The more successful you are, the more likely you are to get sued over some bogus claim of copyright infringement, it seems. Having just settled a silly lawsuit from Joe Satriani, it seems that others are stepping forward to see if Coldplay will settle with them. This latest one is seriously ridiculous. Peter Friedman has the details of a guy who is suing Coldplay for copyright infringement, because in a recent video they used the idea of interacting with things happening on a chalkboard. Seriously. Check the two videos out:
The only thing in common is the concept of interacting with chalk on a wall. Even the actual themes of the video are entirely different. And, of course, there have been many other videos predating this other guy's.
My guess is that the guy suing knows all of this (or had a lawyer explain it to him), but he's still suing for one reason: because it may get his video and his name some attention (which is why we're not naming him directly in this post). These are the types of lawsuits for which there should be serious sanctions against those bringing them. It's almost certainly a bogus lawsuit. Copyright doesn't cover an idea, and the idea itself wasn't even that original. The videos are entirely different. This has a high likelihood of simply being abuse of copyright law and the court system because some unknown musician wants extra attention.
from the this-would-have-been-a-useful-lawsuit dept
Late last year, Joe Satriani sued Coldplay, claiming that the band's song Viva La Vida violated the copyright on his song, If I Could Fly. This resulted in all sorts of back and forth arguments, and eventually the realization that a bunch of other songs -- even many that predated Satriani's -- were quite similar. In fact, Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens later jumped in claiming that a song of his from the 70s was the real inspiration for the Coldplay song. Oddly... rather than recognize that this proved Satriani wrong, Islam insisted that he was going to see how Satriani did in court. He later claimed that he forgave Coldplay, even if there's no evidence at all that they actually copied -- and he admitted to coming up with song melodies that were first done elsewhere.
But the main event was supposed to be the lawsuit between Coldplay and Satriani -- scheduled to take place early next year. It looks like that's not happening. Blaise points to a blog post noting that the two sides appear to have come to a settlement. There aren't any details yet, just filings to dismiss the case, signed by both parties, suggesting a settlement has been reached. At this point, it's not at all clear what that settlement means, but the most likely scenario is that Coldplay handed over some cash to make Satriani go away.
In the end, that's really too bad, as it would have been quite an interesting court case. Without an official ruling on the matter, we can expect to see other, similar lawsuits filed in the future, every time some musician gets jealous of another musician for using a similar melody.
When Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for copyright infringment last December, lots of people were quick to notice that a bunch of other songs shared the same melody, including some predating Satriani's tune. Last month, Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) made headlines claiming that Coldplay had "stolen" the melody from him, not Satriani. Islam's 1973 song was one of many that people had noticed which sounded similar, but Islam was sure Coldplay got the melody from him ("if you listen to it, it's mine!") and said he'd decide whether or not to take legal action "depending on how well Satriani does." Now, Islam is talking about it again, this time saying he's not angry with Coldplay:
I stand by what I said. They did copy my song but I don't think they did it on purpose. I can understand why they got so upset because they probably don't even realise they have done it. It happens all the time. I have even copied myself without knowing I have done it. I'll write down what I think is a new melody and then listen back to it and realise it's the same as something I have already done. It's just one of those things and I don't want them to think I'm angry with them. I'd love to sit down and have a cup of tea with them and let them know it's ok.
That's a step up from Satriani's "dagger through my heart" response, especially if he's suggesting the cup of tea instead of a lawsuit (though, TwentyFourBit notes that the Flaming Lips would be annoyed if Coldplay gets a tea settlement while they got a royalty split). But it's still odd that Islam is so convinced that the melody is his. What about all the othersongswiththesamemelody? Islam doesn't even entertain the possibility that no copying took place, that it's just a natural melody to sing over those chords. He's forgiving them for something they deny having done, and, although upset initially, Chris Martin actually said the claims are inspiration to write better songs. It's nice to see Islam recognize that this sort of thing "happens all the time" and that "it's ok" -- and hopefully that means he's given up on a lawsuit -- but he fails to admit even the possibility that Coldplay came up with the melody on their own. Regardless, this can't be helping Satriani's case.
Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
from the here-comes-everyone,-entertainment-law-edition dept
In the April 2009 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance, three partners in the Intellectual Property Group at Kilpatrick Stockton LLP take a look at the role that "amateur musicologists" have played thus far in the copyright battle stemming from Satriani's lawsuit against Coldplay for copyright infringement back in December. I'll include relevant quotes from the article, since you need to register for a free account in order to read the PDF.
What makes this case unique is the lively debate that it has prompted, which will likely impact how this action and similar infringement cases will be prosecuted and defended going forward. Within days of the suit's initiation, the popular Web site YouTube was inundated with postings in which fans freely offered their opinions concerning the merits of Satriani's claims (or absence there-of). Some of these submissions were supported by surprisingly detailed analyses of the works.
We saw this in the comments on Techdirt, as there was a lively debate and people were quick to mention a variety of other songs with the same melody. The article also mentions a Canadian guitar teacher who uploaded somevideos to YouTube with a detailed analysis.
The parties should take note of the prior art works that have surfaced as part of the public debate. Such works could prove to be helpful to Coldplay in defending against Satriani's claims, as they could reflect that Satriani himself may have "unconsciously copied" from an earlier work.
This was written before Cat Stevens claimed that Coldplay was actually infringing his song, the "Foreigner Suite," which was one of the similar sounding tunes people had noticed online. Anyone monitoring the online discussion about the copyright battle would have had this on their radar. Also, it was Cat Stevens' son who brought the song to his attention, my guess would be as a result of discussion about the similarities online.
Or [prior art] may simply reflect these oft-quoted words from the Second Circuit: "It must be remembered that, while there are an enormous number of possible permutations of the musical notes of the scale, only a few are pleasing; and much fewer still suit the infantile demands of the popular ear. Recurrence is not therefore an inevitable badge of palgiarism." Darrell v. Joe Morris Music Corp., 113 F.2d 80, 80 (2d Cir. 1940)
This quote reinforces the idea that there are only so many ways to combine chords.
What makes the Internet commentary regarding the two songs particularly interesting is that much of it replicates the type of expert analysis that both sides will likely use if the case goes forward. In music copyright infringement cases, it is rare for parties to rely solely on bare assertions of copying or independent creation. Instead, they frequently engage "musicology" experts to undertake detailed analyses of every element of alleged similarity between the two works and conclude whether all or portions of one work were copied from the other. The parties and their experts in [this case] should consider the analyses of the "amateur musicologists" that have weighed in via the Internet and other media, if for no other reason than they may be informative of how a jury might ultimately view the case...
While Satriani v. Martin may not go to trial for a variety of reasons, it is clear that user-generated content sites like YouTube have the potential to alter the way music cases -- and other types of copyright case -- are developed. Because advances in technology allow the public to participate in real-time infringement debate, future parties would do well to monitor this "chatter" as it could uncover evidence and theories that may be helpful to the case of the copyright owner, the alleged infringer or both.
The online discussion is largely what has made this case so unique. There have been successful copyright infringement lawsuits over melodies in the past (most notably Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs), but never has the public been able to participate so much in the debate. I think it's likely that Cat Stevens' son wouldn't have known of the similarity between the melodies if not for all of the other people who noticed and highlighted it online. If the case does go to trial, the internet commentary may influence the strategy on both sides and serve as a preview of the arguments. If it doesn't go to trial, the online discussion may influence any sort of negotiation as a means of assessing opinion on the merits of the infringement claim.
The melodies are undoubtedly similar, but the legal question is whether or not Coldplay copied from Satriani. It's not just Coldplay's word against Satriani's, but music fans and "amateur musicologists" are gathering evidence and providing theories which are having a noticeable impact on the proceedings.
Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
When guitarist Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for copyright infringement last December, Techdirt readers were quick to point out lots of other songs that sound similar (a great example of the importance of the conversation). Keyz noted that both songs sound a lot like a 1973 Cat Stevens tune.
Guess who else noticed?
