Michael Jackson and Rihanna Both Get Sued Over a 1972 Tune
from the ma-ma-se,-ma-ma-sa,-ma-ma-sue dept
At 75, an artist may be too old to write a new hit single, but that doesn't make them too old to sue someone famous with a new hit single for a large sum of money over 10 syllables from a 37-year-old song. Cameroonian artist, Manu Dibango, is suing both Michael Jackson and Rihanna for copyright infringement over his 1972 hit, Soul Makossa. The complicating factor is that Jackson was already sued decades ago for infringing the tune in his 1983 single, Wanna Be Startin' Something, and he had settled with Dibango, but now he's under fire again for allegedly licensing the infringing bit to Rihanna for her 2007 hit, Please Don't Stop the Music, without contacting Dibango to get permission. According to Wikipedia, Soul Makossa features a Duala chant, "Mama-ko, mama-sa, ma-ka-ma-ko-ssa," while a similar sounding Swahili chant, "Ma Ma Se, Ma Ma Sa, Ma Ma Coo Sa," appears in both Jackson's and Rihanna's song. Dibango is demanding €500,000, and that the courts block the labels from receiving any money from the allegedly infringing tunes until the matter is resolved.Dibango has a history of making great music, but more recently, he served as President of the Cameroon Music Corporation, where he was known for defending intellectual property rights and fighting piracy. It's a real shame that you need to hire a law firm to make use of a catchy phrase from another song, but I guess that's what happens when everyone is focused on "protecting" their rights, rather than on making music.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, manu dibango, michael jackson, music, rihanna
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hook
Sure, why not? You think you can do it better than the beatles? Even more laughable, you think you can outperform Hendrix? Best of luck to you!
But even if you could, I don't see the problem. You really think people would listen to Hendrix or the Beatles less if it had been covered by you? Come on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hook
Hearing music makes you want to hear more music, stop trying to fight that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re;hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re;hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hook
I'm not one to defend Michael but that chant is far from "the hook" as compared to "She loves you yeah, yeah, yeah".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPTsmswQVwg
The use of that chant was used during a breakdown but not much else. So what were you saying again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hook
How is an emerging artist (i.e. someone who isn't rich) even supposed to begin to play that game? With this system, culture is only accessible to the rich; it's a €500,000 risk to use a phrase from a popular song, even if you try to get the rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Folk Chants
The guy who "stole" a folk chant from the Duala people of Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duala_people) is now claiming ownership of that chant and any chant that sounds similar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Folk Chants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, yes, you should be able to. That's the whole point. The article is about 10 words/syllables. Your example is 6. How about making it infringing to use just 3? How about 1?
At what nonsensical point does this debate have to reach in order for the question to become about the expression instead of the syntax? Consider this argument carried over to literature. How many books would be "infringing" someone else's book because they happened to use the same 6 or 10 words?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BHG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!swahili
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !swahili
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Therein lies the problem. It's unfortunately more cost effective to settle a lawsuit than go through the court system. And every settlement creates the false impression that the lawsuit was valid simply because it was settled, as this user mistakenly assumes.
A settlement does not necessarily imply guilt - it simply means it was easier to pay up front than go through the more costly legal wranglings. That's why most settlements include the "admit to no wrongdoings" language.
Now, almost 40 years later, he sells something he already said he stole.
Unless he admitted to infringement in the settlement, you're completely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jackson was sued in 1983 because he used the part from a song published in 1972.
Get it now, tool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In my eyes it only makes sense to sue. Back in 1972, Jackson seems to have settled this case thereby implicating that he did 'steal' this. Now, almost 40 years later, he sells something he already said he stole. Maybe Rihanna will be let off the hook, but sounds like free money from MJ..."
Specifically, "Back in 1972, Jackson seems to have settled this case...". So someone did say that Jackson was sued in 1972.
Who's the tool?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
written language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW...I wrote a tribute song to John Bonham. I wanted some Bonham licks and pieces (literally no more than 5 seconds) of Led Zeppelin songs. Their publisher denied my request. That's just the way it goes. You can't be angry. An artist dreams up something, out of thin air. They should be able to decide HOW, WHEN and at what cost (if any) it should be used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright infringement isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement. Stealing removes the object in question from the possession of the owner.
Do you honestly believe an artist "dreams up something, out of thin air?" Where do you think the chant that Dibango used comes from? Art doesn't come from thin air. It's a reflection of society and experience and inspiration.
