi phrase. I chose that specific chord progression to use with that specific phrase, I should be able to go after anyone else who uses it, right?



Yes. You own the composition in which you used EZ Keys MIDI phrase, so it would be no different than if you composed the phrase yourself. But the likelihood of one independent artist suing another over the same EZ Keys MIDI phrase is virtually non-existent... until one of you has a song that becomes popular and makes you a lot of money. Then the odds of another musician coming after you, who also used that MIDI phrase, goes way up.

The point you bring up is a good one, because it shows that if the country's relatively unknown, independent artists started suing each other in similar Flame vs. Perry cases, it would flood the court system with thousands upon thousands of cases... all of them legitimate thanks to the horrific precedent set by the Flame vs. Perry case.

Every one of us composers and songwriters has unwittingly plagiarized another composer or songwriter at some point. We are protected from lawsuits by two things: limited popularity/wealth, and the professional courtesy and common sense shared by the majority of independent artists in the music community. If we gained popularity and wealth, the odds would increase that someone would throw common sense and courtesy out the window and come after our money.


----------



## Mike Greene (Aug 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> I think the likelihood of any of us being sued and losing under the same premise as Katy Perry is very small, because we're not multi-millionaires. I believe the jury in this case was swooned by the plaintiff's legal team into thinking $2.7 million is a drop in the bucket for the defense, who could and therefore should pony it up to the little guy.
> 
> There are a lot of people in the world who hate wealthy people just because they're wealthy. Get people like that on a jury, and they won't think twice about siphoning a few million dollars away from a mega pop star.
> 
> I believe that's how Flame won the case.


I agree with that, but what scares me is if these standards start moving to commercials and media music, where we can find ourselves on the hook for far more than we got paid.

For example, suppose I get paid $10k to do a jingle for Pepsi. Clyde McLawsuit thinks I infringed his song, and since it's Pepsi, he knows there's tons of money to be had if he sues. Since there's an indemnity clause in the contract I signed, it's me, not Pepsi, who is on the hook for the entire bill, including legal fees.

That really happened, incidentally. Fortunately I was able to un-attach myself from the defendants. (The guy who owned the publishing had been ripping me off ... and in a beautiful case of Karma, his sleazy actions got me off the hook.) The case settled for low 6-figures. For a $10k gig. The publisher didn't have that kind of money, so the ad agency paid most of it. Had I not gotten myself un-attached, that would have been me who paid most of it.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Aug 16, 2019)

I won’t subject myself to listening to either of these. But I sided with the nuns on her real estate scandal. Karma I guess.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

Mike Greene said:


> For example, suppose I get paid $10k to do a jingle for Pepsi.



I'd never be brave enough to work at that level in the industry, where it was necessary to sign an indemnity clause putting me on the hook for legal fees and punitive damages, knowing millions of people would hear my jingle. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night. I'd be more at ease writing cheap jingles for clients like "Owen's Discount Auto Parts on 53rd Street" to air at 7AM on the WKPI Earlybird Polka Showcase.


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Yes. You own the composition in which you used EZ Keys MIDI phrase, so it would be no different than if you composed the phrase yourself. But the likelihood of one independent artist suing another over the same EZ Keys MIDI phrase is virtually non-existent... until one of you has a song that becomes popular and makes you a lot of money. Then the odds of another musician coming after you, who also used that MIDI phrase, goes way up.



Even if in both cases you can trace it back to the same piece of software? "Yes, your honour, we both used EZ Keys, but I used it first."


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 16, 2019)

michelsimons said:


> Even if in both cases you can trace it back to the same piece of software? "Yes, your honour, we both used EZ Keys, but I used it first."



I don't think in any scenario there would be a legal case that revolves around an EZKeys phrase because the phrase actually belongs to Toontrack and they've licensed it to both parties.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 16, 2019)

michelsimons said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> And no.


I did say they need a sarcastic smiley on this board


----------



## Daryl (Aug 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> I think the likelihood of any of us being sued and losing under the same premise as Katy Perry is very small...