Cat Stevens (whose name is now Yusuf Islam) has accused Coldplay of copying his melody from the "Foreigner Suite" (feel free to compare). He told the U. K. Sun, "there's been this argument about Coldplay stealing this melody from Joe Satriani, but, if you listen to it, it's mine! It's the Foreigner Suite, it is!" He claimed that his decision whether or not to pursue this legally will "depend on how well Satriani does" (this wouldn't be the first such lawsuit from Islam).
The problem is, once you think about this for 6-8 seconds (the length of the melody in question)... it's just insane. Is Islam threatening Satriani too? If Coldplay used his melody, isn't Satriani also guilty? Does Satriani still feel that dagger through his heart if the melody wasn't even "his" to begin with? What about the Creaky Boards, who also claimed the song as theirs a year ago? What about all the other songs that sound similar -- Pounding (Doves), J'en Ai Marre (Alizee), Honesty (Billy Joel), Frances Limon (Enanitos Verdes), Hearts (Marty Balin)? At what point does it become obvious that it's more likely that no copying took place than that everyone is guilty of plagiarism? If anything, this accusation strengthens Coldplay's claim that this was just a coincidence.
A cynic might assume these are just blatant money grabs or publicity stunts; Satriani is demanding "any and all profits," Islam is waiting to see how well Satriani does and the accusation comes the day before his latest album release. Also, a cynical approach would explain why Islam seems to be threatening Coldplay instead of Satriani (hint: which song has made more money?), unless Islam's just letting Satriani do all the work and planning to lay claim on whatever he captures. Unfortunately, I think there may be a little honesty (no, not the Billy Joel song...) to Satriani's "dagger to the heart" comment and Islam's exclamation of "it's mine!" (my precious...). The success of "Viva La Vida" has provided the incentive to actually make these accusations real, but they do seem to be rooted in some sense of actually feeling wronged; these artists really seem to believe some sort of injustice has occurred, that no one else would have come up with the same few notes over the same few chords except by "stealing" from them. Of all people, musicians ought to know there are only so many ways to combine chords. Worrying about who came up with the idea "first" is yet another case of favoring invention over innovation, of giving a rather meaningless importance to chronology when it's really the way in which people connect with the art that's most important.
There have been successful copyright infringement lawsuits over melodies in the past, but I'm not sure that there has been such a high profile case like this with multiple people claiming infringement. Hopefully, the overlapping accusations of plagiarism backfire and actually suggest there was no wrongdoing so that a silly and complex web-of-royalties scenario is avoided for what was most likely independent creation. Here's to hoping that another two or three artists add to the chorus of accusations, further demonstrating how ridiculous this all is!
Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
A bunch of folks have sent in the news that Coldplay is doing a promotion whereby they'll be giving away a free CD at every live show and will also make the tracks available for free download on the band's website. The album itself is live tracks recorded during the current tour. As the band notes:
"Playing live is what we love. This album is a thank you to our fans - the people who give us a reason to do it and make it happen."
It's great to see another well-known band learn that "free" can have quite a bit of value, though this does seem a bit more gimmicky than any well-thought-out strategy. Giving away a physical product is nice, but expensive, and unlikely to be a difference maker for those going to shows. Still, it is nice to see a band not freaking out about free and looking for more ways to actually connect with and reward their fans, rather than trying to punish them like some others.
Last December, guitarist Joe Satriani sued Coldplay for copyright infringement over a similar sounding melody. The story generated a lot of discussion here, as people dug up countless examples of other songs with similar melodies (some predating Satriani's tune) to support the argument that it might just be a natural melody to sing over the chords. The lawsuit resurfaced in the news around the Grammys, with Coldplay calling it "ridiculous" and Satriani making an emotional case ("I felt like a dagger went right through my heart. It hurt so much..."). Techdirt reader GK points to the news that, last week, Coldplay's lawyers submitted a federal court filing arguing that any similarities between the two songs were not significant enough to warrant damages. It looks like this may actually go to trial since Satriani is demanding "any and all profits" and Coldplay is standing its ground, but GK suspects that they'll likely reach a settlement in the end, "offering Satriani a sense of vindication and Coldplay a quieter option for laying the thing to rest." That seems to be what Satriani wants.
