Whiter Shade of WHOAH!

[dikledoux]

Is this as huge a thing as I think it is?
Whiter Shade of Pale organist wins suit (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061220/ennew_afp/afpentertainmentbritain_061220145912)

What about the drums on When the Levee Breaks or the drum intro to Walk this Way? This could have a massive impact on how songwriting credit is viewed in the future, no?

dik

[nobby]

In the case of "when the levee breaks" I think you'll find that Bonham shared song credits with the band (J.P. Jones also). Assuming you're talking about Led Zeppelin.

Generally speaking, from my rudimentary understanding I think if you submit a form PA that has a recording of a song on it, and the song gets published, and the sound recording sounds substantially different, that would be where you could run into a problem. That and a million bucks worth of litigation.

In Procol Harem's case, the organ solo is IMHO the biggest hook of the song, really causing it to stand out. As important in that song as the melody line. It's a sort of unusual case, I think.

I think it's kind of unfortunate that it seems to establish a precedent though. Basically, I generally think if you had something to do with authoring a work, make sure your name is on it or STFU. But when a song earns million$, well...

[eagan]

Well, just to interject a quick note there, the organ hook of that song IS a melody line.

The thing that gets me about this story is thinking "why the fuck wasn't this sorted out about 35 years ago?".


JLE

[E. Shaun]

What I find interesting in all of it is that it's based off of the melody of another, public domain piece by Bach. Basically, the lawsuit was over who was most entitled to gain from his borrowing, as opposed to who deserves credit for authorship.

Ah well. Bach no longer minds.

[dikledoux]

...get it on paper in the first place... yep... form PA... yep... etc.

I realize that co-authors can assign "ownership" in a number of ways at the time of writing and probably transfer that and all sorts of permutations. But what struck me is this might be a first chink in the armor of the traditional view that lyrics and main melody are the only things that count toward authorship. That's not the way everyone views it, as evidenced by nobby's mention of Bonham's credit on WTLB. But if Bonham HADN'T been credited and tried to go back later to get some of the pie, he'd have been sent packing with no real legal ground for a suit.

Or am I oversimplifying things? (always a possibility :lol: )

dik

[Deborah Neville]

I.

I Basically, I generally think if you had something to do with authoring a work, make sure your name is on it or STFU. But when a song earns million$, well...

You can file your own registration if they leave your name off, and then the fun starts. The operative word is "author" and the concept is "co-author" when more than a single creative act(or)/author contributed to the "work"- Copyright registration attribution creates a "presumption" of authorship - and omission from attribution (your name is not on the Copyright registration) puts you at a disadvantage in "proving" you contributed substantially to the work (which is what the story is about). Getting clear at the beginning of a project is critical, as the law looks at the "intention" to work together to create "a work" (and to be co-authors) or whether artists are working separately, and each work stands alone, independent of the other. Or whether you are "work for hire" and not claiming to be an author at all....
-Gilded Lily

[PRobb]

Well, just to interject a quick note there, the organ hook of that song IS a melody line.

JLE
Hard cases make bad law. This case is not a good precedent. Say the name of the song to anyone who remembers it and the first thing that pops into their head will be the organ line, not the sung melody.

[CloseToTheEdge]

It's always interesting when we change the "rules" after the fact.

[nobby]

What I find interesting in all of it is that it's based off of the melody of another, public domain piece by Bach. Basically, the lawsuit was over who was most entitled to gain from his borrowing, as opposed to who deserves credit for authorship.

Ah well. Bach no longer minds.

The song is pretty loosly based on Orchestral Suite No. 3.

Different chords and melody line for the most part, though the influence is obvious.

Anyway, the legal costs are about a million bucks, so the lesson here is credit where credit is due, in the first place.

Much cheaper to decide in the garage than in court :Razz:

[Azraphael]

An interesting decision, to be sure. I think that the co-authorship suit makes sense, but not 35 years down the line. Yeah, the organ solo is what largely makes the song... but he shoulda thought of that at the time.

I can't wait until greedy session musicians start getting ideas from this. Should be interesting.

On a related note, this is why my band has long since had the discussion and come to the agreement (on paper) that it's an equal 4 way split across the board. Regardless of who wrote the main riff, or the lyrics, this just seems easiest to us. Our writing style is such that everyone pretty much writes their own parts, so in the end the song wouldn't be the same without all four of us contributing to it.

Gratned, we haven't sold millions of records (yet:)), but I think it's best to get this stuff squared away very early on. Too many good bands have been broken up over money issues years into it... we'd prefer not to be one of them.

Interesting story, thanks for sharing.

Cheers,

Dave

[vocalnick]

An interesting decision, to be sure. I think that the co-authorship suit makes sense, but not 35 years down the line. Yeah, the organ solo is what largely makes the song... but he shoulda thought of that at the time.

And Probb's point is pertinent for sure... this case seems fairly cut & dried (to me, at least). When someone says "Whiter Shade of Pale" I think of that organ part, not of Gary Brooker singing something about a fandango.

