4 ms·

John Fogerty wasn't sued for sounding like himself, he was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own. Although Fogerty won and apparently eventually got his le

by chasing 11y ago

John Fogerty wasn't sued for sounding like himself, he was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own. Although Fogerty won and apparently eventually got his legal costs back. "In the bizarre self-plagiarism case, Fantasy and its boss Saul Zaentz claimed that Fogerty's 1985 song Old Man Down the Road was merely his old Creedence song, Run Through the Jungle, with a new title. The label wouldn't have been able to bring the suit if Fogerty hadn't sold them the rights to his old material, something any aspiring pop star would be strenuously advised not to do in these more artist friendly days. Fogerty won the case, but then had to jump through further legal hoops to win back $1.35m dollars in costs." (http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/11/artsfeatures3 http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/11/artsfeatures3) Let me use this to point out: I hate it when even these little fudges happen. "Unsuccessfully sued for self-plagiarism" becomes "sued for self-plagiarism" becomes "sued for sounding like himself" -- which actually means something quite different. And then that winds up the headline, people remember it and form opinions based on it. And now we've got some dumb new falsehood floating around whenever people talk about record companies and music publishing. "You can literally be sued for sounding like yourself! Media companies are monsters that want to destroy human life on earth!" Gotta get those clicks, though. Click click click.

rayiner 11y ago
A lot of the outrage cottage industry runs on people not reading past the headline or first paragraph. If it's too outrageous to be true, it probably is.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Unless it involves Comcast.
- guelo 11y ago
  There also seems to be a cottage industry of people telling others that they are wrong or stupid for being outraged.
gglitch 11y ago
The article presents the line "sued for sounding like myself," as a direct quote from Fogerty. I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but at least the author didn't produce this language out of whole cloth.
taco_emoji 11y ago
> Or as Fogerty put it while recalling the episode, "I was sued for sounding like myself." TFA additionally has the appropriate quotation marks around the headline, but they were not carried over to the link here on HN for whatever reason. You're welcome to rail against poetic license if you want, I guess, but at least blame the right person.
- chasing 11y ago
  Those seven words are a quote, yes, but Erik Devaney uses that quote as evidence in a longer section about the absurdity of artists losing the right to write music using their own voice. Which is not at all what the Fogerty lawsuit was about. And it's not even what the rest of the article is about. And using the word "sued" without indicating "unsuccessfully" is tantamount to lying, I think. He knows people will assume that means "successfully sued" and will feel outraged and -- hopefully -- post it to Twitter or Hacker News.
  - davvolun 11y ago
    If I were sued and the expected costs of litigation were $1.35M, 'successfully' and 'unsuccessfully' would be purely academic -- I would never be able to afford to get to that point!
    - FireBeyond 11y ago
      Hardly a comparison, unless your net worth is $70M+, like John Fogerty's.
  - taco_emoji 11y ago
    > ...Devaney uses that quote as evidence in a longer section about the absurdity of artists losing the right to write music using their own voice Devaney does not use the word "voice" even once in his article, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
    - chasing 11y ago
guelo 11y ago
I don't see what's so inaccuarate about the headline. He was sued because someone thought the new song sounded similar to his previous song. But the legal system concluded that it was not the same song. I'm having a hard time figuring out how you came to the conclusion that he was not sued for sounding like himself.
daveidol 11y ago
I mean... true. The title is a little click-baity perhaps (even though it is a direct quote), and this phenomenon of people reading a title/skimming an article and then spreading around inaccurate information is frustrating. But, I actually found the author to be quite thorough in his explanations. The tone was a bit more conversational than some, and last paragraph was maybe a little sensational, but if you read the whole thing I don't think you come away thinking anything other than what you said: "John Fogerty [...] was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own." It's just a little bizarre when you take one or two steps back from it, even though it may still be logical up close.
vectorpush 11y ago
> John Fogerty wasn't sued for sounding like himself, he was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own. Hmm. Seems to me like "sued for sounding like himself" is less misleading than "sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own". The latter statement appears to imply that he stole someone else's work and then unduly passed it off as his own. The idea that someone might take credit for another's hard work is usually the source of any disgust directed towards acts of plagiarism. On the other hand "sued for sounding like himself" more accurately captures the nuance of this situation where the artist actually authored the original material but is then accused of writing a song that sounds similar to the original even though he doesn't legally own the rights to the original. > And now we've got some dumb new falsehood floating around whenever people talk about record companies and music publishing. "You can literally be sued for sounding like yourself! Well, I don't feel like that is a dumb falsehood or an unfair characterization, he was quite literally sued for writing a song that sounds similar to a different song that he also wrote; no, he didn't legally own the song, but in the context of criticism against the record industry, having a record label come after you because they think your new work sounds too similar to your old work that you sold off sounds like a quintessential example of why artists and their fans resent big labels.

