Big Time Music Producer Sues Artists For Defamation For Suggesting He Copies Their Songs
from the ah,-legal-fights dept
THREsq has a story about the quick, legal trigger finger of one Lukasz "Dr. Luke" Gottwald, who apparently has produced a bunch of pop hits from the likes of Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Ke$ha, Avril Lavigne and Kelly Clarkson. It seems that lots of people online have noticed that some of the songs sound similar to other songs, and as people do these days, they've created mashups showing the similarities. Dr. Luke has decided that the best strategy to take when certain artists have spoken out publicly about their beliefs that certain songs were copied is to sue them for defamation.Now, I actually agree with Dr. Luke that many of these accusations are crazy:
"These days, anyone can put two songs up and make a mash-up by changing the key of this one and say, 'Oh, these songs are similar.' A lot of things are similar. But you don’t get sued for being similar. It needs to be the same thing. Almost doesn’t count. Close but no cigar. People are suing for close. There are standard chord progressions that everyone uses. There are plenty of songs that are really similar and they never sued each other. We are a very litigious society today. You can fall on the sidewalk and sue the city."He's right. And, of course, there are lots of highly viral YouTube videos about similar general chord progressions in a ton of songs, such as the one about Pachelbel's Canon:
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: accusations, copying, defamation, dr. luke
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's no such thing as bad publicity.
The suit made Techdirt, didn't it?
I sometimes forget the power of the internet and how it can be used to bring issues in the light.
Usually via the Streisand Effect, but in today's world, it's better than nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's an awesome video..`
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be a better example of pop songs using the same 4 chords. Axis of Awesome's "4 chords".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation as a type of IP law
So, this guy here is using an IP right to attack someone for saying he violated their IP rights. Odd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
""By falsely claiming to Sony Music Label Group that ‘Tik Tok’ infringes ‘My Slushy’, these Defendants caused RCA/Jive… to demand indemnification based on a breach of warranty and representation solely as a result of these Defendants’ baseless claims of infringement. By these Defendants’ wrongful actions, Plaintiffs’ publishing income interest in ‘Tik Tok’ has been damaged.”"
Because I am sure that Sony wants to make sure that their profits are protected and that this lawsuit be paid out of his own pocket. So he files a defamation claim, so he can argue how he was hurt by the statement and avoid trying to get a Judge to figure out if there was infringement.
Maybe he was right...
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hoisted by your own petard.
If you put out decades of propaganda equating ideas and property, and the idea that ideas are something that can be owned, people will *gasp* start believing it.
And then you get stupid crap like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading that I get the feeling that this is about money directly not just reputation, it had consequences to him as it should have and he now goes after anyone who insinuates that he copied anything, and apparently he does it without asking for money just retractions.
So I'm not sure what to make it about it all just yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While music has a limited number of tools, it also has an incredible number of variables. Any single instrument has it's notes, plus tempo, attack, release, etc. For guitar, you can ass "picked or strummed", as an example, plus the inflection and pace of those actions as well.
Then you add a second instrument, and you have X possiblities times X possiblities.
Then you add a voice, and things get really wild, because vocal patterns, inflection, and a ton of other things come into play.
Four cords, 2 instruments, and a singer has lead to (and will continue to lead to) plenty of new songs.
The sample video only shows that, if you delete all of the inflection parts, delete all of the differences, you can find similarities. It's not like there are a million different notes to work with, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik i/Sampling_(music)
Mostly things started to get out of control in the 90's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While you COULD fire up some Klingon Opera, it is highly unlikely to be popular...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yet the trolls come in here and say it isn't music unless it is original. We stand on the backs of giants. There is nothing new under the sun...only modifications of existing content (or, what copyright maximalists call "derivatives".) I agree with the statement that a lot of this work is different from where it came from, but where do we draw the line. If we add two notes to a sample, it is derivative and not a good example, but if we add a couple different vocal patterns, inflection, etc., it is brand new and worth copyright protection. It is all so darn subjective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As an example, you have "style". You know, blues, rock, jazz, whatever. Most musical styles have hooks, have phrasing, have beats, whatever that defines they as a style. Often when you write a new song "in a style", you limit your choices as to what to play, what chord progressions to use, etc.
However, I do think there is a big difference in "playing something in a blues style" and "sampling something in a blues style". Because even if the results are very similar, only one contains the new players inflections, tonality, and the like.
Sampling is the easy way out too often, it's more about a sound and less about pure originality. It's why in the end the line is drawn pretty simple: If you use the performance of someone else, you need permission / license. If you use the song (words and music) written by someone, you need permission / license.
You have to remember too that there are many artists is in the music business who are only performers, they don't write their own music, they merely perform the songs written by others. In the R&B world, example, there are "producers" who only make beats, or who only make melodies. There are others who only write lyrics. Often a song is made up of beats from one, melody of another, and lyrics from a third, performed by session musicians or by the producers themselves, and combined to make a new song, sung by the "performer". It is the collaborative nature of modern music that can create it's own hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My art does not have this issue.No one needs to sound alike or close as this post talks of.
And this post is talking of manufactured pop garbage music.RIAA KRAP !!! All that pop krap sounds the same.That is what those bozos push is bland mainstream corporate music.
What do you expect from Artists and Producers who sign with the RIAA.
My art is original and I guarnatee you it sounds like no one else.
go to www.bigmeathammer.com and click on the Audio/video Link.All music is free and at 256 - 320k MP3 for your convenience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(yep, that was sarcastic, sorry!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think maybe some recognition of the inherent samenesses is needed. I mean, you say that your music is punk tock, right? Well, if it "sounds like no one else," then how can you claim a genre at all? I guess you could do it on ethos, but then you get folks saying stuff like "Johnny Cash was a punk rocker," which, while funny and arguable in a really wonky way, just isn't quite true.
Going to your site now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think I agree with the presumption that the Streisand Effect really applies in a defamation case that has solid grounds.
Seems to me it's calling attention to both the allegations and his defense. Maybe I wouldn't have heard of either without the suit, but I'm not sure if that's worse for him than hearing both sides of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do indeed get sued for being similar...and that's (part of) the problem.
I guess this attorney isn't very knowledgeable about the reality of today's overly restrictive copyright regime. George Harrison had to find out the hard way when we was successfully sued for copyright infringement over claims that "My Sweet Lord" was "similar" to "He's So Fine" (popularized by the Chiffons).
This is a case that is taught in many copyright classes in law school.
Details here:
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/1970-1979/Pages/brightharrisongs.aspx
http://www.benedict. com/Audio/harrison/harrison.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You do indeed get sued for being similar...and that's (part of) the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Melody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not fair
additional hints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]