Nevertheless, as a precedent setting case, it may well open up the floodgates for the greedy session musicians you're foreshadowing. You and I might be able to make a call as to whether an instrumental part is an integral melodic part, but do you trust a court to do it? Given the number of people out there who can't tell a third from a fifth, I certainly wouldn't want my royalty share being re-negotiated by a judge or a jury.

On a related note, this is why my band has long since had the discussion and come to the agreement (on paper) that it's an equal 4 way split across the board. Regardless of who wrote the main riff, or the lyrics, this just seems easiest to us. Our writing style is such that everyone pretty much writes their own parts, so in the end the song wouldn't be the same without all four of us contributing to it.

We've done the same. The bulk of the melodic ideas come from two of us, but the process of kicking them around transforms them significantly. It would be a very difficult process to quantify though...

[Dave Martin]

Nevertheless, as a precedent setting case, it may well open up the floodgates for the greedy session musicians you're foreshadowing.

Actually, it's NOT a precedent setting case, except in the UK; US law is quite different. Besides, I think that it was also a bad decision, even by the standards of UK law; if the publisher were a major international company (and I don't believe it is), it would certainly be appealed. And it may yet.

And on a different note, most of the other session musicians I've talked to about that case agree that it was a bad decision -
we're hired to create parts, NOT write songs.

[vocalnick]

Actually, it's NOT a precedent setting case, except in the UK; US law is quite different.

Well, yeah... this is a UK case, of course it only sets precedent in the UK. Nevertheless, there are quite a few people living there, last time I checked.

[Dave Martin]

Well, yeah... this is a UK case, of course it only sets precedent in the UK. Nevertheless, there are quite a few people living there, last time I checked.
True. But I would still expect that the first time someone tries the same sort of suit against a multi-national publishing company that the precedent would either be scaled back or tossed into the rubbish (where it belongs).

The original writers had finished the song a couple of years before it was recorded; by suggesting that one of the instrumental parts from the session (No matter how dominant) had ANYTHING to make the musican who played the part a composer as well simply because the judge recognized it, you'd have to accept that Aretha should be considered to be a co-writer on "Respect" because her version is better known than Otis Redding's original version. And Rolf Harris' wobbleboard player would deserve to be a co-writer on "Tie Me Kangaroo Down" (It's the wobbleboard that I remember, so why not?).

Because I've been doing it for a while, I'm deeply familiar with the guys who played on country records; personally, I think that the sound that defined Loretta Lynn's records was the late Hal Rugg's steel guitar, just like John Hughey defined the sound of Conway Twitty's records and Buddy Charlton and Leon Rhodes created Ernest Tubb's sound. But do I think that they deserve a writers credit? Hell No! Neither does Luther Perkins for the intro to "Folsom Prison Blues", Grady Martin for his into to "Mama Tried", (which brings up an even more interesting question - Grady was essentially copping Roy Nichol's style when he played on that "Mama Tried" - should Roy have a piece, too?)

As I said in my original post - in my opinion, the UK decision was bad law, and and the precedent should be set aside.

[nomad]

Well, yeah... this is a UK case, of course it only sets precedent in the UK.


Gotta disagree. I would say that the actual precedent here is "Bitter Sweet Symphony", by the Verve. After the lawsuit, songwriting credit and royalties were attributed (globally) entirely to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards because it ripped off the string line pretty much in its entirety from the Stones tune "The Last Time". That string part IS the song. I myself have heard the tune hundreds of times and couldn't recite a single lyric from memory. But I can sing that string line to you without a thought. And THAT was the consensus and foundation of the argument and settlement.

[Dave Martin]

Gotta disagree. I would say that the actual precedent here is "Bitter Sweet Symphony", by the Verve. After the lawsuit, songwriting credit and royalties were attributed (globally) entirely to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards because it ripped off the string line pretty much in its entirety from the Stones tune "The Last Time".

Got a link with the details? A quick Google search makes it sound like the judge assessed punitive damages on the band for their using a loop without permission - or possibly it was based on the precedent that was set with George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord"; both very different issues than the Whiter Shade Of Pale decision....

I'm not familiar with the Verve song, so I dunno exactly what the music sounds like...

[nomad]

Got a link with the details? A quick Google search makes it sound like the judge assessed punitive damages on the band for their using a loop without permission - or possibly it was based on the precedent that was set with George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord"; both very different issues than the Whiter Shade Of Pale decision....

I'm not familiar with the Verve song, so I dunno exactly what the music sounds like...



Believe me. You know the song. You just don't know the song.



And yep, I got a link. Easy.



First entry on Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitter_Sweet_Symphony



QUOTE:

"Although the song's lyrics were written by Verve vocalist, Richard Ashcroft, it has been credited to Keith Richards and Mick Jagger because the song uses the Andrew Oldham Orchestra recording of The Rolling Stones' 1965 song "The Last Time" as its foundation.

