# John Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel



## Lunatique (Jul 1, 2010)

I just watched Armored and I was very surprised to hear John Murphy completely ripping off the song "Angel" from Massive Attack. It's a blatant ripoff, essentially an instrumental version of it.

I could understand if a composer is asked to mimic a temp track, but to take it that far? From what I remember, this is not the first time he's been accused of totally ripping off others, and he's known to reuse his own music (much like James Horner). 

I guess my question is, does anyone in the biz even give a shit about these things? I mean, it's not like people are boycotting the sales of the soundtracks or the movie itself because the composer rips off other people's music or reuses his own music, so it is essentially only something a tiny minority of people care about, and they don't have any collective power to "see justice done" in these situations. 

I know this kind of topic is discussed a lot around here, but I think John Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack in this case is so brazen that it's almost like a "f-ck you" to everyone who believes in artistic integrity. It's the worst case of a ripoff I have ever heard in a film score.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 1, 2010)

If a piece is close enough to another piece, there's always the option of suing for copyright violation.


----------



## midphase (Jul 1, 2010)

Yawn...


----------



## Ed (Jul 1, 2010)

Worse that Brian Tyler's 300 score rip off on Goldenthals Titus, that was so bad they had to add a disclaimer to it?


----------



## dinerdog (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

It will always be one of those temped grooves/songs for films, along with Teardrop and the whole Mezzanine album. It's hard to fight the cool temp track.

Though, I'll be he wasn't thrilled about doing it.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 1, 2010)

Ed @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Worse that Brian Tyler's 300 score rip off ...



LOL! I am sure you meant Tyler Bates.... :mrgreen:


----------



## midphase (Jul 1, 2010)

Or as his assistants call him -- Master Bates


----------



## lux (Jul 1, 2010)

link to both pieces for us to listen?


----------



## PasiP (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Massive Attack -Angel

John Murphy -Ty's Decision


----------



## midphase (Jul 1, 2010)

Wow...John's version really kinda sucks. I'm not talking about from a ripping off standpoint, but from a production standpoint....just feels weak.

BTW, I'm not blaming him for the rip off...I've been in situations where you're throwing revision after revision at the director and he just won't have it because none of it sounds like the temp cue. So at some point you just give up and give him what he wants even though it means losing that much more respek from your peers...oh well!


----------



## choc0thrax (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Hah, I had never heard Murphy's version as it never occured to me that I should listen to the score for...ugh Armored. That's pretty lame, why didn't they just license the real track.


----------



## cc64 (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Sounds like a no win situation for the composer. He was surely dealing with an acute case of temp love afflicting the filmmakers...

Choco asks the good question, why didn't they license the original tune? If the masters are too expensive you can get authorization to use the composition and do your own version...I'm sure there's about 1000 guys in LA who could do an almost identical rendition of the original.

Best,

Claude


----------



## midphase (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*



cc64 @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> Choco asks the good question, why didn't they license the original tune? If the masters are too expensive you can get authorization to use the composition and do your own version...I'm sure there's about 1000 guys in LA who could do an almost identical rendition of the original.



What if the Sync is too much? Seriously...it's not unusual for an artist to ask for hundreds of $$$ just for the sync license.

I bet it was a money issue.


----------



## cc64 (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Hi Kays,

well i know about bands asking for a bundle if you want to use the original track, but if you say that you want to do you're own version of their composition it's a whole other subject... I think it becomes more a question of Droit moral(moral rights) wich applies practically uniquely to film i think. 

i.e. Anyone may record, without permission, Yesterday (McCartney/Lennon) and make a record out of it as long as the mechanics are paid but you can't use Yesterday in any film because an artist has a right to say "i don't want my song to be used as propaganda in a film that shows Hitler in a good light" for example.

A friend of mine actually makes a living 9 to 5 at Gameloft(Ubisoft) copying songs integrally for video games because they have the rights to use the songs but not the actual recordings(Masters) of the songs.

