Probably an uninformed opinion. The people on the jury probably didn’t understand that popular music has a loooong history of artists borrowing from other songs. Whether it’s chord progressions, guitar licks or drum fills, lyrics, melody etc. I’ve been listening the the History of Rock in 500 songs podcast, and music history is filled with these “thefts”. I’m sure most artistic fields have similar borrowings.
If everything in the song was the same except one thing, clearly credit should be given, if it was intentional. Perhaps a share of the income too. Was what was awarded excessive? I am not able to say, but….
In the Blurred Lines case it was the “feel” and “groove” that was found to be the same, not, say, a particular series of notes or something.
There would seem to be a lot of songs reminiscent of another. Crazy. Must have been appealed?
IANAL, but I don’t believe you can appeal findings of fact by a jury (or judge in the event of a bench trial), only legal errors. It was a ridiculous decision. Fortunately the precedent seems to have been somewhat upended by Ed Sheerhan’s recent court win with regards to Thinking Out Loud “borrowing” from Marvin Gaye’s Let’s Get It On, and earlier with Katy Perry winning a case over Dark Horse. Probably helped that Ed took the stand with his guitar and demonstrated how chord progressions work to the jury, whereas IIRC the jury in the Blurred Lines case didn’t even have the two songs played for them during the trial.
Me neither, but I thought you might be able to appeal amounts if one could successfully argue the process was sketchy. Seems odd the songs were not played, you think one side might want that.
Randy Bachman has acknowledged his song Takin Care of Business took awhile to develop.
The current use of copyright is stifling creativity. There’s a lot of songs that were inspired by other work.
We currently have over 70 years of published Rock songs. Approaching a old song with a microscope and comparing it to new work completely shuts down creativity.
You end up with crazy lawsuits like John Fogarty getting sued for The Old Man Down the Road because it had similarities with Run through the Jungle. How many great songs were never published because Fogarty didn’t want to get sued for sounding like himself?
Legal Eagle has a video on the Katy Perry case and how it ties into the long dispute over whether the intro to “Stairway To Heaven” was plagiarized;
Never mind
And was turned down. The initial finding of infringement was in a jury trial. That was appealed to the 9th circuit where a judge upheld the ruling. That was then appealed to be heard by the 9th circuit en banc, but they refused to hear it, leaving the ruling of infringement to stand. I don’t know if it was appealed to the Supreme Court, but if it was, they didn’t accept the case.
There have been some later cases involving Katy Perry and Ed Sheeran (not suing each other) that seemed to have walked back the Blurred Lines decision a bit.
There was a very good article about the Ed Sheeran case in the New Yorker recently. Hopefully you can see it:
‘I agree completely, Your Honor; that’s why I changed two!’
Thank you very much for linking that article. Very well written account that clarifies the issues, such as they are.
For recipes, the number is three. Change three things and you can call it your own.
I’m really liking 1989 (Taylor’s Version). The exact opposite of her demographic, but it’s still catchy music.
All that I can say is that the radio industry is to blame for pushing onto everybody pop starlets like her (caused, IMHO, by what Slick Willie did in '96 to the telecommunications industry(The Telecommunications Act Of 1996 gave us shitty cell service, expensive cable) that caused companies like Clear Channel to buy up everything (that is, every radio station, which was forbidden by the 1933 Act) and flood the airwaves with a shitload of pop princesses and princes (plus boy bands like the kind seen in Turning Red.)
A further explanation is offered here:
When the Telecom Act lifted the limit of radio stations one company could own, it not only created a climate for mega conglomerates like Clear Channel, it also contributed to the insane slide the music industry has experienced over the past 20 years. If a station in Detroit, for instance, is owned by Clear Channel, the company sets the playlist, not the average DJ. That creates less diversity over the radio waves, especially if the same corporation owns a large group of stations in one town. In essence, if a Chicago pop station is playing a lot of Britney Spears, it’s because CBS—the corporation that owns a number of radio stations in Chicago—likes Britney Spears, not because one dude in the music department is into “Toxic.” And if Chicago’s pop station is playing Britney Spears, then she’s going to get airplay at the adult contemporary station in the same network in a few months or years, and she’s going to be getting similarly heavy airplay all across the country at all CBS’ stations.
