Here’s the best part, helpfully bolded and colored red:
They tried to argue that Joyful Noise was too simple to qualify for copyright AND besides, none of them had ever heard it.
I’ve never head of him, but Christian music isn’t exactly my thing; turns out he’s quite popular:
Whoops… yeah; hard to believe this bunch didn’t listen to stuff that was nominated for a Grammy in the last decade or two.
Stories from songwriters who have tried to work with some of these folks and found themselves unable to stomach it are full of events, posturing and outright theft waaaaaay out there beyond the bounds of what most people would find acceptable in a professional setting, yet I have no reason to doubt and many reasons to believe their tales. This verdict doesn’t surprise me. I hope it isn’t overturned on appeal, or the damage awards reduced to an inconsequential amount.
This doesn’t sound like good news at all to me. Based on the article, no evidence of actual plagiarism was found. They didn’t prove that they had even heard the song before, let alone that they copied it. No, the jury just thought the music “sounded similar.” Music sounds similar to other music all the time, and laypeople are remarkably bad at being able to even tell if they actually are similar.
And, for goodness sake, they’re finding people liable who would have had nothing to do with making that part of the music. Even if the melody was directly copied, the lyricist wouldn’t know that, for example.
Plus, if you know anything about writing music, then you know that part of how it works is that your brain remembers music you’ve heard before, but combines it in new ways. I literally just got through watching a video about how Koji Kondo, the composer for Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda,got his influences. And there are some songs that sound similar to pieces of the SMB or Zelda themes. It was unmistakable, but no one who knows anything about music would call it plagiarism.
This trend isn’t helpful to the little guy, who almost wasn’t even harmed by this in any way. It really does seem to be trying to copyright the basic building blocks of music. It’s a very worrying trend.
Howdy! I’m a musician and songwriter. I’m also an ASCAP member. And I think this is a good decision. I’m pleased that the court found everyone involved liable; they all profited from the illegal plagiarizing, after all.
I looked for the Joyful Noise song to draw my own conclusions, and I now think that:
a)The song starts actually kinda decent- then they bring the nu-metal musicians, become some sort of Christian Linkin’ Park and ruin it.
b) Martin or whoever absolutely took the basic beat from that song. Too many coincidences, from the “You know what it is” at the start, to the hype chorus.
To those (everyone?) who think this was a good decision, please explain to me how the guest artist who wrote a rap verse to add on to the song should be liable and considered a plagiarist?
Hopefully this makes more people think twice before working with the vile Dr. Luke, who’s a) just a vile abuser, and b) done this kind of shit before - looks like his preferred tactic of preemptively suing for defamation didn’t happen this time. The moral seems to be “You don’t mess with the Jesus(Rap)!”
“liable” could just mean “legally liable to pay back any money they made from it”, maybe? Sure, they didn’t plagiarise, it would be wrong to label them a plagiarist because of this decision.
It’s a very tricky issue, because on the one hand, as others have already said it’s extremely easy to independently write a piece of music that sounds very similar to one that has gone before, without ever having heard the original, on the other hand you can’t just let plagiarists off if they claim this is what happened. I’m not familiar with either of the songs in this case, but I can easily believe either version is the true sequence of events, based on just reading the thread. It comes down to which side you think offers the more credible case. But then, that’s hardly unique to this type of trial.
I have a feeling California’s “anti-deep-pockets” law has something to do with this. In California, a jury can distribute responsibility - and the resulting damages owed - in pretty much any way it wants among the defendants. They can throw a wide net over all of them at first, and then work out the details later.
But who gets the piece… and the authorship credit when this one was played for the film Dangerous Liaisons? Why, that thieving Bach, that’s who! Dangerous Liaisons (1988) - Soundtracks - IMDb
The description in your second link would beg to differ (and also gives the year of the Bach piece as 1730-1733), though it’s not clear whether Bach acknowledged Vivaldi when it was first performed/published.
Really? You find it hard to believe that a producer has not listened to every song on every album nominated for “Best Rock or Rap Gospel Album” every year?
Eh, dammit, you’re right. Bach copied some of the published pieces in the time period I provided but had I read further would’ve seen that his transcription for this one piece waited another 20 years.
Is it plagiarism if you’ve never heard the song you supposedly plagiarized? Are you supposed to have listened to every song ever made to be sure you don’t infringe?
There needs to be some sort of musical complexity score and tunes that aren’t high in complexity and would be easy to make from basic notes shouldn’t be copyrightable. IMO.