Claude


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*



midphase @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> What if the Sync is too much? Seriously...it's not unusual for an artist to ask for hundreds of $$$ just for the sync license.



Uhh, if the artist is big enough, that dollar amount would not be hundreds. It would be in the tens of thousands. Lower w/o lyrics; upper with.

Cheers.


----------



## Narval (Jul 1, 2010)

What rip-off, it's just a similar bass line. Plenty of nearly identical bass lines in rock'n'roll songs, so no big deal.



Lunatique @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> his reputation as a composer will end up in the toilet since it's too blatant of a ripoff?


Actually, when the composer puts up with the film maker's demands, I don't see how his reputation among film makers will be tarnished, on the contrary.


----------



## dinerdog (Jul 1, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

True. Everyone gets stuck with a temp track. At all levels. Thomas Newman is probably temped more than anyone these days. Sometimes you just can't convince the director to try something else. Listen to The Transformers score by Steve Jablonsky "Sam At The Lake". Temped with Newman and no budging, but he made it his own as much as humanly possible.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 1, 2010)

Narval @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> What rip-off, it's just a similar bass line. Plenty of nearly identical bass lines in rock'n'roll songs, so no big deal.



It's not just the bassline, it's the also the drums/rhythm, the guitar, the style, the vibe, the mood--the whole thing. That Massive Attack song is famous for being very intense and atmospheric, and other films have used it for trailers or in the film itself. It is highly unique and nothing else sounds like it. If it was just something very typical then there wouldn't be such a huge outcry about it on the internet.


----------



## Narval (Jul 1, 2010)

They of course do sound kinda similar, but many pop songs do. If you take this to a "court" of professional musicians and take those two tracks down element by element, it will be evident that there are differences in each and every aspect you mentioned: melody, rhythm, guitar accompaniment, even the bass line is a bit different (all in all, good job! ). If this is a rip-off, then there are literally hundreds of similar, if not even more "blatant" rip-offs that are perfectly ok with everyone. There's no point in turning the pop industry into a "sue you sue me" lawyers' tournament. >8o


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 2, 2010)

Just a bit too close for comfort imho - I'd be waiting for the lawyer's letter. Don't think he'd need to have changed much more to be safely in the clear, either.


----------



## midphase (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*



cc64 @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> well i know about bands asking for a bundle if you want to use the original track, but if you say that you want to do you're own version of their composition it's a whole other subject... I think it becomes more a question of Droit moral(moral rights) wich applies practically uniquely to film i think.




As I said at the beginning of this thread....yawn.

Seriously, I'm a huge fan of Massive Attack, and a huge fan of John Murphy, and both are big influences in my music. Having said that, I think you all are really making a big stink out of nothing. Is John's track similar to 3D's...yep, absolutely. Do we know what probably happened behind the scenes...you bet. I just don't think it's a huge moral issue. I mean at the heart of it, it's a pretty simple track, we're not really talking about even a specific melody here as much as a "jam". It's possible that the producers tried to get the MA track license and got scared by the price, or it's even possible that they got the feeling the price was going to be way too high and didn't even try.

The track itself is similar to the style that John Murphy composes in, so it's not like he normally writes John Williams styled tracks, and all of a sudden you get this blatant ripoff.

Lastly...you take our the vocals from Angel and there's not a whole lot left musically speaking...it's a mood piece.

We (composers) routinely rip off everyone and everything from Albinoni to Zimmer, I think it's presumptuous and hypocrite for us to get all high and mighty over this.


----------



## cc64 (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Hi Kays,

in case it didn't come across well in my posts, i agree 1000% with you on this thread.

I might even add that we should try and be more sensitive towards our fellow composers and avoid words like "Ripoff" especially in thread titles concerning them...

Best,

Claude


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm less interested in the supposed ethics of this than of the potential to get sued when put in this position. Very much not a yawn for me, that...


