Plagiarism wars put rhythm and beats under the legal microscope – National | 24CA News

When a jury dominated that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams had plagiarized Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit Got to Give It Up for his or her tune Blurred Lines, quite a lot of songwriters felt a chill blowing in from that courtroom.

In the jury’s estimation, the 2 songs sounded an excessive amount of alike and subsequently the writers of Blurred Lines infringed on Gaye’s copyright. In brief, this was plagiarism, one of the crucial damaging fees that may be laid on a composer.

The property was awarded US$7.4 million (later lowered to US$5.3 million on attraction). If you look at the sheet music of each songs, you’ll see that they don’t have a lot in widespread note-wise. Where they’re related is the texture and groove. Those musical components have been sufficient to tip the decision in favour of Gaye’s folks.

“Wait,” stated each songwriter ever, “You mean I could be liable for damages if my song happens to feel like another? I can see a problem with sharing a melody or lyrical fragments, but now you can copyright how a song feels? What does that even mean?

The internet allows us to compare the two songs.

There are definitely similarities — and that’s by design. The writers of Blurred Lines were looking to pay homage to Gaye, not rip him off. The judge and jury ruled that Thicke et al went too far and thus violated Gaye’s copyright.

More than 200 musicians ranging from Rivers Cuomo of Weezer to movie score producer Hans Zimmer immediately reacted to the verdict, saying that it “threatens to punish songwriters for creating new music that is inspired by prior works.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

When the ruling got here down in 2015, I remarked to a pal that now that this precedent was set, a military of legal professionals will probably be unleashed, making an attempt to squeeze cash out of songs that sound an excessive amount of like an older observe, regardless of how obscure. And that’s precisely what’s occurred.

To cite only one instance, Mark Ronson now has to share royalties with 5 folks he by no means met as a result of Uptown Funk was dominated to sound an excessive amount of like an outdated Gap Band tune Don’t Believe You Want To Get Up and Dance (Oops Up Side Your Head). Katy Perry was dragged into litigation over eight notes in her hit, Dark Horse. Ed Sheeran was accused of copying one other Gaye tune, Let’s Get It On within the writing of his Thinking Out Loud. U2, Nickelback, Led Zeppelin, and dozens of different artists have been caught within the “this song sort of sounds like this” lure.

The result’s that songwriters are being very, very cautious. They don’t wish to write an authentic tune solely to be advised/sued later as a result of it has some sonic similarities to an outdated tune they’ve by no means heard earlier than. Many are even reticent to reply the query “Who are your influences?” as a result of even that would open the doorways to opportunistic litigation.

And it might get even worse.

Back in 1989, a Jamaican duo, Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, launched a tune known as Fish Market. It was the B-side of a 7-inch single launched on their very own Kingston-based Steely & Clevie Records. This is the primary recognized instance of a “dembow” rhythm.

Obscure? You wager. But dembow is the inspiration of reggaeton, an especially well-liked type of Latin American pop that’s made superstars out of performers like Daddy Yankee (the man behind the megahit Despacito, which is the second-most seen tune on YouTube) and, Bad Bunny (one of many high 5 artists on this planet proper now).

Steely and Clevie are actually suing Daddy Yankee and his collaborators, alleging that Daddy Yankee unlawfully interpolated the rhythm of Fish Market and subsequently, they wish to be paid. And they didn’t cease there. The lawsuit names 55 different songs that they are saying stole their rhythm. Justin Bieber’s title is talked about within the swimsuit.

Beats have traditionally been uncopyrightable. If they win, the implications for music are large. But not solely would it not make any tune utilizing a dembow rhythm in breach of copyright — dangerous sufficient since this is likely one of the foundational rhythms of reggaeton — however on different beats and rhythms as effectively.

For instance, let’s have a look at Jet’s worldwide rock hit, Are You Gonna Be My Girl. Pay consideration to the beat.

When that tune got here out in the summertime of 2003, Iggy Pop followers have been fast to level out the drum sample was awfully much like Iggy’s 1977 tune, Lust for Life.

Iggy and his co-composer lifted that rhythm from a theme they heard whereas residing in Berlin on the Armed Forces Radio Network. Maybe that radio jingle twigged the reminiscence of this Supremes tune from 1966.

We can return even additional. Beginning within the late 50s, Bo Diddley performed that rhythm a lot that it was dubbed the “Bo Diddley Beat.” His signature tune, additionally known as Bo Diddley, was launched in 1958.

Diddley didn’t invent that beat. He needed to have recognized of the seven-note rhythmic determine referred to as the “shave and a haircut, two bits” that had circulated via well-liked music for many years. It confirmed up so much in classic Looney Tunes cartoons. The Bo Diddley Beat was utilized in well-liked songs in 1939, 1933, 1915,  and 1911. The earliest use of the beat as we all know it dates again to an 1899 composition by Charles Hale known as At a Darktown Cakewalk.

And there’s extra. Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show theme ended with a shave-and-a-haircut-two-bits flourish via all 4,531 episodes. It’s a part of The Beverly Hillbillies theme. The identical beat could be present in varied conventional Spanish, Mexican, Irish, Swedish, Icelandic, Dutch, Argentine, and Italian songs all through the ages.

You can see the catastrophe that would happen if Steely and Clevie win their lawsuit. Will somebody attempt to money in on the Bo Diddley Beat? Taken to its ridiculous excessive, even an ordinary 4/4 disco beat can be imperilled, though I can’t fathom any state of affairs the place the litigant would achieve success.

But as I stated in the beginning, beats have traditionally been exempt from copyright — besides in a single case. If legal professionals can show {that a} particular rhythm is considerably authentic, then it may be subjected to copyright. Therefore, it’s doable for infringement to happen.

Lawyers, labels, and music publishers will probably be watching the Steely and Clevie case very fastidiously. An excellent chunk of the way forward for well-liked music might be driving on the decision.

—

Alan Cross is a broadcaster with Q107 and 102.1 the Edge and a commentator for Global News.

Subscribe to Alan’s Ongoing History of New Music Podcast now on Apple Podcast or Google Play