Makes no difference. If your music is making money, and someone wants a slice of that, you will be targeted. Speaking form experience here...!


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

prodigalson said:


> I don't think in any scenario there would be a legal case that revolves around an EZKeys phrase because the phrase actually belongs to Toontrack and they've licensed it to both parties.



Toontrack licenses the MIDI phrase, but when a composer uses it in their composition (modified or as-is) and releases it as audio, the composer still retains 100% of the rights to their song. So I definitely can see a lawsuit between two parties who used the same Toontrack MIDI phrase. I believe, however, it is extremely unlikely that such lawsuit would ever arise unless these two, rare conditions were met:

1. One composer's song would gain national or international exposure, such that it would reach the ears of other composers who would recognize a phrase in the song as possibly being the same one they used from Toontrack in their own compositions.

2. One of those other composers would be greedy enough to pull a "Steve Ronsen" and threaten a completely stupid, unwarranted lawsuit.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Toontrack licenses the MIDI phrase, but when a composer uses it in their composition (modified or as-is) and releases it as audio, the composer still retains 100% of the rights to their song. So I definitely can see a lawsuit between two parties who used the same Toontrack MIDI phrase. I believe, however, it is extremely unlikely that such lawsuit would ever arise unless these two, rare conditions were met:
> 
> 1. One composer's song would gain national or international exposure, such that it would reach the ears of other composers who would recognize a phrase in the song as possibly being the same one they used from Toontrack in their own compositions.
> 
> 2. One of those other composers would be greedy enough to pull a "Steve Ronsen" and threaten a completely stupid, unwarranted lawsuit.


So you're calling me Steve Ronsen???? Um, I guess I better Google who Steve Ronsen is...Ah, the nobody who is suing Lady Gaga over a chord progression. Sigh. If he wins this, I will be p*ssed. But the nobody part would fit me.... 

I think I was the one suing....


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Makes no difference. If your music is making money, and someone wants a slice of that, you will be targeted. Speaking form experience here...!



That's true, but there are a lot of factors that determine whether or not to escalate the targeting from a threat to a lawsuit, and those factors are what often shield independent and hobbyist musicians from frivolous lawsuits.



dzilizzi said:


> Sigh. If he wins this, I will be p*ssed.



From what I understand, a lawsuit was only threatened, not filed. What worries me is that Ronsen has now gained national exposure, so all it will take is for a good $leazeball lawyer to pick up on the story, come forward and offer services to Ronsen pro bono, and hope they get the same kind of jury that Flame got.


----------



## prodigalson (Aug 16, 2019)

Polkasound said:


> Toontrack licenses the MIDI phrase, but when a composer uses it in their composition (modified or as-is) and releases it as audio, the composer still retains 100% of the rights to their song. So I definitely can see a lawsuit between two parties who used the same Toontrack MIDI phrase. I believe, however, it is extremely unlikely that such lawsuit would ever arise unless these two, rare conditions were met:




Yes, the composer owns the rights to the composition but that doesn't change the fact that toontrack owns the phrase and toontrack and the composer have come to an agreement whereby no further royalty is owed. A lawsuit simply could not be brought that revolves solely around the phrase as it could be proved that the phrase existed before the composition.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 16, 2019)

prodigalson said:


> A lawsuit simply could not be brought that revolves solely around the phrase as it could be proved that the phrase existed before the composition.



Toontrack owns the software/MIDI files and licenses it to composers, but most of their phrases are a combination of standard comping and riffs that can be found anywhere else in music. They're provided as modifiable composition tools, not as audio recordings or samples. So when a composer incorporates Toontrack MIDI phrases into their song, it has the potential to infringe on the copyright of another composer who uses the same or similar-sounding phrases in a different song.

Obviously, arguing that they're phrases found in other songs and/or in MIDI phrase libraries is a logical argument for the defense, but that alone won't prevent or dismiss a frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## Michel Simons (Aug 16, 2019)

dzilizzi said:


> I did say they need a sarcastic smiley on this board



I was just being an ass. No sarcastic smiley necessary. My apologies.