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Legally I also wonder how close they got to being sued. That facinates me

From a political point of view, however, I would love to be a fly on the wall when that spotting session went down. Handling something like that gracefully when they insist on the temp would be so tough for me. I'm sure he tried to modify it further than what they ended up with.

I love temps maybe in part because I've been lucky that nobody (yet) has been that stubborn. 

Clark


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 2, 2010)

While there's no denying the similarity, I have to agree that there's not much to the actual composition. Without the vocal, it's mostly just the same two note riff over and over - the riff in the other one is definitely similar, but it's hard to imagine that there aren't dozens of tunes out there with equally similar riffs.

Sure, there are similarities in style/mood/instrumentation/groove, etc but those generally don't fall under copyright protection.

It would be interesting to hear a take on just how "risky" this particular one is from someone with that sort of legal experience. My completely uneducated guess is that it probably would be pretty safe.


----------



## clarkcontrol (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

This makes me think of how studios can safely mockup hundreds of karaoke tracks and not lose their shirts in fees. This might be somewhat under that umbrella. 

Then again, karaoke isn't meant to be broadcast per se. 

Clark


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 2, 2010)

Where do karaoke tracks fall under copyright law? A derivative work or just a cover? My guess would be the latter, that it's done without requiring permission but the original writer gets the standard royalty. You wouldn't pay to mock up the track, you'd just make the recording and sell it and then give the copyright holder their cut, same as a band recording a cover.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 2, 2010)

Mike Connelly @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Where do karaoke tracks fall under copyright law? A derivative work or just a cover? My guess would be the latter, that it's done without requiring permission but the original writer gets the standard royalty. You wouldn't pay to mock up the track, you'd just make the recording and sell it and then give the copyright holder their cut, same as a band recording a cover.



Yeah, exactly - nothing contentious there. No Karaoke artist is claiming its their own song!

Melody is clearly the big one with song copyright, but there is also the issue of "passing off" a master recording (I think) where the arrangement comes into play which has caught some people out. I looked into it recently and concluded that if you make the arrangement very similar to another track, you should really differentiate the melody (and of course there must be thousands of similar melodies with totally different arrangements). That's why I think this example is a little dodgy - is a very similar arrangement with a similar melody. Personally I wouldn't have taken this much of a risk and changed the melody more - one note altered really isn't enough legally.

A load of library tracks were pulled from the archives a few years ago after a ruling on this subject, as the companies felt they weren't safe from legal challenges.


----------



## midphase (Jul 2, 2010)

Karaoke falls under the Compulsory License end of the spectrum :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license

Note that compulsory licenses do not apply to sync work...so generally movies and TV can not take advantage of them.

Regarding liability for having ripped off the track...as previously mentioned, it's a 2 note riff, not very copyrightable stuff. And AFAIK "production style" is not copyrightable so there you go.

It's a pretty rare occurrence that a studio will sue another studio over a copyright infringement for a score, the 300 comes to mind, and the Holst v. Zimmer for Gladiator...but aside from that it's a pretty minor percentage compared to the big picture. Songs are an entirely different matter and there are numerous lawsuits all the time.

Here is the biggest set of rules to consider regarding copyright law infringement from the side of the plaintiff:

1. It must be shown that the copyright was intentionally and not accidentally broken.

2. It must be shown that the music in question does not fall in the typical "style" of the defender.

3. If the defendant can show that an even earlier work utilizes the same melody, then the plaintiff doesn't have a case.

4. Chord progressions are not copyrightable, drum riffs are not copyrightable, bass lines are not copyrightable, etc etc.

In an ideal world, it would be cool if music schools (really all art schools) required a mandatory course in copyright law.


----------



## Thonex (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Been there... done that... it's frustrating as a composer to be paintedinto such a corner by the director or porducter.

You can't copyright chords or rhythms... or bass lines unless the base line can be argued as being an original melody... which in this case it's not.