The main problem with your entire comment is the limits of ownership. Jackson and Rihanna aren't even saying the same thing that Dibango did, and the music is entirely different. Is that the same? If so, how different does it have to be? How many words, notes, etc... It's not as simple as you make it out to be.
Once you trace things back up the chain of inspiration, you can have many "owners," many variations on the expression of an idea (or even transformative expressions)... and even after you establish the "owners," you're still faced with the question of what ownership means. Who owns an expression of an idea is not as obvious as the question of who owns a physical thing.
What do you think the extent of ownership is on a 10 syllable chant in a song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People "copy" all the time...the idea is to create something NEW out of it, not reuse the exact same thing. I have a close friend who wrote a hit song in the 80's. You'd know it if you heard it. The riff is a Beatles riff, played backwards, with different phrasing. It's not copying, because the out "thin air" part was the idea to take something that existed, CHANGE it and make it into something new.
As for this particular story. I haven't heard the chant, the original 1972 song, or the "Stolen" piece by Rhianna/MJ, so I have no opinion on whether it's copied.
Taking the riff to Day Tripper, putting new words is NOT original. That is what the original poster suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) Let's take a case where, for the sake of argument, there are no significant changes and a derivative isn't "something new," whatever that means. For the sake of argument, let's say that putting new words over the Day Tripper riff is not original. (a) Who would even care about the derivative song if it didn't add value in some way, if it wasn't somehow original? (b) If no one cares about it... what's the harm being done to the Beatles? Sure, it might be terrible or useless, but should that get the law involved?
"That's just the way it goes": right now that a publisher can deny your request to create a song using Bonham licks, you as an artist need someone else's permission to create, but does that have to be how it goes? What benefit is the system providing?
(2) I was focusing on this particular example to make a broader point. Where do you define the limits for ownership? You have to get the permission of a publisher to use Bonham's licks, but you can just fill out some forms and pay the royalties if you wanted to cover an entire song. And, to take the Beatles riff and reverse it and change the phrasing isn't considered infringement. It's not clear to me what should be considered infringement, what should require permission and what should simply require that royalties be paid. The system seems to be a real patchwork, rather than anything well thought out.
It's not clear legally when you've created something "new." I'm pretty sure that people aren't listened to Rihanna's song in place of Dibango's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
okay
Secondly, I only remember that hook from MJ's song and actually, it is not a hook, the people are actually CHANTING-hummm. How many other folks remember the entire song and not just that chant? That chant made the song the success that it was, coupled with the singer.
Thirdly, Rihanna, best wishes to her, but her people did not do their homework-i remember this case. It is that simple. She needs new people.
Lastly, what does it matter what the chant actually means? No one knows what it means; I did not know then and I dont know now, all I know is that MJ sang it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: okay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yall are crazy
Okay and the chant is from Wanna Be Starting Something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yall are crazy
Are you concerned Jackson is riding on the popularity of a song that was a decade old at the time? Are you concerned that Rhianna is riding the popularity of a song that's older than most of her audience? What's really the problem here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
says it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simply this ...
Rhianna did the right thing -- try to make sure she had her bases covered. Whether Dibango can legally claim he has rights to the chant can be debated forever and likely will be. I place the blame squarely on MJ's shoulders (or his folks) on this one. He is talented and deserves a place in the music history books, but this action was just plain wrong.
My $.02 :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will I Get Sued For Posting This?
Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows.
Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic.
Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent.
And don't bother concealing your thievery. Celebrate it if you feel like it.
In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to."
- Jim Jarmusch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will I Get Sued For Posting This?
When I first heard Rihanna's song, I didn't know she had borrowed that part from Michael Jackson. Then one day I heard his song at a restaurant and I thought it was really cool that Rihanna was sampling older music in her new music. It's a great way to pay tribute to someone - especially if it attracts More attention to the original artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dibango vs Jackson vs Rihanna
i think Dibango should be grateful to both Jackson and Rihanna for re-popularising his original awesome afro-disco-funk track
everyone is constantly lifting stuff from each other; let the ideas flow, i say. in the words of rihanna, "please don't stop the music". look at how complex the chains can get:
http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/488/Michael%20Jackson-Wanna%20Be%20Startin%27%20Someth in%27_Manu%20Dibango-Soul%20Makossa/
for the record, MJ imparted something extra in rhythm, actual notes hit, words used... i think he was generous to give Dibango anything
and out of all three MJ did it best:
http://bit.ly/9IqbQZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really his?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the and The and the love
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]