I wonder at what point similarities with past works becomes inevitable. There's only a finite amount of original music out there, especially if you're talking about the length of an average riff or motif, leave out a lot of the more extreme attempts of contemporary art music, and stick to what sounds pleasing in popular music genres. And the output of number of musical compositions seems only to be increasing. An interesting short story in this vein is <a href="http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm</a><p>A bit on the melodramatic side, but explores the same general point.
Good video breakdown: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ytoUuO-qvg</a>
I posted this the other day. Absolutely terrible, IMO. A minor artist can take millions from an artist who releases a song with a passing resemblance. You can hear similarities in SO many songs. And SO many songs are inspired by others - great art is full of inspiration.<p>I dread where this ends up.
In the early 1990s I worked for Jimmy Cauty and Bill Drummond's record label, back when they were dominating the UK and European pop charts as The KLF (<a href="https://weirdestbandintheworld.com/2011/10/20/the-klf/" rel="nofollow">https://weirdestbandintheworld.com/2011/10/20/the-klf/</a>).<p>One day we received in the mail a cassette tape and a letter from a law firm representing a composer or publisher (I can't remember which) of a famous Broadway soundtrack from the 1960s. The letter accused the KLF of infringement. The cassette contained one of the songs on the Broadway soundtrack, an instrumental section of which repeated a three note riff that sounded a lot like the same three-note sequence from one of the KLFs biggest hits. The rhythms and song structures were otherwise nothing alike.<p>It didn't seem like an obvious example of copying, and it was quite possible it was a coincidence or some obscure influence on The KLF or their core musical collaborators, who would have been youths when the Broadway soundtrack was released.<p>"Are you going to fight this?" I asked the label's president.<p>The answer: "No."<p>From The KLF's perspective, it wasn't worth a long, expensive legal fight they might lose. The KLF had been burned before for rampant unauthorized sampling in a previous incarnation of the band called The JAMMs, as described here: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_On%3F)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_(What_the_Fuck_Is_Going_O...</a><p>Also, the label president didn't say it, but potential bad press could have also been on her mind. At the time, the KLF had the British music press eating out of their hands, and a public legal fight could change the narrative of the KLF as being brilliant pop iconoclasts to something less favorable.
> "If you can be liable for allegedly copying a three-note phrase, I think that really dampens the creative output of artists," said Keyes.<p>I don't like where this is going. Those songs have key differences in percussion and partly in melody too, as explained in the graphic. This sets an interesting precedent, to say the least.
Just listening to both songs once, I didn't notice anything close.<p>What I'm curious about are the cases where it is extremely obvious that one song is based on another, and no one says anything.<p>Case in point: "Jolly Roger" by Adam and the Ants [1], from 1980. This is extremely similar to "The March of the MacGregors" by Ennio Morricone, from the 1966 film "Seven Guns for the MacGregors" [2].<p>It's not only the same melody, "Jolly Roger" is also largely the same arrangement.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_-vSIy3fY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc_-vSIy3fY</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5JQ1JTsJ4k" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5JQ1JTsJ4k</a>
Anecdotal, but I’m a big fan of Lecrae’s music and Joyful Noise was probably the biggest hit in Christian hip hop of the time. First time I heard Dark Horse on the radio I laughed and told a friend that they totally ripped off Joyful Noise, it was very obvious since that riff is the focal point of the song. Don’t know if I agree with the lawsuit but the similarities are there.<p>Joyful Noise: <a href="https://youtu.be/jTLeHuvHXuk" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/jTLeHuvHXuk</a><p>Dark horse: <a href="https://youtu.be/0KSOMA3QBU0" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/0KSOMA3QBU0</a>
This is direct fallout from the Marvin Gaye Estate/ Robin Thicke "blurred lines" lawsuit mentioned in the article.<p>Those songs aren't that similar (the jury didn't even hear both songs if I remember correctly), and after the verdict wasn't corrected on appeal the stage was set for more of these. The "easy money" angle of results (5 million to the estate of a singer for a 70s song.... just get lawyers).<p>It seems likely we are going to see more and more of these lawsuits. Sort of a sad state.
What a schadenfreude for me. I see most people are saying it sucks, I for one can cheer on. Screw the music, movie and media industry. Tons of laws and garbage we suffer on the internet today is because of them and their lobbying efforts. There approach towards everything has been litigation hell, let them feel their own pain.
The problem is using juries for this. Music copyrights should be adjudicated by a panel of professional musicologists, funded by a cut of the awards. That way there’s at least some consistency. The concept would extend to other disciplines.<p>Of course a purely functional improvement to governance is a political nonstarter in today’s environment.
I wonder if you could make an AI program to make a bunch (millions)of unique melodies a minute or less and publish them somewhere like YouTube. Then just scan new hit songs and see if they somehow copy what your computer generated..
How was Flame able to demonstrate that they heard the song before?<p>Remember that independent discovery is a valid defense a against a copyright infringement claim. Katy Perry's legal defense was that nobody had ever heard Flame's music. The CBC article doesn't seem to indicate how the jury was convinced that Katy Perry's team knew of the other song, except that "obviously they heard it because it was awarded a Grammy". Huh? Is that all it took?
I was wondering, does Shazam can differentiate well between these two songs? I'm not entirely sure about the internal working of it, but was curious to know how these pattern recognition apps can help in this.<p>Also, reminds me of the Silicon Valley where Richard was able to disproof Patent troll by using his music/search app.
I would be more sympathetic to Katy Perry's case here if I could ever get past the fact that a major part of "Firework" sounds so much like Erasure's "Always".<p>I'm all for creative freedom, but massively profitable pop music labels shouldn't be able to just crib the essence a catchy melody and make it the whole basis of their song just because the person who wrote the original version wasn't that popular. If it really was a coincidence in this case, then it's unfortunate, but it isn't life-changing to someone as well-off as her. If the original composer really was copied from though, actually being credited and received recognition as deserved, could be life-changing, so I don't blame him for suing.
Incredible to think that rap music would never have existed or become a popular genre if this law existed in the 80's and was weaponized against artists.<p>Ultimately this will strengthen a labels position as signed artists will be "allowed" to be influenced by songs the record label already owns.<p>Anyone else will be stuck in court.<p>There's a fantastic documentary on this called Copyright Criminals that breaks down this area and just how intertwined the entire music industry is as artists are naturally inspired by each other. The conclusion from this film was that innovation and creation will then come from places where these laws do not exist.
Does this mean Axis of Awesome will finally get paid for Four Chord Song?<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I</a>
A similar case involving Kraftwerk was decided recently. <a href="https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8524267/kraftwerk-european-court-justice-ruling-metall-auf-metall" rel="nofollow">https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8524267/kraftwer...</a> "European Court Rules In Favor Of Kraftwerk In 20 Year-Long Copyright Dispute"
This is literally how musicians create new music. When I was in high school jazz band, every improvisation had pieces of popular jazz songs in it. That's just how it works.
This is obvious a case of "be careful what you wish for" the music industry has itself to blame for this. I hope it will get more ridiculous over time.
I don't know much about music, but there's only so many ways to arrange notes and of those ways there are far fewer ways to arrange them that sound ... pleasing to the ear.<p>What happens when all the pleasing ways are copyrighted and owned by some sort of Pantone for music?<p>Good grief what are we becoming?
There is only so much someone can do with a particular set of notes and instruments. It is sad for the arts that a three note riff is the basis of lawsuits.