However, I too get frustrated when I hear blatant rip offs.. but usually I'm frustrated that the composer was put in that position. However, there are occasions where composers are simply too lazy and could have done more "original thinking".

Temp love sucks.

Cheers,

Andrew K


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't even think the arrangement is that similar, the drum groove uses different kinds of sounds, different synth and guitar sounds, nothing similar to the vocal melody. Sure, they both start with a bass line and add a guitar to it later on, but that's not exactly distinctive. It's mainly just the one repeated riff and the fact that it's at that unusually slow half time tempo. They didn't change much about the riff, but considering there's not much to it, that may be enough.

As Kays said, those other rules may be more of a factor. Aside from the music itself, other things could come into play such as documentation that the other track was actually used as a temp track, or an email to the composer saying "Hey, can you do something that sounds just like..."


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 2, 2010)

It was never really a question for me whether he broke any laws, since if he did, he'd have been sued already. It wouldn't even bother me if he merely tried to imitate the massive attack style but doing a totally original piece. It's the fact that he not only imitated the sound, he chose a specific track and changed it just enough so he would likely to be let off the hook when the lawyers come knocking. It just feels too calculated, and smells too much like intentional theft while thinking "let's see how close I can get without legal consequences." Whether he was forced into it or it was his idea in the first place, it doesn't alleviate that icky feeling I get from hearing it--especially when I'm a huge fan of the original source and the uniqueness of the original was a monumental development to in the history of the trip-hop/downtempo genre. 

I don't know how many of you are well versed in that genre, but Massive Attack's Mezzanine is a completely unique and stunning album that really caused a huge splash when it came out. It sounded like nothing that's ever been done--it was very atmospheric, moody, had totally unique arrangement and refreshing stylistic signature. It's considered one of the greatest masterpieces of the trip-hop/downtempo genre, and it made many "best album of the year" lists when it came out in the late 90's. It was very unique then, and it's still unique now. It's so unique that as soon as you try to copy it, people can tell exactly what you're mimicking. Maybe that's why no one's really tried. It's just like if anyone tried to mimic Mindless Self Indulgence--they're so unique that you just can't get away with it without feeling a little foolish for trying. So, no, what Murphy ripped off was not just "typical" anything--it is highly unique and unprecedented in the world of music. Mezzanine was a landmark album and it sounded like nothing else out at the time, and in fact is still highly unique. The only thing that sounds like it is Massive Attack's subsequent releases.

But anyway, this probably is more emotional for me because Mezzanine was a landmark album for me and it was one of my most treasured experiences as a lover of music. When it came out it turned my world upside down. To those of you that don't share my feelings for that album, Murphy's ripoff wouldn't offend you nearly as much.


----------



## midphase (Jul 2, 2010)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk0s8p9z ... re=related


----------



## midphase (Jul 2, 2010)

Lunatique @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> But anyway, this probably is more emotional for me because Mezzanine was a landmark album for me and it was one of my most treasured experiences as a lover of music. When it came out it turned my world upside down. To those of you that don't share my feelings for that album, Murphy's ripoff wouldn't offend you nearly as much.



I'm sorry but that's pretentious bullshit. 

Many around here (including myself) are big fans of Massive Attack and the bottom line is that Murphy is an imitation of an original work...he knows it, the studio knows it, the fans know it and there is absolutely nothing for you or me to be offended about. What you seem to forget is that nobody is taking away Massive Attack's originality, quite the opposite if you go by the "imitation is the best form of flattery" quote. The difference between Del Naja and Murphy is that Murphy doesn't have that "cool" factor and street cred that only comes when you create something unique (or the other hand...who knows how many people Del Naja might have ripped off that we are not aware of).

This gets into the Art vs. Craft argument, with Massive Attack being art, and Murphy's film score being a craft. Murphy is performing a job that he's been tasked with, and without really knowing what has gone on behind closed doors (including a possible Murphy/Del Naja phone call with Murphy getting Del Naja's blessing) we really aren't in a position to neither accuse nor be offended by this cue.

