5 ms·

Courts don't care about harmony. Most US courts follow a guideline that the copyrightable parts of a composition are melody and lyrics. Nobody has ever successf

Courts don't care about harmony. Most US courts follow a guideline that the copyrightable parts of a composition are melody and lyrics. Nobody has ever successfully sued for stolen chord progression.

ehnto 7y ago
But a melody over one chord progression, versus the same melody over another chord progression, is surely a different song.
- hannasanarion 7y ago
  Not according to the US court system. American case law defines chord progressions as insufficiently creative for copyright purposes. Usually rhythms are too. The only copyrightable parts of a composition in precedential cases of most US courts are the melody and lyrics. And apparently arpeggios, because the US District Court of California ruled in Flame vs Katy Perry that arpeggios are "melodic enough" for copyright protection.
  - ehnto 7y ago
    Melodies are insufficient on their own in my opinion, the court rules differently I guess. Melodies are just as likely to be formulaic, and are built using similar foundational knowledge as a chord progression (only a subset of notes works in a given progression for example, and conventions lead you toward certain notes of that subset). A combination of chords, melody, rhythm are I think the only reasonable measure that a song has been copied.
- robrtsql 7y ago
  It matters a lot to the sound of the song, but does it matter to the court? If I take the entire melody of a Beatles song, including the verse and chorus, but set it to an entirely different chord progression, would the court recognize that as an original song? What if I lifted all of the lyrics as well?
  - ehnto 7y ago
    Lyrics and melody? I think that's reasonable to consider that an infringement. Melody over a new chord progression? I do think that should be considered a new work, just to limit the scope of copyright. Even if it's clear you copied the melody, I think melody alone is insufficient to call a song. Unless the original song was entirely melody. A melody is using all the same musical building blocks as the chord progressions did, why does it get special treatment?

Courts don't care about harmony. Most US courts follow a guideline that the copyrightable parts of a composition are melody and lyrics. Nobody has ever successfully sued for stolen chord progression.

ehnto 7y ago

But a melody over one chord progression, versus the same melody over another chord progression, is surely a different song.

hannasanarion 7y ago
Not according to the US court system. American case law defines chord progressions as insufficiently creative for copyright purposes. Usually rhythms are too. The only copyrightable parts of a composition in precedential cases of most US courts are the melody and lyrics. And apparently arpeggios, because the US District Court of California ruled in Flame vs Katy Perry that arpeggios are "melodic enough" for copyright protection.
- ehnto 7y ago
  Melodies are insufficient on their own in my opinion, the court rules differently I guess. Melodies are just as likely to be formulaic, and are built using similar foundational knowledge as a chord progression (only a subset of notes works in a given progression for example, and conventions lead you toward certain notes of that subset). A combination of chords, melody, rhythm are I think the only reasonable measure that a song has been copied.
robrtsql 7y ago
It matters a lot to the sound of the song, but does it matter to the court? If I take the entire melody of a Beatles song, including the verse and chorus, but set it to an entirely different chord progression, would the court recognize that as an original song? What if I lifted all of the lyrics as well?
- ehnto 7y ago
  Lyrics and melody? I think that's reasonable to consider that an infringement. Melody over a new chord progression? I do think that should be considered a new work, just to limit the scope of copyright. Even if it's clear you copied the melody, I think melody alone is insufficient to call a song. Unless the original song was entirely melody. A melody is using all the same musical building blocks as the chord progressions did, why does it get special treatment?