> 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"

> 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.