Lastly, if Mezzanine really turned your world upside down, you need to get out more. Sure it's a great album, but by no means the first to utilize some of the style and technique that you hear on it. It's probably gotten some of the most attention of the Bristol crowd (along with Portishead), but there were a lot of other artists who were leading towards that sound including Tricky, UNKLE, Goldie, Bjork and on and on.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 2, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk0s8p9zjg4&feature=related



See? These guys paid Massive Attack to be involved, instead of simply ripping them off.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Lunatique @ Fri Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> > But anyway, this probably is more emotional for me because Mezzanine was a landmark album for me and it was one of my most treasured experiences as a lover of music. When it came out it turned my world upside down. To those of you that don't share my feelings for that album, Murphy's ripoff wouldn't offend you nearly as much.
> ...



There were other musical entities in the whole trip-hop movement, and they all share some stylistic elements, but Mezzanine had that magical quality, where the sum is great than its parts, and the result was something very special. I know all those artists you listed (I've been a big follower of the trip-hop genre since its inception), and I like some of them, but for different reasons than why I love the Mezzanine album. I sort of think of it as reaching a boiling point. The genre might have been hot before, but it did no boil until Mezzanine--at least for me.

It's similar to how Michael Jackson's Dangerous album was the logical conclusion to the New Jack Swing movement. It was the climax that took the New Jack Swing elements to greater heights, and had that magical combination that went beyond anything else in the genre that came before--even the previous efforts of the same producer (Teddy Riley) who pretty much invented/lead the movement. 

I do agree with you about the art vs. craft thing though. If a musical artist who's not scoring as a commercial composer and a pop/rock song with the same degree of similarity as another well-known and beloved song, that musical artist would get caught in a shit storm of controversy and hate. But with commercial composers catering to the needs of clients, something changes, as if the responsible parties are one step removed from the blame somehow. It's very interesting how that works psychologically.


----------



## lux (Jul 3, 2010)

I usually tend to not avail plagiarism accusations as most of times is really vague.

I have to admit that in this case the reference to the original piece is audible.

I think Andrew (Thonex) has the point on that. Probably that was the temp track and the director just wanted exactly that piece there. It could be that Murphy offered alternatives and was just rejected and obliged to strictly conform to that piece. Temp tracks are a problem always. Today's directors also seem less artistically flexible than in the past.


----------



## Lex (Jul 3, 2010)

Lunatique @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> If a musical artist who's not scoring as a commercial composer and a pop/rock song with the same degree of similarity as another well-known and beloved song, that musical artist would get caught in a [email protected]#t storm of controversy and hate. But with commercial composers catering to the needs of clients, something changes, as if the responsible parties are one step removed from the blame somehow. It's very interesting how that works psychologically.



...so true.

Wonder if people would be so indifferent if it was, lets say, Michael Jacksons song ripped of to such detail instead?

aLex


----------



## lux (Jul 3, 2010)

i disagree Alex, you cant compare rippin off a full MJ melody with rippin off a "note-note-note-note-up-note-note-note-up-note" bassline. Mostly because the very limited range of notes used gives the massive attack piece a better chance to be considered ripped off. 

If i make a one quarter note repeating piece i cannot blame all composer which use that same scheme.

That said, i see the reference on this specific case.


----------



## Lex (Jul 3, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

..if it was just the bass pattern I would agree, but in this case whats ripped off is the arrangement, the build and the original idea...

If you steal notes change the arrangement, if you steal arrangement change the notes, don't steal both.

aLex


----------



## lux (Jul 3, 2010)

yes, that was mainly the arrangement and overall sense.

Although on a strict copyright point there's a reason probably why PROs do not cover arrangements but just melodies. At least my PRO doesnt cover any arrangement thing.


