Hey guys.
I've been reading the posts in this thread and it's, IMHO, moved from what was at first an interesting real
issue to simply (in some cases, with notable exceptions ?) a Satch vs Coldplay fans thing. One must realise that this is a legal issue, and not a musical one (as weird as that sounds). So one should look for guidance to the legal principles involved.
I found a really great website that deals with these kinds of cases; namely the UCLA Law School's Copyright Infringement Project website:
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/purpose.html
You'd be surprised how many famous songs have been litigated about in the US' courts. The site provides a page to every case, including comparative sound clips, scores, etc. The actual court judgments are reproduced with commentary from the UCLA guys regarding the principles established, etc. I found it fascinating stuff.
Some highlights:
In 1995 John Lee Hooker claimed ZZ Top's "La Grange" was derived from his "Boogie Chillun,". Hooker lost. But in 1999 ZZ Top successfully sued the Chrysler Corporation for ripping of "La Grange" in a promotional video for the Plymouth Prowler.
Stranger still is the delicously titled 1994 case of "Fantasy v. Fogerty", wherein John Fogerty was sued for ripping himself off!!! Fogerty assigned the copyright for his song "Run through the Jungle" to Fantasy Records. Later he wrote "Old Man Down the Road" that was distributed by Warner Bros. Fantasy claimed this song was derived from "Jungle"!
A guy called James Damiano unsuccessfully sued Bob Dylan for ripping off his lyrics in "Dignity" and five other songs. If you read Damiano's lyrics he alleges Dylan copied into "Dignity", I think Damiano was hard done by!! Bob had better lawyers.
But IMHO the most informative case with reference tot he present Satch/Coldplay fiasco is an action brought by a guy called Ronald Selle. He wrote a song called "Let It End" in 1975, and copyrighted it properly. He performed the song live three times in the Chicago area and sent a tape and lead sheet of the music to eleven music recording and publishing companies. Eight of the companies returned the materials to Selle; three did not respond. This was the extent of the public dissemination of the song. During 1978, he heard the Bee Gees' "How deep is your love", and was of the opinion they had copied his song. The Bee Gees wrote and copyrighted their song in 1977.
If you listen to the songs,they are remarkably similar. Selle called some music professor to compare the similarities as expert evidence. His conclusions were summarised by the Court as follows:
"
According to Dr. Parsons' testimony, the first eight bars of each song (Theme A) have twenty-four of thirty-four notes in plaintiff's composition and twenty-four of forty notes in defendants' composition which are identical in pitch and symmetrical position. Of thirty-five rhythmic impulses in plaintiff's composition and forty in defendants', thirty are identical. In the last four bars of both songs (Theme B), fourteen notes in each are identical in pitch, and eleven of the fourteen rhythmic impulses are identical. Both Theme A and Theme B appear in the same position in each song but with different intervening material. ? Dr. Parsons testified that, in his opinion, "
the two songs had such striking similarities that they could not have been written independent of one another." He also testified that he did not know of two songs by different composers "
that contain as many striking similarities" as do the two songs at issue here".
In a cool move reminiscent of the OJ Simpson glove trick, Selle's lawyers played various excerpts of the two songs to the late Maurice Gibb during cross-examination. Maurice incorrectly identified part of Selle's song as being the Bee Gees' tune! ?
This no doubt impressed the jury no end,and they ruled in favour of Selle.
The Court then overruled the jury, and ruled in favour of the Bee Gees (as is possible in US law if the judge believes the jury is plainly wrong on a point of law). Selle then took his case on appeal, where the appeal court again confirmed the ruling in favour of the Bee Gees.
For the the Satch/Coldplay thing, one must realise that similarity between the songs is not what is decisive (as Sepheritoh said much earlier). It is only ONE of the relevant factors. These are some excerpts from the Court's judgement:
"
In establishing a claim of copyright infringement of a musical composition, the plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of the copyright in the complaining work; (2) originality of the work; (3) copying of the work by
the defendant, and (4) a substantial degree of similarity between the two works.
Proof of copying is crucial to any claim of copyright infringement because no matter how similar the two works may be (even to the point of identity), if the defendant did not copy the accused work, there is no infringement. However, because direct evidence of copying is rarely available, the plaintiff can rely upon
circumstantial evidence to prove this essential element, and the most important component of this sort of
circumstantial evidence is proof of access. The plaintiff may be able to introduce direct evidence of
access when, for example, the work was sent directly to the defendant (whether a musician or a
publishing company) or a close associate of the defendant. On the other hand, the plaintiff may be able to
establish a reasonable possibility of access when, for example, the complaining work has been widely
disseminated to the public.
If, however, the plaintiff does not have direct evidence of access, then an inference of access may still be
established circumstantially by proof of similarity which is so striking that the possibilities of independent
creation, coincidence and prior common source are, as a practical matter precluded. If the plaintiff
presents evidence of striking similarity sufficient to raise an inference of access, then copying is
presumably proved simultaneously, although the fourth element (substantial similarity) still requires proof
that the defendant copied a substantial amount of the complaining work. The theory which Selle attempts
to apply to this case is based on proof of copying by circumstantial proof of access established by
striking similarity between the two works".
The Court then goes on to refer to the famous George Harrison case referred to in Bob's earlier post:
"
In Abkco Music, Inc. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., the court found that there had been a copyright
infringement based on a theory of subconscious copying. The complaining work, "He's So Fine," had
been the most popular song in the United States for five weeks and among the thirty top hits in England
for seven weeks during the year in which George Harrison composed "My Sweet Lord," the infringing
song".
The Court also refers to the legal principle of "
striking similarity", defined as "
that degree of similarity as
will permit an inference of copying even in the absence of proof of access. . . .". Absent proof of access,
"the similarities must be so striking as to preclude the possibility that the defendant independently arrived
at the same result."
From this case the issues, from a legal as opposed to fans' perspective, appear to be as follows:
1. Clearly IMHO they are similar but not in the legal sense of "striking similarity".
2. Unlike the Bee Gees' case, Satch's song was widely disseminated. So a Court would probably infer
"access".
3.
Apropos the Harrison case, is it perhaps a case of subconscious copying?
4. Is their proof positive of copying? Does Chris Martin own a copy of Satch's CD????!!! Does Martin's IP address show up on Youtube where he listened to Satch's song a hundred times before
La Vida was recorded? What evidence can the other Coldplay members give about the origin of the song? Did Chris first sing it to Apple as a lullabye whilst Gwyneth was listening, etc?? ?
Long and short of it is that it will legally turn on much more than whether they sound alike. Also, above principles come from US law. May be slight variations in UK law.
So, it's not an open and shut thing. My two cents worth.