by chasing 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

A lot of the outrage cottage industry runs on people not reading past the headline or first paragraph. If it's too outrageous to be true, it probably is.

ohitsdom 11y ago
Unless it involves Comcast.
guelo 11y ago
There also seems to be a cottage industry of people telling others that they are wrong or stupid for being outraged.

gglitch 11y ago

The article presents the line "sued for sounding like myself," as a direct quote from Fogerty. I don't disagree with the gist of your point, but at least the author didn't produce this language out of whole cloth.

taco_emoji 11y ago

> Or as Fogerty put it while recalling the episode, "I was sued for sounding like myself." TFA additionally has the appropriate quotation marks around the headline, but they were not carried over to the link here on HN for whatever reason. You're welcome to rail against poetic license if you want, I guess, but at least blame the right person.

chasing 11y ago
Those seven words are a quote, yes, but Erik Devaney uses that quote as evidence in a longer section about the absurdity of artists losing the right to write music using their own voice. Which is not at all what the Fogerty lawsuit was about. And it's not even what the rest of the article is about. And using the word "sued" without indicating "unsuccessfully" is tantamount to lying, I think. He knows people will assume that means "successfully sued" and will feel outraged and -- hopefully -- post it to Twitter or Hacker News.
- davvolun 11y ago
  If I were sued and the expected costs of litigation were $1.35M, 'successfully' and 'unsuccessfully' would be purely academic -- I would never be able to afford to get to that point!
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    Hardly a comparison, unless your net worth is $70M+, like John Fogerty's.
- taco_emoji 11y ago
  > ...Devaney uses that quote as evidence in a longer section about the absurdity of artists losing the right to write music using their own voice Devaney does not use the word "voice" even once in his article, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
  - chasing 11y ago

guelo 11y ago

I don't see what's so inaccuarate about the headline. He was sued because someone thought the new song sounded similar to his previous song. But the legal system concluded that it was not the same song. I'm having a hard time figuring out how you came to the conclusion that he was not sued for sounding like himself.

daveidol 11y ago

I mean... true. The title is a little click-baity perhaps (even though it is a direct quote), and this phenomenon of people reading a title/skimming an article and then spreading around inaccurate information is frustrating. But, I actually found the author to be quite thorough in his explanations. The tone was a bit more conversational than some, and last paragraph was maybe a little sensational, but if you read the whole thing I don't think you come away thinking anything other than what you said: "John Fogerty [...] was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own." It's just a little bizarre when you take one or two steps back from it, even though it may still be logical up close.

vectorpush 11y ago

> John Fogerty wasn't sued for sounding like himself, he was sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own. Hmm. Seems to me like "sued for sounding like himself" is less misleading than "sued for plagiarizing a song he didn't own". The latter statement appears to imply that he stole someone else's work and then unduly passed it off as his own. The idea that someone might take credit for another's hard work is usually the source of any disgust directed towards acts of plagiarism. On the other hand "sued for sounding like himself" more accurately captures the nuance of this situation where the artist actually authored the original material but is then accused of writing a song that sounds similar to the original even though he doesn't legally own the rights to the original. > And now we've got some dumb new falsehood floating around whenever people talk about record companies and music publishing. "You can literally be sued for sounding like yourself! Well, I don't feel like that is a dumb falsehood or an unfair characterization, he was quite literally sued for writing a song that sounds similar to a different song that he also wrote; no, he didn't legally own the song, but in the context of criticism against the record industry, having a record label come after you because they think your new work sounds too similar to your old work that you sold off sounds like a quintessential example of why artists and their fans resent big labels.