You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Marvin Gayes' relatives are at it again, trying to leech millions on account of there being 'similarities' between two of the artists songs.
When will this madness end!!! (said like a DM reader). Music is an ongoing moment, where everybody influences everybody else.
Got me thinking? If my favourite band, Black Sabath got round to suing every artist who has made a tune that bears a similarity to one of theirs, then Black Sabbath would be richer than Bill Gates, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos combined.
If this lawyerly nonsense had been going on 50 years ago then none of the music we've grown up listening to would have gotten made.
Actions like this don't protect the legacy of the Artist either. That legacy shows itself by the influence it has on the music that follows. If later musicians are scared of releasing a tune out of fear that they might be sued owing to some perceived similarity then they won't make the recording and the original musicians legacy will wither on the vine.
If this lawyerly nonsense had been going on 50 years ago
You might want to check how many times Led Zeppelin have been sued for copyright infringement
If my favourite band, Black Sabath got round to suing every artist who has made a tune that bears a similarity to one of theirs
After being loosely familiar with their music for years, but not having paid too much attention, I saw them at Download a few years ago and couldn't believe how many of their riffs I recognised - just not from their songs! 😀
Sheeran himself has previously appeared to acknowledge similarities between the songs, toggling between the tracks during a concert in 2014, with the clip later shared on YouTube.
YouTube clips of him segueing into his song with Gaye's hit may go on to form part of the evidence in the case.
Whoops 😀
Watch these on Roku.
https://channelstore.roku.com/en-gb/details/c994ad04df5a129e29f77dac9fb327e0/the-piracy-channel
COPYLEFT
I'd say that the riff/progression from Let's Get it On is a lot more basic and simple than Got to Give it Up, which Robin Thicke got successfully sued for appropriating, but if it gets as far as a US court, who knows?
but an arrangement of two different songs in one continuous performance has way too many examples of prior use so that wouldn't prove by itself that the Sheeran song is a 'rip off' of the Gaye song
Marvin Gaye's estate is effectively trying to prove that a chord sequence is copyright-able, I hope that a judge tells them to bark off and set legal precedent that a chord sequence by itself isn't an original work: quite why the numerous other examples of prior use of chord structures (especially I - III - IV- V in the case of Loving Arms ) wasn't enough to throw the other case out I don't know
I have a suspicion that the Gaye family sold 49% to a venture capital firm and this is how they sweat their asset - so musicians that are selling up now (like David Crosby did before his death) may be fuelling more...
Marvin Gaye’s estate is effectively trying to prove that a chord sequence is copyright-able, I hope that a judge tells them to bark off and set legal precedent that a chord sequence by itself isn’t an original work
It's a chord sequence with pretty much the exact same rhythm and tempo. I'm sure there must be plenty of songs out there that use a similar arrangement, but who can say they didn't play the Sheeran song and immediately think of Let's Get it On?
Gaye’s family successfully sued just because another song had a similar ‘feel’ to another song, and let’s not forget, that John Fogarty, of CCR, got sued by his record company after releasing his first solo album for plagiarism: the person he was supposedly plagiarising was himself, he was found guilty of sounding like his original band, who he wrote most songs for. He eventually had that overturned, but it’s a similar mindset.
Trouble is, spend more than an hour listening to most current pop music channels, and you’ll hear at least half a dozen songs that sound just like each other - mainly because it’s the same bunch of producers using stock beats they buy online.
Copyright in itself is a funny thing. The reason I cited Black Sabbath was because as a kid it was their records that first drew my attention to copyright / authorship.
I remember looking at the vinyl and seeing the names of all four members in brackets under each song title. Then I looked at other 'vinyls' (as the kids now say) and seeing only one or two names, despite there being multiple members of the band.
I was a bit confused? though later came to learn that it was down to publishing rights. I appreciated the contributions of all the musicians in the bands I was listening to at the time, not just 'the lyrics'. In fact often the lyrics were secondary to my enjoyment (cue Maxell tape advert, Peter Kay mis-heard lyrics etc), being Mich more into the guitarists at the time.
I subsequently realised this was often the reason for many band's broke up, and probably the reason that Black Sabbath managed to keep it together for as long as they did despite being out of their minds on drugs for a good portion (if not all) of their career.