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a license to use a sample from the Oldham recording; but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used 'too much' of the sample.[1] Though only some of "Bitter Sweet Symphony"'s music and not a single line or phrase of the lyrics were contained in the original, it led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company, which owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 60s. The matter was eventually settled out of court, with copyright of the song reverting to ABKCO and songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards.

There have been conflicting reports as to whether or not the song actually samples the Andrew Oldham recording.

After losing the composer credits to the song, Richard Ashcroft commented, "This is the best song [Mick] Jagger and [Kieth] Richards have written in 20 years."[2]

[vocalnick]

Interesting... I'd forgotten about the Bittersweet Symphony case - although as was just said, I would have thought that a sample-clearance situation would have been viewed differently to a bandmember coming up with a part.

Then again, I'm speaking purely in speculative terms here, I'm neither a lawyer, nor a judge. In any event, my "UK law" comment was primarily in response to Dave's snarking about the UK legal system, and what I saw as a very much "If it's not happening in the USA, then it's not happening" tone. *shrug*

[E. Shaun]

Ultimately, it just goes to show that if there's even a remote chance that your song is infringing upon another artist's in any way --melody or otherwise-- you get legal clearance.

A good example of this being done "right" was with Madonna's big hit in 2005, "Hung Up", which was based on ABBA's "Gimme Gimme Gimme (A Man After Midnight)." According to Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_Up_%28Madonna_song%29)

According to Madonna she approached Andersson and Ulvaeus by sending her "emissary to Stockholm with a letter and the record begging them and imploring them telling them how much I worship their music; telling them it was a homage to them, which is all true". Although they didn't say yes straight away, Andersson and Ulvaeus eventually gave permission for Madonna to sample their song primarily because they liked the song. "'Hung Up' is really good. If it wasn't any good we would not have said yes. It is a wonderful track - 100 per cent solid pop music."[3] They also asked for joint songwriting credits with Madonna and Price, and agreed to split the copyright and royalties, a move which the press soon picked up on, noting that Andersson and Ulvaeus would end up making more money from "Hung Up" than their original song.

[Dave Martin]

In any event, my "UK law" comment was primarily in response to Dave's snarking about the UK legal system, and what I saw as a very much "If it's not happening in the USA, then it's not happening" tone. *shrug*

I wasn't snarknig at all (in fact, I'm not completely sure I've ever snarked - at least not in public...), just pointing out that a single court case - in any country - does not necessarily mean that the foundations of copyright law have been destroyed. As I said, I think it was a terible (and reversable) decision on the part of the judge in the case so in the long run, it might not even have a major impact on UK law. Only time will tell.

[vocalnick]

I wasn't snarknig at all (in fact, I'm not completely sure I've ever snarked - at least not in public...)

My bad then... apologies for the misunderstanding :)

just pointing out that a single court case - in any country - does not necessarily mean that the foundations of copyright law have been destroyed

Sure, I see where you're coming from. From an Australian standpoint (I'm not sure about elsewhere although I understand it's similar) I think a lot of people don't realise how much latitude there is for Judges to make decisions. It's not just a hard & fast set of rules to be interpreted hard-line on the facts - otherwise we might as well have a computer doing it. Songwriting gets really sticky, because it can be such a difficult process to quantify in the first place. Even in here, amongst a cross section of people writing, performing & recording professionally, we can't quite agree on it.

[Jamstudio]

The song is pretty loosly based on Orchestral Suite No. 3.

Different chords and melody line for the most part, though the influence is obvious.

Anyway, the legal costs are about a million bucks, so the lesson here is credit where credit is due, in the first place.

Much cheaper to decide in the garage than in court :Razz:

I always thought it was a stolen from the peace "Air (on a g string)" from bach

Remco

[Dave Martin]

Sure, I see where you're coming from. From an Australian standpoint (I'm not sure about elsewhere although I understand it's similar) I think a lot of people don't realise how much latitude there is for Judges to make decisions.

It's true here in the US as well - and that's why we have appeals courts.

[Deborah Neville]

It's true here in the US as well - and that's why we have appeals courts.
If you'd like to amuse yourself with the activities of appellate courts, see http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/
Tiny observations: a "pure" copyright case is Federal Court (in the US); Federal Judges have enormous discretionary power; re the so called "deal memo" versus "full written contract" sentiments, we went to the mat (defending ourselves) on a single missing word in a 3 paragraph deal memo
[Saban made a musical animation of "Little Shop of Horrors"; Roger Corman had given "animation" rights; Alan Menken sued Corman because HE owned the musical rights; he should have sued Saban but there were some cozy output deals that made it awkward to sue Saban, so they sued Roger! the memo never said aye or nay to what type of animation -who knew?] a real mess which, usually under pressure from the Judge who has a docket full of folks chained together in orange jumpsuits for felony cases, settles].
Did you see the fellow (phD molecular biologist) in North Carolina - Bohannon - who has a way of putting caffeine IN your doughnut? Calling his stuff "Buzz " and looking for licensees/investors. Which is more fun- patents or copyright - decisions, decisions.
----GildedLily