----------



## shangsean (Aug 16, 2019)

I avoid all this crap by simply creating all my music in the key of W.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 16, 2019)

michelsimons said:


> I was just being an ass. No sarcastic smiley necessary. My apologies.


LOL! Not a problem. No apologies necessary. 

I do think it's funny that I could use a phrase from something like Sonokinetic, copyright my song, then 10 years down the line go after someone who uses the same phrase in the same way. I'd lose unless they were really incompetent. 

On another note, think of the bass line in Chicago's 25 or 6 to 4. You hear that line and you immediately know the song. But that same progression is in a probably a hundred other songs, just in same time frame including Babe, I'm gonna leave you by Led Zeppelin. Should they sue? 

I get the feeling when Katie Perry's team files an appeal, this case will get overturned. partially because appeals are usually just judges and no juries, unless they send it back to another trial. Judges tend to not be swayed by things like "she made a devil song out of a tiny tiny inconsequential piece of my Christian song"


----------



## Ledwick (Aug 16, 2019)

A christian rapper sued? I wonder whether he raps passages from the bible... seems kinda hypocritical...


----------



## Daryl (Aug 17, 2019)

shangsean said:


> I avoid all this crap by simply creating all my music in the key of W.


Wouldn't help, because changing key does to not create a new Copyright.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 17, 2019)

shangsean said:


> I avoid all this crap by simply creating all my music in the key of W.



Ah, yes... whiskey. It's the most popular key among polka musicians. 



dzilizzi said:


> I do think it's funny that I could use a phrase from something like Sonokinetic, copyright my song, then 10 years down the line go after someone who uses the same phrase in the same way. I'd lose unless they were really incompetent.



It is funny because of how nonsensical the idea is. Fortunately, most musicians understand that and would never sue based on one phrase. Lawsuits like that require a special kind of greedy scumbucket musician and his equally greedy scumbucket lawyer.



dzilizzi said:


> I get the feeling when Katie Perry's team files an appeal, this case will get overturned.



Are they appealing? I hope they do, and that they'll be better prepared and can get the decision overturned.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Aug 17, 2019)

I've been saying this for some time - the industry needs to sort this out. IMO PRO members should have an industry arbitration panel to rule on these things, not judges or juries who simply don't understand music. The panel would be made up of songwriters and composers. Condition of membership of the PRO is that disputes are handled through them and not the open courts.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 17, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I've been saying this for some time - the industry needs to sort this out. IMO PRO members should have an industry arbitration panel to rule on these things, not judges or juries who simply don't understand music. The panel would be made up of songwriters and composers. Condition of membership of the PRO is that disputes are handled through them and not the open courts.


This is actually good because the PRO would know exactly how much money is involved and could funnel future earnings to the winning party.


----------



## AllanH (Aug 17, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I've been saying this for some time - the industry needs to sort this out. IMO PRO members should have an industry arbitration panel to rule on these things, not judges or juries who simply don't understand music. The panel would be made up of songwriters and composers. Condition of membership of the PRO is that disputes are handled through them and not the open courts.


this is a really good idea.


----------



## DavidY (Aug 17, 2019)

Guy Rowland said:


> I've been saying this for some time - the industry needs to sort this out. IMO PRO members should have an industry arbitration panel to rule on these things, not judges or juries who simply don't understand music. The panel would be made up of songwriters and composers. Condition of membership of the PRO is that disputes are handled through them and not the open courts.


Would that be enough though?

If I want to take someone to court with a claim that someone else's big-money-earning track infringes on my intellectual property then
(a) I imagine the court would ultimately be the higher authority than the PRO, so if I win in court that would be enough.
(b) if the court is going to award me a huge chunk of money in one go, I may not be fussed about not being a member of a PRO now or in the future.

Not that I claim to know anything about such things - I've never had music that has earned money or been a member of a PRO. And I'm certainly not saying the verdict in this case was correct.