I personally don’t really hate Taylor Swift, but I don’t like her either, I just tolerate her and her fellow pop princesses (there are better current-day female artists who’re better than she is.) If she and her fellow pop princesses were just one component of the music heard on radio as in the past (the '80’s and early-to-mid '90’s in particular) it wouldn’t be so bad, but she and her fellow female and male pop stars have taken over everything in music, forcing aside rock, punk rock, house, acid house, techno, New Romantic pop, heavy metal, etc. and just substituting nothing but the pop music she and her fellow pop stars make. It’s not good for the culture of society, and it makes everything sound so same and boring (along with classic rock stations playing the classic rock format ad infinitum and ad nauseam ) and it’s also infected country music too, as shown at this website. Even Farron Cousins, who hosts the Ring Of Fire podcast and YouTube channel of the same name thinks that she can save democracy just because she said something about voting against Donald Trump. 
The best way to avoid her and ‘artists’ like her? I have a few places to do so:
Exclaim! (music newspaper focusing [mainly] on non-pop current music [also includes a music video channel])
Consequence of Sound (website focused on the same as above)
Idobi Radio (New York City-based radio station focusing on non-pop music)
Indie 88 (Toronto-based radio station also focusing on non-pop music)
Triple J (Australian radio station focusing on the same as mentioned above)
Shindig! (music magazine)
Maybe, but who listens to broadcast radio these days? Not most of Taylor Swift’s demographic, I’m sure.
Coincidentally to my posting, my wife is about to walk out the door to see the Eras concert movie at the theater with her friends. They’re all between 40-50 and, for my wife at least, never listens to the radio (terrestrial or satellite). It’s all streaming, all the time these days.
A little context here: the rights to Run Through the Jungle, like the rest of CCR’s catalog, were owned by a guy named Saul Zaentz, through Fantasy Records (which had been CCR’s record label). Zaentz and Fogarty strongly disliked each other, and Zaentz had made bad investments on behalf of CCR, which cost the band millions. So, there was a lot of bad blood there already.
Yes, Zaentz sued Fogarty for plagiarizing himself; Zaentz lost the copyright portion of that lawsuit (the courts ruling that a songwriter cannot self-plagiarize), and then was forced to reimburse Fogarty for legal expenses.
It’s interesting that Taylor started in pop country. She really wasn’t doing great. Fans of old skool country didn’t like her.
Switching to Pop brought her stardom.
I don’t like any of the current Pop stars. But Taylor really bugs me. There’s just something about the phrasing and pronunciation that I can’t relate too. I’m sure she can sing in a more traditional way. She’s giving her young fans what they want.
No. There aren’t. By the only objective measure we have - listens. More people listen to Taylor than any other single female artist. Your are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to your facts and we’ve done the “she’s popular, so she must be cookie-cutter bad” so many time it is now into the realm of arrogant farce. Popular does NOT necessarily imply bad and indie/obscure NOT necessarily imply good. Either can be either bad or good. And YOU don’t get that make that judgement for anybody other than you.
Maybe the artist that you (the generic you) like isn’t popular because their art doesn’t speak to many people. If art is to be defined as a shared experience between artist and audience - which is to me the only reasonable definition unless art is just mental masturbation by the artist - then art that evokes feelings in a broader audience is better than art that doesn’t.
Her first album was “country” and did 7x Platinum. Per Wiki:
Taylor Swift was nominated for Album of the Year at the 2008 Academy of Country Music Awards.
The album spent 24 weeks at number one on Top Country Albums and peaked at number five on the Billboard 200, where it became the longest-charting album of the 2000s decade. Certified seven times Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), it made Swift the first solo female country artist to write or co-write every song on a platinum debut album.
Feels like the best kind of “wasn’t doing great” to me