The most blatant case of plagiarism you will ever see. Gotta hear it to believe it.
- Thread starter BradHoyt
- Start date
Jimmy Hellfire
Senior Member
Wow. This is crazy. Why would he do that?
Well, then again ... it's kind of clear why he'd do that. Because you can't do shit about it if you don't have the cash to buy yourself into the legal system (obviously avoiding the term "justice" here
).
Positive sidenote: this thread sparked my interest in the music of the gentlemen Bennett and Hoyt, and the enchanting sound of the harp guitar. I spontaneously feel like picking up one and learning it ...
Well, then again ... it's kind of clear why he'd do that. Because you can't do shit about it if you don't have the cash to buy yourself into the legal system (obviously avoiding the term "justice" here
).Positive sidenote: this thread sparked my interest in the music of the gentlemen Bennett and Hoyt, and the enchanting sound of the harp guitar. I spontaneously feel like picking up one and learning it ...
RiffWraith
Senior Member
Like, who?
SterlingArcher
Active Member
Well, there has always been claims that Led Zeppelin stole some elements for their songs. At the moment that's one band I can think of off hand.
https://www.musictimes.com/articles...tairway-to-heaven-that-led-zeppelin-stole.htm
sleepy hollow
unconsciously incompetent
Why such a lurid thread title? Was that really necessary?
Sure, it's definitely not a nice situation for the guy, but it could be a lot worse. Like this story here:
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/music-thief-check-to-see-if-you-were-targeted.32732/
Sure, it's definitely not a nice situation for the guy, but it could be a lot worse. Like this story here:
https://vi-control.net/community/threads/music-thief-check-to-see-if-you-were-targeted.32732/
OP
OP
BradHoyt
Active Member
Truly sorry if I seemed a little overzealous. He's a long time friend of mine and I never saw a situation like this before where someone literally stole someone's entire track, laid overdubs over it and called it their own.
And yes, that story you're referring to is worse it seems!
OP
OP
BradHoyt
Active Member
To be clear, Jeff Martin didn't just steal a riff. He overdubbed drums, bass, guitar, and vocals over Stephen Bennett's entire original recording! He's also singing the melody that Bennett's playing during a significant portion of the song.
RiffWraith
Senior Member
I have seen that. There are some similarities there, but I am not hearing how Zep stole anything.
afterlight82
Active Member
I don't know why this even needs discussion. I'd have had papers nailed to the guy's forehead instantly. There is an addition to the copyright law the guy needs to know about - willful infringement. That increases the damages substantially. It wouldn't go to trial, they'd have to settle - they have no case. He needs to talk to his lawyers again about 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), and at the very least send a cease and desist and publicize it - simply getting to discovery (where he can subpoena the bank records and audit how much the track actually made, and haul this guy in for a very painful deposition) probably wouldn't be that expensive. He could also likely recover much more than the profits from the individual track, since the onus is on a defendant to show any costs (eg album sales) weren't related to that track specifically, which is reeeeeally hard. They can't even deduct taxes paid...
The judge would probably laugh the attorneys out of the room at the first conference. There's a reason most civil suits don't make it into a courtroom...
The judge would probably laugh the attorneys out of the room at the first conference. There's a reason most civil suits don't make it into a courtroom...
RiffWraith
Senior Member
Yeah, this is pretty bad. A full investigation needs to be done here. Jeff seems to blame his manager. Did the manager hand him the guitar part, and say, "here - I recorded this for you"? Or is he trying to make the manager the scapegoat?
Either which way, this can not stand. It's one thing to write something really close; it's another to copy someone's work directly. But using an actual recording of someone else's work is on a whole other level. AFAIC, this is an open and shut case. If you walk into an attorney's office with little to no money, and claim plagiarism on something that might be pretty close, the attorney might tell you to get lost, as there is no guarantee of a victory. But in a case like this, any decent attorney should see that there is really no way to lose this case. To that end, I don't think finding an attorney who will take a small retainer and work mostly under a contingency fee would be too difficult.
Tell your friend he has some support here, and that I personally wish him the best of luck with this.
Cheers.
marclawsonmusic
Senior Moment
Attorney$ are expen$ive. And, getting damages out of musicians is always a dodgy proposition. Even if it is a cut-and-dry case, and you win... collecting the judgement is not always guaranteed.