"Gaye’s family successfully sued just because another song had a similar ‘feel’ to another song"
This is the most important point, courts and jurys defining something as abstract as 'feel' and putting a price tag on it withoit understanding (or having a useful legal definition of what the word feel means.
The thing is, the feel of a song is often created when all the musicians are jamming together, it's not something necessarily defined within the score.
Perhaps the next step will be to establish a legal definition for the word "feel' then all those session musicians can a get a taste.
'Your honour, The dude wrote the words and s*** but it was me and the drummer who made it bounce. You feel me m'lud?'
" I’m sure there must be plenty of songs out there that use a similar arrangement, but who can say they didn’t play the Sheeran song and immediately think of Let’s Get it On?"
Personally I heard it and thought of Tapestry by Carole King, I agree that there's grey area on feel - but that grey area is why the cases shouldn't be found in favour, because feel exists within and across genres of music
but who can say they didn’t play the Sheeran song
and immediately think of Let’s Get it On?
Me. Never ever.
Normally I'd be in favour of the more recent artist and say it's fair to be 'inspired' by something else. Otherwise nothing new would ever get written.
But that song really was a bit blatant.
But......
I have a suspicion that the Gaye family sold 49% to a venture capital firm and this is how they sweat their asset – so musicians that are selling up now (like David Crosby did before his death) may be fuelling more…
Indeed, although it's Ed Townsend the producer that sold his rights to "Structured Asset Sales"
I remember reading something a few years ago about a collaborative project between some musical theorists, a powerful computer and some copyright lawyers.
As there are only a fixed number of musical notes then it was assumed that there would be a finite number of melodies. The idea was to use the computer to write every possible melody that could exist, analyse it for existing copyrighted melodies, if no match was found it would then be registered and ownership of that particular melody claimed. It would then be shared under some kind of creative commons licence for everyone to use in perpetuity.
The intention being to put a stop to all future legal cases such as this.
Please forgive the hazy details, will see if I can find a link later, but at the time I thought it sounded like a slightly crazy good idea.
Edit- here's a link to one of many articles from February 2020
Edith - And here's a TED talk about it
This is my problem with intellectual property, just because you had an idea first doesn't mean no one else can have it, and protecting Marvins copyright certainly isn't benefitting him anymore.
And it seems that its not even that hard, creatives are looking like they may be replaced by AI, and why not. If Nick Cave is so sure that the song 'in the style of Nick Cave' 'sucks' then why not have the courage of his convictions and put one of his up against an AI one anonymously and see.
As much as I dislike Sheerans music, this is just another example of bull shit money grabbing!
When will this madness end!!! (said like a DM reader). Music is an ongoing moment, where everybody influences everybody else.
I read a fascinating article (Vice, I think?) about Blurred Lines, and the way it just cartwheeled in slow motion from "catchy summer tune that everyone was humming" to "we don't talk about it any more". Obviously Robin Thicke was a complete cube (coked up to the eyeballs, not even in the studio when it was recorded); the lyrics are... not good, and the sexual objectification is problematic.
But the biggest implication of it was, having baited the Gaye estate into suing them, and losing the (jury) trial, it set a new benchmark for what music rights owners could sue for. "It sounds a bit like" is the bar now, rather than "it actually samples/ takes melody from".
Which in turn has prompted this trend of artists selling their back catalogues of music to VC companies and the like - they believe they can monetize them by threatening to sue and/ or suing on the basis that 'their track sounds a bit like ours'.
That said, Sheeran's songs are quite blatant in some of their basslines and melodies
I'll check those links out later peekay, cheers.
According to the dictionary, the word 'feel' means either 'the act of touching' or the 'experience of an emotion.'
We knew this already without having to consult a dictionary, shame the judge in this case doesn't seem to own one, or else they would have thrown the case out before it got to a jury.
Some things are beyond words and therefore beyond what the term 'intellectual property' can define.
I too have problems with the idea of intellectual property and owning the intellectual copyright to something only indicates that you were the first to copyright the idea, not the first (or only) person to have it.
I dont think creatives will be replaced by AI, although that doesnt mean AI won't have a growing presence.
It's that word feel again isn't it? If nothing else, the Pharell case showed how important the 'feel' of something is, they even put a price on it.
Interesting how the word feel conflates the act of touch and the feeling of emotion. A bit like putting a record on a turntable rather than listening to a digital file, one is at the limits of perfection and the other an outdated and imprecise technology. Which one feels better?