----------



## Lex (Jul 3, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

...so Luca, would you have a problem if I used this in my current project under my name, without asking you or paying you?

http://aleksandardimitrijevic.com/VI/luca.mp3

aLex


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Karaoke falls under the Compulsory License end of the spectrum :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_license
> 
> ...



Definitely agree with your last sentence!

I don't think its as simple as following those 4 rules though. Elastica settled out of court for allegdly stealing a guitar riff. Tom Waits successfully sued for someone imitating his vocal style. My main point is - always err on the side of caution. 100-1 you'll never get in trouble but frankly I don't even want to DEFEND anything, let alone get successfully sued....


----------



## lux (Jul 3, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*



Lex @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> ...so Luca, would you have a problem if I used this in my current project under my name, without asking you or paying you?
> 
> http://aleksandardimitrijevic.com/VI/luca.mp3
> 
> aLex



haha, i would sure sue you because of that midi sampleset :mrgreen: 

actually i cant even recall whats the name of that piece btw :oops: (o)


----------



## hbuus (Jul 3, 2010)

Wow, they do sound roughly the same - build-up, mood, the use of drums and bass etc.


----------



## lux (Jul 3, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

btw, to be honest i think its fair to blame a composer when he rips off something, even if done under major pressure.

Still some thoughts could be done about what a refuse means in today's market

Saying "i will not rip off that shit, i'll get close but forget a rip off" means assuming a "pest" appeal out there. Artistical choices are a no-no. Even when your name is known and youre worked on massive stuff imo.

I think 99% of people here would do that ripoff and get blamed by all Lunatiques on the forums to keep a foot in the door and be seen as a good and collaborative worker. But i could be wrong.


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

Here's an interesting flip on this whole conversation. Anyone around here seen Danny the Dog (aka. Unleashed)?

Massive Attack scored the film, and although I love the music, I can't say I love it as a score. I had the chance to listen to the CD way before the film was out here in the USA and I fell in love with the music. However, when I finally got the chance to watch the film, I found the music to be intrusive for the most part and not matching the dramatic/emotional elements of the film as well had an actual composer scored the film (which AFAI'mC happens every time an "artist" is asked to score a film...yes, that would include Johnny Greenwood). I would be willing to bet that had John Murphy been hired to score Unleashed in the style of Massive Attack, it would have probably matched the film a lot better.


----------



## dinerdog (Jul 3, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

midphase - If you like MA, you'd probably like the score to Push (2009). Neil Davidge. Don't know if there's a promo score, fun movie.


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

I like Neil's music and he even has a cool web site:

http://www.neildavidge.com/

I feel a lot of kinship to these guys style-wise (more so than orchestral composers). I would even add David Julyan to the group.


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> I don't think its as simple as following those 4 rules though. Elastica settled out of court for allegdly stealing a guitar riff. Tom Waits successfully sued for someone imitating his vocal style. My main point is - always err on the side of caution. 100-1 you'll never get in trouble but frankly I don't even want to DEFEND anything, let alone get successfully sued....





midphase @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Songs are an entirely different matter and there are numerous lawsuits all the time.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think its as simple as following those 4 rules though. Elastica settled out of court for allegdly stealing a guitar riff. Tom Waits successfully sued for someone imitating his vocal style. My main point is - always err on the side of caution. 100-1 you'll never get in trouble but frankly I don't even want to DEFEND anything, let alone get successfully sued....
> ...



OK, so what's the legal difference? What different laws apply to commercial songs? As far as I am aware, there are no different laws that apply to different sorts of music. Music is music.

There are two areas of copyright - the song and the master recording. Thinking about it, if Elastica rip off Wire's guitar riff, I don't think it can be an infringement of the laws on the master recording unless they actually sampled it. They didn't - they recreated it. I'm not 100% sure myself whether it was song or master infringement in their case. All I'm pretty sure of is that it was a combination of ripping off an arrangement and a tune (and not the lead melody). If you know of any reason why this exact same set of circumstances couldn't apply to a film composer, I'd love to hear it! In the meantime I'm not up for swapping a few notes around on the jaws theme, playing it on the double bass and slowly increasing the tempo...