It's always best to settle things like this out of court if you can. Being on the right side of the law only goes as far as your pocketbook, I'm afraid.
It's always best to settle things like this out of court if you can. Being on the right side of the law only goes as far as your pocketbook, I'm afraid.
thov72
Senior Membr
still got the blues....
quote :"In late 2008, a German court ruled that Gary Moore stole the guitar solo for this song from the 1974 song "Nordrach" by the German band Jud's Gallery. The court ordered Moore and his record label to pay unspecified damages to Jud's Gallery band leader Juergen Winter, who brought the lawsuit."
afterlight82
Active Member
Nope - not too harsh at all, actually he's spot on.
From experience, that paragraph was probably drafted or edited by a lawyer. The giveaways - "whatever royalties exist, if any". Almost nobody says "if any" unless a lawyer told them to. When lawyers take depositions, or are in any situation involving direct examination, they aren't allowed to ask leading questions (only on cross-examination). So you can't ask "what were the royalties from this track", as an example, because the question leads - it assumes that there were royalties. So, a lawyer rephrases that to say "what, if any, royalties were earned from this track?". The giveaway is the "if any". It's legal-ese.
Secondly, a lawyer would have told the guy that damages might extend to the royalties from album sales - not just the individual track - which is why it's limited to this song; as well as the extended damages due from willful infringement, which it at least appears, he was just very very very careful not to admit, and perhaps to try and obfuscate. That's what it looks like, anyway.
"Not properly credited" - this is legal speak for "don't admit fault and say it wasn't licensed"...crediting wasn't the issue (obviously), the song and recording wasn't licensed at all. He's not 'fessing up...he's likely laying the ground work to try and settle for a pittance of what he is liable for, or to try and persuade a judge this wasn't willful infringement because it was some sort of "oversight".
IMHO, your friend needs a good lawyer, needs to make no representations or responses on Facebook or anywhere else in the public domain, certainly needs to not respond directly to the guy - definitely not, nor his lawyer - and needs to keep all his correspondence to his counsel from now on. He's probably got a winner, but it appears they're trying to trap him into the classic mistakes of either waiving his rights or diluting his own case.
From experience, that paragraph was probably drafted or edited by a lawyer. The giveaways - "whatever royalties exist, if any". Almost nobody says "if any" unless a lawyer told them to. When lawyers take depositions, or are in any situation involving direct examination, they aren't allowed to ask leading questions (only on cross-examination). So you can't ask "what were the royalties from this track", as an example, because the question leads - it assumes that there were royalties. So, a lawyer rephrases that to say "what, if any, royalties were earned from this track?". The giveaway is the "if any". It's legal-ese.
Secondly, a lawyer would have told the guy that damages might extend to the royalties from album sales - not just the individual track - which is why it's limited to this song; as well as the extended damages due from willful infringement, which it at least appears, he was just very very very careful not to admit, and perhaps to try and obfuscate. That's what it looks like, anyway.
"Not properly credited" - this is legal speak for "don't admit fault and say it wasn't licensed"...crediting wasn't the issue (obviously), the song and recording wasn't licensed at all. He's not 'fessing up...he's likely laying the ground work to try and settle for a pittance of what he is liable for, or to try and persuade a judge this wasn't willful infringement because it was some sort of "oversight".
IMHO, your friend needs a good lawyer, needs to make no representations or responses on Facebook or anywhere else in the public domain, certainly needs to not respond directly to the guy - definitely not, nor his lawyer - and needs to keep all his correspondence to his counsel from now on. He's probably got a winner, but it appears they're trying to trap him into the classic mistakes of either waiving his rights or diluting his own case.
afterlight82
Active Member
Holy crap, it's actually worse than that. I thought for fun I'd listen to a couple of the guys other tracks. First one I picked was
After ten seconds my jaw was open...anybody who knows their Arvo Part knows this is Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten...
eg.
Not sure which recording they used but anyone want to bet this wasn't licensed either? Guess this could be a game, spot which other tracks might have infringing use of other people's music. Anyone else got one?
After ten seconds my jaw was open...anybody who knows their Arvo Part knows this is Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten...
eg.
Not sure which recording they used but anyone want to bet this wasn't licensed either? Guess this could be a game, spot which other tracks might have infringing use of other people's music. Anyone else got one?
afterlight82
Active Member