----------



## mac4d (Aug 17, 2019)

Katy Perry's Attorneys to Appeal the $2.78 MM 'Dark Horse' Verdict


Katy Perry, Capitol/UMG, Dr. Luke, Max Martin, and other 'Dark Horse' contributors will appeal last week's $2.78 million copyright infringement verdict.




www.digitalmusicnews.com


----------



## mac4d (Aug 17, 2019)

I wonder how many of the jury heard the Joyful Noise song before the trial. I'm gonna guess one to none. Based on that I listen to radio (used to quite a bit, much less now) and spotify, and I never heard this rap tune until this week. Didn't know it existed, didn't know it won music awards.

Yet the jury was convinced that Katy or other songwriter heard it even tho under oath, they testified they hadn't. Somehow the prosecuting side's claim that Dark Horse songwriters had access to hear Joyful Noise was enough. 

To me that's ridiculous. Web says there are 30 million songs on spotify, I have access to all of them but I've maybe, being generous, heard about 5000 of them, and if I include the ones that come up via spotify playlists that present a new song that, after giving it a chance, skip to something else within 60 seconds cause it's crap, maybe 10,000. So about 29,990,000 songs I've never heard (but have access to?). Even if I triple these numbers, then 29,970,000 I've not heard, don't know exist.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe christian rap is listened to by tons and gobs of mainstream music listeners. Maybe half the jury had heard the song before, listened to it all the time, and can't imagine that anyone hadn't heard it. Maybe the world is flat.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 17, 2019)

You do know there are whole YouTube channels "proving" the earth is flat. Or maybe slightly convex. With lots of subscribers. Sigh. Our education system continues to suck. Though it may be all the home schooling.


----------



## Polkasound (Aug 17, 2019)

Katy got her start in Christian music, so Flame's lawyers may have come up with bogus reasons why it would make sense for Katy to keep tabs on that musical scene, and used those reasons to sway the jury.

I like Guy Rowland's advice, because a jury of truck drivers, farmers, nurses, and dog groomers deciding a music copyright infringement case makes as much sense as putting together a panel of five-year-old kids to judge a "Best Broccoli Soup" contest.


----------



## Ledwick (Aug 17, 2019)

I don't really know much about the Katy Perry case, but it'd be cool to see some of the British artists like Clapton and Zep give credit to the old blues artists who's songs a good portion of their work is from. And I'm not exaggerating, I could name 10 famous zep songs off the top of my head that were acoustic blues songs from the 50s and 60s. Alot of those blues artists were actual slaves too, and almost all of them were poor. I love Zep, but they could give credit where credit is due. And there's literal proof because the lyrics are the same.


----------



## dzilizzi (Aug 17, 2019)

I know the Stones gave a lot of credit to Muddy Waters for influencing their early sound. They even had a song or two on some of their albums. No hits, but probably gave some royalty money to the writers. Of course, a lot of the early stuff was owned by the record companies, so it may not have helped the writers much.


----------



## Ledwick (Aug 17, 2019)

Yea, and Clapton gave credit sometimes too. It's just surprising how many songs where actually covers. For example, one of my favorite songs "in my time of dying" is actually "jesus make up my dying bed" by Blind Willie Johnson. And speaking of jesus...


dzilizzi said:


> You do know there are whole YouTube channels "proving" the earth is flat. Or maybe slightly convex. With lots of subscribers. Sigh. Our education system continues to suck. Though it may be all the home schooling.


I've actually seen people teach it. They say religion and science are both just beliefs and it's a personal choice of what you want to believe. Then the teacher said scientists think dinosaurs turned into birds and everyone laughed. I think it isn't too much of a stretch to say it's kinda brainwashing... By the way, it's possible to see the curvature of the earth by looking at the horizon line of the ocean, because it curves at the sides. lol


----------



## zigzag (Aug 18, 2019)

rollasoc said:


> So a two bar 8 note melody can be seen as the same as a 264 note two bar melody. Interesting......


Lawyers would argue 256 of them are only a passing notes, but 8 of them are identical. You just copied 8 note melody and added some passing tones to it...


----------

