4 ms·
I see Ed Sheeran's (as well as Katy Perry's) successful copyright defenses as evidence song writers are doing fine. Katy Perry's earlier defeat (for Dark Horse)
by juliusdavies 3y ago
I see Ed Sheeran's (as well as Katy Perry's) successful copyright defenses as evidence song writers are doing fine. Katy Perry's earlier defeat (for Dark Horse) luckily reversed on appeal last year. Toni Basil also had an interesting copyright victory last year related to 1980's "Mickey" - although her result seems very narrow and technical (related to copyright termination and works-for-hire) and only about the recording, since she never wrote the song in the first place.
Whereas Marvin Gaye's heirs' successful litigation against Blurred Lines is very concerning (see: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-between-inspiration-and-infringement https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-b... ), although as has long been the case with copyright litigation in the USA - it really all depends on the jury !
Personally, when I listen to Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up" right next to "Blurred Lines" I really cannot comprehend the jury's result. I guess they both employ a cowbell very prominently? But I wasn't a member of the jury, so it wasn't up to me. I find the Katy Perry result to be at least a little bit of a close call based on my own listening.
- bobsmooth 3y ago>I see Ed Sheeran's (as well as Katy Perry's) successful copyright defenses as evidence song writers are doing fine. Song writers backed by huge companies are doing fine, but what about independent producers?
- juliusdavies 3y agoHonestly, I think if I wrote something significant enough that I got sued for it - that's probably a VERY good sign about my own prospects and future as a musician. Lil Nas X was completely independent when he created Old Town Road with a complete copy & paste of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross's music. So even in cases of absurdly blatant copyright infringement the artist might still do okay !
- bobsmooth 3y agoI'd prefer if song makers could produce in freedom rather than deal with getting sued or winning the lottery that is getting signed.
- graphe 3y agoTrent Reznor doesn't enforce copyright and it's famous for not doing so.
- juliusdavies 3y agoThe Reznor/Ross track that Old Town Road was built from carries a Creative-Commons Non-Commercial license. But Old Town Road is obviously commercial. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross currently receive a significant portion of the royalties (more than Lil Nas X!).
- squeaky-clean 3y ago> Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross currently receive a significant portion of the royalties (more than Lil Nas X!). Do you have any source on this? Reznor has stayed mostly quiet about Old Town Road aside from mentioning it was strange at first but he doesn't really mind it. They worked out a deal but I don't think the terms were ever made public. Could he have demanded a large share of the royalties? Sure. But do you have proof he did?
- juliusdavies 3y agoLil Nas X reports in Variety that Reznor/Ross might be getting up to 50% of the royalties (he wasn't sure exactly). https://variety.com/2020/music/news/old-town-road-recorded-for-50-dollars-grammy-nominated-1203480697/ https://variety.com/2020/music/news/old-town-road-recorded-f... There's also a comment on Reddit that sounds pretty believable (Reznor: 37.5, Ross: 12.5, Lil Nas X: 21.25, YoungKio: 21.25, Billy Ray Cyrus: 3.75%, Jozzy: 3.75%). https://www.reddit.com/r/musicindustry/comments/bu3gd1/comment/ep89eoo/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/musicindustry/comments/bu3gd1/comme...
- acomjean 3y agoOnce you’re successful you become a worthwhile target of frivolous lawsuits, I guess that’s a sign of success.
- juliusdavies 3y agoIf someone has even heard my song and thinks it's good enough to be worth suing over I must be doing something right...
- squeaky-clean 3y agoYou don't have to be large or even get sued for them to affect you. Gyu Beats had a video where he recreated Aphex Twin's "Ageispolis" from scratch. And Die Antwoord's label copyright-claimed all revenue from that video because Die Antwoord sampled Ageispolis (unedited, with permission). It's likely an automated copyright claim, but does that make it any better? https://youtu.be/SQriRPIvCd4 https://youtu.be/SQriRPIvCd4 If Aphex Twin copyright-claimed the song that would be another thing. But this is like if someone else sampled Ghosts 34 and Lil Nas X claimed original copyright ownership of the sample.
- hgsgm 3y agoThat's Alphabet/Google/YouTube ContendID law, not copyright law.
- red-iron-pine 3y agoYou can argue legal merits all day but the reality is the little guy doesn't have much chance against FAANG lawyers without a lot of financial backing from elsewhere
- kelthan 3y agoThat is part of the rules required of distribution sites like YouTube, Apple Music, Spotify, etc., as defined in US law as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). Hence the name "DCMA Takedown Notice".
- kelthan 3y agoMaybe... Until 2019, 100% of the royalties for the song "Bitter Sweet Symphony" by The Verve, released in 1997 and their most recognizable song, went to the Rolling Stones. The Verve sampled the distinctive repeating string theme in that song from the Rolling Stones' "The Last Time", released in 1965. The Verve even got permission to use the riff from the 'Stones record label prior to releasing "Bitter Sweet Symphony." https://www.npr.org/2019/05/23/726227555/not-bitter-just-sweet-the-rolling-stones-give-royalties-to-the-verve https://www.npr.org/2019/05/23/726227555/not-bitter-just-swe...
- gamblor956 3y agoMarvin Gaye's estate is one of the most notorious copyright trolls in the music industry. We've only heard about the big songs (Sheeran, Blurred Lines) but they've gone after a number of indie musicians as well.
- juliusdavies 3y agoI'd love to hear more about these cases, but probably they all settle with non disclosures. :-( Are you aware of any specific instances?
- masklinn 3y agoI recently learned that the Eagles is also a big one: they will copyright-strike any cover, no ifs, no buts. Not share earnings, not demonitize, straight to strike.
- LegitShady 3y agoI mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. That's kind of their choice?
- vr46 3y agoYou don't need permission to make a cover, in America, there's a thing called a compulsory mechanical licence that anyone can obtain. Prince was notorious for "denying" people permission to cover his songs, but in reality it seemed that people were just being polite, and/or afraid of his general power in the industry (said with the full awareness that he both took a battering from Warner Bros and also meted out much battering to his own fans).
- masklinn 3y ago> I mean, you're supposed to ask permission to make a cover. No, that’s actually a specific carve-out in US copyright law dating back to the Copyright Act of 1909. It’s certainly a nice thing to do (like weird al and parodies), but it’s not required, and it’s completely useless for a budding singer to “ask permission” to do a cover from a popular artist or group, the request will go straight to the bin unread. > That's kind of their choice? Of course it is, but a copyright strike is a heavy handed and damaging choice. The Eagles are apparently notorious for this behaviour.
- CalRobert 3y agoAmusingly, Warner Music themselves can't tell the difference between Dark Horse and Joyful Noise (the song supposedly being infringed upon in Dark House) https://youtu.be/KM6X2MEl7R8 https://youtu.be/KM6X2MEl7R8
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- twobitshifter 3y agoEven if Sheeran defended himself successfully, it was an 8 year court battle. There are systemic issues that go beyond the verdict.
- kelthan 3y agoA friend of mine who is a managing partner at a law firm specializing in IP law once told me that "once a case goes to a jury trial, it's a 50/50 chance that you win--and the odds only go down from there."