Ed Sheeran songs are so generically bland they sound like everything and nothing.
I dont think creatives will be replaced by AI
Ed Sheeran songs are so generically bland they sound like everything and nothing.
So there seems to be agreement that Ed Sheeren is a prototype AI music generator.
As much as I dislike Sheerans music, this is just another example of bull shit money grabbing!
Not at all…..
Townsend’s daughter Kathryn Griffin Townsend appeared as a witness, saying she intended to “protect my father’s legacy”, but added that she had brought the case reluctantly
Nope, all about an apology and setting the record straight, the $100m they’re after is just an afterthought 🙄
Ed Sheeran should just stand up in court and say ' I ripped off Carole King not you ' and give the money to someone else !!!
He's pulling out his guitar and singing in court
Let no one say the lawyers don't earn their money...
"Nope, all about an apology and setting the record straight, the $100m they’re after is just an afterthought 🙄"
That's why she's giving away all the winnings to charity and the lawyers are offering their services for free.
I wonder what Marvin himself would have made of all this?
I hear the plaintif fainted in court, out of embarrassment no doubt. Or perhaps when Sheeran took the stand with a guitar, she saw an apparition of Marvin by his side, the duet giving us a rendition of "What's Going On?"
The 32-year-old is being sued by heirs of songwriter Ed Townsend, Gaye’s co-writer on the 1973 song.
Not even Gaye's family. It's the relatives and estate of the co-writer.
If the jury decides that Sheeran infringed the copyright in “Let’s Get it On,” many will see that outcome as a copyright holder being granted a monopoly over fundamental music elements. Such a decision could result in other copyright holders staking similar claims for the use of other foundational songwriting elements such as chord progressions, harmonies, and rhythmic patterns.
Whether you like Ed Sheeran or not, the outcome is important as has the potential to open things up to a whole raft of vampires determined to sue for whatever they think is 'theirs'.
Most people won't make enough money from music for it to be worth anyone claiming against them.
"50% of that £00.00000005 per stream is mine!"
It took the jury three hours to decide that there was no case. Apparently some in the industry were surprised. However these does seem to be some degree of rationality in their decision.
Sadly, I suspect that more cases will follow.
Suprised he got away with it.
I'm not aware of the song in question so had a listen.
No case to answer for if you ask me. About 5 seconds worth in the background at best.
I remember reading somewhere that copyright laws are systemically biased, going back to the pre rock n roll days of "popular music" (white) and "race music" (black)
You can copywrite a melody but not a groove, which largely meant that white musicians could borrow from r&b much more easily than black musicians could try and integrate mainstream white music into their sound without paying for the privilege.
This is worth 6 or 7 minutes of your time. Also worth looking through his other videos as he touches on this subject a fair bit.
Amen!
Link To Amen Break not working so have a look on YT...
Would like to see him release a rip-off of The Who: "Won't get sued again"
He'd only need to change "fooled" for "sued", the rest of can pretty much stay as it is:
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/who/wontgetfooledagain.html
In vaguely related trivia I have a relative who worked as a night porter (in a bulletproof booth) in a downtown Detroit hotel in the early 70s. He tells a story of Marvin Gaye leaving a suitcase in his room after staying there which had one of his gold discs in it. After Marvin phoned the hotel my cousin told him it was in the safe. He got a good tip next time he was there. Don't think copyright was discussed.
On an additional trivial basis, my wife went to school with Amy Wadge, Ed's (Among others) co writer.
She was apparently good at music!
My step dad insured Tina Charles and her gold disc wasn’t gold. I also delivered her newspaper.
I read something earlier about an Australian band who managed to string 38 different songs together all using exactly the same chord progression. I’ll find it when I get back from the pub.
Marvin Gaye’s family also managed to sue someone else over a song, because it had the same ‘feel’. Just money grabbing bollocks.
I read something earlier about an Australian band who managed to string 38 different songs together all using exactly the same chord progression
This?
Yep, that’s the one.
Here’s the article with the full list of songs:
https://www.upworthy.com/axis-of-awesome
Considering there are only 12 notes per octave in conventional western music and every chord progression has already been played. It's ridiculous that desperate grasping ****s try it on, when the artists themselves are long since past.
I spit on them and their legal turd slurpers. Reminds me of those corporate ****s who attempted to restrict commercial use of specific colours!