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

Paradise Circus?


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> OK, so what's the legal difference? What different laws apply to commercial songs? As far as I am aware, there are no different laws that apply to different sorts of music. Music is music.



It's not about the music...it's about the money. If I sue Paul McCartney because I think he ripped off an idea of mine, the payoff is much greater than if I sue James Newton Howard. Also, studios don't like to sue each other, they just don't. Truth be told studios rip off each other's ideas all the time and if one started suing the other it would set up a chain reaction that would probably destroy the industry.

I don't know what the deal was with the Elastica song, this is the first I hear about. If it was simply a chord progression then I'm not sure what happened, but if it was a very specific melody (say like the Under Pressure bass line or The Last Time string line) then the artists who copies it can (big "can" there) be held liable for copyright infringement. The plaintiff really needs to show beyond reasonable doubt that this was an intentional intent by the other artist to plagiarize and there are no previous precedents of the melody in question having appeared on other songs.

Record labels are trigger happy when it comes to lawsuits (just look at the mess they made with suing grandmothers of kids who were pirating music) but in the world of movies the lawsuits are incredibly rare. Why the discrepancy beyond the aversion of studios to sue each other? One guess would be because a soundtrack is not a self-contained product, but a part of a larger product...so the plaintiff would have to show exactly how they come to assess the value of compensatory damages. Another guess is that composers have been ripping off each other for decades, so maybe nobody wants to cast the first stone because they are guilty just as much.

All this goes without saying that if it's something incredibly obvious (like ripping off Axel F note for note) and (big "and") the production in which the rip off was involved generated big money for the studio (like the 300 did) then of course the cease and desist letters will come out.

One last point...I actually believe you could rip off the Jaws theme note for note. WB's attorney stated (if I recall correctly) that there are plenty of antecedent public domain music which contains the same exact motif (same goes for the Psycho shower minor second). Here's the catch though....you can't use the Jaws theme within a context which is similar to the movie Jaws (i.e. a cartoon depicting a shark about to strike a character) because you would be infringing on the intellectual rights attached to the theme. But for example, if you used the Jaws theme in a romantic scene to depict the man getting aroused by the girl and jumping on top of her...I believe you could probably get away with it without any legal repercussions (of course before you actually do that, please consult your own attorney).


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> However, when I finally got the chance to watch the film, I found the music to be intrusive for the most part and not matching the dramatic/emotional elements of the film as well had an actual composer scored the film (which AFAI'mC happens every time an "artist" is asked to score a film...yes, that would include Johnny Greenwood). I would be willing to bet that had John Murphy been hired to score Unleashed in the style of Massive Attack, it would have probably matched the film a lot better.



I find the opposite also tends to be true--that when the orchestral composers try to write songs or work in more modern styles, they often sound terrible--no authenticity, no balls, stuffy, no imagination...etc. But the chasm is narrowing as the younger generation of composers are much better versed in all genres of music.


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

I agree. My personal philosophy is that a film composer is closer to having the mindset of a filmmaker than a musician/songwriter. I think it's a mistake for guys who are passionate about music to get involved with film work...one needs to be passionate about films!


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> I agree. My personal philosophy is that a film composer is closer to having the mindset of a filmmaker than a musician/songwriter. I think it's a mistake for guys who are passionate about music to get involved with film work...one needs to be passionate about films!



Absolutely. 

BTW, what did you think of Billy Corgan's foray into scoring? He did that one horror film, Stigmata.

I was just at Neil's site, and that clip from West Wing was terrible. Angel is totally misused in that clip. I don't understand how anyone would make a blunder like that. It's a bunch of talking heads and there's nowhere near the kind of intense atmosphere and dramatic tension building up to to using a song like Angel. And you're right about Danny the Dog--I watched that one clip in the library and it just sounded wrong to be hearing that music over their conversation. It should've been restricted to just the flashback scene. 