If this really is a case of independent creation, it's troubling how difficult that would be to prove. In the comments of our original piece, several people noted the case of Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs in which a judge ruled that George Harrison had infringed another song through "unconscious copying" -- not intentionally, but by accidentally using a melody he'd heard elsewhere and had stored in his unconscious memory. The problem with "unconscious copying" and unintentional copyright infringement of a melody is that it undermines the independent creation defense and creates a pretty broad scope for what could be construed as copyright infringement in songwriting. Basically, any melody that sounds significantly similar to another might be considered "copied," even though that happens all the time in music. Plus, it's not like a similar sounding melody in a completely different song is harmful to the "original;" it's not like people are listening to Coldplay's song instead of Satriani's, or that one tune is impacting the commercial potential of the other. There is no functional equivalency in art.
The Harrison case is well-entrenched, but if Coldplay is intent on clearing its name, the case may offer the courts a chance to rethink the decision (or to re-affirm it...). Though, so far Coldplay's lawyers seem to be using a de minimis copying defense, arguing that any similarities are insignificant, rather than focusing on independent creation. At any rate, this could be a precedent-setting case... but don't hold your breath. In the end, it may well just be easier for Coldplay to pay up, settle and make it go away.
Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
A few weeks ago, there was quite the lively discussion over a video mashing up Coldplay's song Viva La Vida with Joe Satriani's If I Could Fly. While the video had been on YouTube for quite some time, Satriani had decided to sue Coldplay over it, demanding all profits from its song. There are a number of reasons why this didn't make much sense, but folks in our comments did a fantastic job sniffing out the details -- including the fact that the video mashing up both videos had actually alteredto make them sound alike, and if you listened to the originals, they were not nearly as close. They are in different tempos/keys to make them sound alike. That same user also pointed us to a Cat Stevens song Love/Heaven from (at least) 1973 that sounds quite similar as well, suggesting that if Coldplay owes Satriani any money, Satriani actually owes Cat Stevens quite a bit as well. Or there's the song Hearts by Marty Balin of Jefferson Starship... written in 1981. Or any of the other dozen or so songs that others have pointed out sound quite similar -- and if mixed professionally to change the tempo could probably sound like a pretty exact match.
Either way, it appears the story has now taken a turn towards the totally ridiculous, as EMI, who holds the copyright on Coldplay songs has gone around claiming copyright on the Satriani/Coldplay mashup videos that were out there. It is true that whoever put those videos together, did a really good job adjusting the two songs to make them work together. Because of that, many people hear the mashup and immediately assume that it's so close that Coldplay absolutely must have copied Satriani. But, there's little actual evidence to support that -- and, given that both songs were actually adjusted to make the video, it's quite misleading. Still, for EMI to then go and demand those videos be taken down (while leaving up plenty of other videos of just Coldplay's music) is just dumb. First of all, the mashup video is almost certainly fair use. It's used for criticism and/or reporting, and not for profit (well, unless you're Joe Satriani).
But, more importantly, in pulling down the video it makes it look like EMI and Coldplay have something to hide, while calling even more attention to the whole thing. It takes a special kind of short-sightedness to claim that a video supposedly demonstrating your own copyright violations violates your copyright. When the whole story first broke, Coldplay quickly denied any connection, saying that, if there were any similarities it was a coincidence. The band should have left it at that... or, if EMI were really smart (stop laughing), it should have produced a professional mashup of some of those other songs as well, demonstrating how common that particular melody is in music, and how one can distort a few songs to make them sound the same. Instead, it chose the worst option of all: acting guilty and abusing copyright law to try to hide stuff.
Guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani has sued Coldplay for copyright infringement over claims that their hit single, Viva La Vida, used "substantial original portions" of his song If I Could Fly from 2004, seeking damages for "any and all profits." The lawsuit has been filed in Los Angeles federal court. Call me a skeptic, but it was just back in June when we wrote about a band called Creaky Boards making a similar claim. The difference is that the Creaky Boards didn't sue. They made a cheeky video and used the opportunity to get some attention (also, later retracting the statement after Coldplay refuted it). However, one notable difference here is that Coldplay was very unlikely to have heard the Creaky Boards song, while Joe Satriani is well known, especially among guitarists. When you listen to this clip, the melodies are certainly very similar:
But does that mean it was copied? Most people's knee-jerk reaction is to assume it must have been, but here's an idea: Creaky Boards, Coldplay and Joe Satriani all have a similar melody over a similar chord sequence. When Coldplay responded to Creaky Boards, Chris Martin called it a "simple coincidence." Is it not plausible that it's just a somewhat natural melody to sing over those chords? You can't copyright a chord sequence. If you searchYouTubeforthesesortsofclaims, you quickly realize that a lot of songs sound the same. Some cases are blatant infringement, but for most, there are only so many notes in a scale...
Chris Martin hassaid: "We're definitely good, but I don't think you can say we're that original. I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists." I bet he wishes he hadn't said that now, but to what extent is that true about all of our ideas? Isn't a certain element of "plagiarism" a natural part of the creative process? Where's the line between plagiarism and inspiration? Of course, trying to pass someone's work off as your own is bad because it's dishonest and you aren't giving proper credit, and your reputation will likely suffer for it if someone finds out. But even if Coldplay did get the melody from Satriani (whether consciously or unconsciously), how much damage have they done? If you listen to the theme of Satriani's song and the verse of Coldplay's, the melodies are very similar, but the songs in their entirety are very different. Coldplay takes the song in a completely different direction in the chorus, while that melody is Satriani's chorus. Coldplay's song has lyrics, Satriani's is instrumental. They appeal to different audiences, they're very different songs. Even if it is an case of infringement, how significant is it?
That's saying little about the legal realities though. It's bound to be a sticky issue in court. Coldplay will likely claim independent creation to try and clear their name (unless they did blatantly rip it off, in which case they might look for a settlement). How do you prove whether or not someone came up with a melody independently? How many notes or rhythms need to be similar to prove that one melody is a derivative of another? This is going to be an interesting case to watch.
Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
The What Is Fair Use? blog points us to a fascinating story, suggesting that one of the popular songs from the new Coldplay album has a nearly identical melody to a song by another band. This was brought to the world's attention by that other band, who put together this great YouTube video cheekily comparing the two:
There are a few ironies here, including the fact that the original song, by the band Creaky Boards, is called "The Songs I Didn't Write." The band also points out that the Coldplay version is being used in an iTunes commercial -- even though it's about the Crusades. The Creaky Boards version is about listening to music in your room -- which, indeed, seems like it would make for a better iTunes commercial.
Still, the good news is that this doesn't appear to be descending into legal threats or anything of that nature. Instead, the video concludes with a rather cheeky: "I wish Coldplay the best of luck. If they ever want to collaborate, I've got some microphones we could use in my bedroom." Coldplay, for its part, "totally refutes" the claims of the band, noting that the song was written well before the Creaky Boards performance in New York where the band thinks Coldplay's front man, Chris Martin, attended (the band also notes Martin was in London that night). It also notes the differences in the songs, and suggests that it's a "simple coincidence" that the songs sound similar.
Indeed, the guy from Creaky Boards later not only retracted his accusation, but suggested that perhaps both bands were actually "inspired" by the "Fairy Theme" in the Legends of Zelda. In a world of strict copyright, of course, that might make both songs "illegal," though I doubt anyone would think that would be the optimal outcome.
Of course, Martin also once admitted: "We're definitely good, but I don't think you can say we're that original. I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists." The thing is, part of the point we keep trying to make around here is that, for the most part, that's true of just about everyone. It's the overly aggressive use of copyright law that prevents that sort of "goodness" from showing up. Oh, and it's also worth mentioning, that this little story has definitely increased the profile of The Creaky Boards -- proving one of the points we recently made about plagiarism. Even if the plagiarist is "bigger" than you, the original creator can use that to their advantage as well.
RSS
Twitter
