Norio wrote:
I don't think it was done maliciously though. I know I've often played something that sounded great and then realised it was someone else's. That aside, what it comes down to is they're making money off his melody. Whether it was a subconscious thing or not, by today's music business standards, that's a pretty good reason for Satch to sue and win.
Not just today's. An obvious parallel here is George Harrison and "My Sweet Lord" (which was 30+ years ago). He was sued for plagiary - the allegedly plagiarised piece being The Shrirrelle's "He's So Fine". Harrison lost the case and had to pay up. Lennon later remarked that he didn't believe that Harrison had deliberately plagiarised but that he must have recognised the similarities and should thus have anticipated what would happen.
Led Zeppelin have also had some questions asked about the origins of some songs they claimed credit for. In at least two cases there were out of court settlements. Ironically one case was "Bring It On Home", allegedly ripping off a Sonny Boy Williamson song. It turned out that Williamson had, in turn, ripped off Willy Dixon.
Paul Simon recorded and claimed the credit for Martin Carthy's arrangement of the traditional "Scarborough Fair". Simon never admitted to deliberately copying, but did eventually acknowledge the similarities. After the matter raged on for some years Carthy phoned Simon to discuss the matter. In the conversation that followed it emerged that Carthy had just got divorced, had put in an offer on a new house and that the house was going to cost 1800 pounds. Simon said "Gee. That's amazing. A cheque with your name on it for 1800 pounds just landed on my desk this morning." Carthy got a single payment (no royalties).