Seems to me Neil's not really a score composer, but someone who writes music and than shoves them into films instead?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> Paradise Circus?



Hehe, yes. I see its not just me?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> One last point...I actually believe you could rip off the Jaws theme note for note. WB's attorney stated (if I recall correctly) that there are plenty of antecedent public domain music which contains the same exact motif (same goes for the Psycho shower minor second). Here's the catch though....you can't use the Jaws theme within a context which is similar to the movie Jaws (i.e. a cartoon depicting a shark about to strike a character) because you would be infringing on the intellectual rights attached to the theme. But for example, if you used the Jaws theme in a romantic scene to depict the man getting aroused by the girl and jumping on top of her...I believe you could probably get away with it without any legal repercussions (of course before you actually do that, please consult your own attorney).



But thats just two notes, so what about the rest of the theme?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> I think it's a mistake for guys who are passionate about music to get involved with film work...one needs to be passionate about films!



Definitely, even more important is also deep love of the connection between music and images.


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 3, 2010)

Ed @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> But thats just two notes, so what about the rest of the theme?



Those are the two notes people remember and identify though. How many people (non musicians) can remember beyond those two notes?


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2010)

Lunatique @ Sat Jul 03 said:


> Ed @ Sat Jul 03 said:
> 
> 
> > But thats just two notes, so what about the rest of the theme?
> ...



True I just mean if you went further than that in Mid's example.


----------



## Ed (Jul 3, 2010)

Im actually wondering how many have nicked that tasty kick drum off the end of Angel :wink:


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jul 3, 2010)

midphase @ Sun Jul 04 said:


> It's not about the music...it's about the money. If I sue Paul McCartney because I think he ripped off an idea of mine, the payoff is much greater than if I sue James Newton Howard. Also, studios don't like to sue each other, they just don't. Truth be told studios rip off each other's ideas all the time and if one started suing the other it would set up a chain reaction that would probably destroy the industry.
> 
> I don't know what the deal was with the Elastica song, this is the first I hear about. If it was simply a chord progression then I'm not sure what happened, but if it was a very specific melody (say like the Under Pressure bass line or The Last Time string line) then the artists who copies it can (big "can" there) be held liable for copyright infringement. The plaintiff really needs to show beyond reasonable doubt that this was an intentional intent by the other artist to plagiarize and there are no previous precedents of the melody in question having appeared on other songs.
> 
> ...



Interesting post, all sounds very reasonable. Don't think it changes my default position though of wanting to be careful, partly cos usually the context will prove problems - often people would want to use the Jaws theme for comedic effect in a similar context to the original useage. In the end you can produce the same effect by subtly but significantly changing the melody, rhythm and even instrumentation to be bulletproof.

Final thoughts on this for now - as I think I said in another post, a huge scare went round the production library industry a few years ago on this issue, and scores of cues were suddenly pulled from their archives - so it hasn't only affected commercial music. Also be careful of naming and describing stuff cos I know that's red rag to a bull too... if John Murphy had called his track "Guardian Angel", for example, he'd have increased his risk dramatically.


----------



## midphase (Jul 3, 2010)

Since we're on the subject...can someone explain to me the meaning of the video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaef2NgwqHY


----------



## hbuus (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*

Who is Johny Murphy btw.? :roll:


----------



## Lunatique (Jul 4, 2010)

*Re: Johny Murphy's ripoff of Massive Attack's Angel*



hbuus @ Sun Jul 04 said:


> Who is Johny Murphy btw.? :roll:



He's the typo version of John Murphy.


----------



## kid-surf (Jul 4, 2010)

I could probably get the 411 on this cue choice, as my bro was a producer on this film...

...Although, I wouldn't be able to post what the answer is.


----------



## Stevie (Jul 6, 2010)

My opinion on this is: everything is ripped off, you just have to find the tunes the composer did get inspired by


----------

