Katy Perry vs Flame Lawsuit

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 31 Jul 2019

Not good folks.

Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

User avatar
modecca
Posts: 728
Joined: 07 Jul 2016

Post 31 Jul 2019

reasonsuser88 wrote:
31 Jul 2019
Not good folks.

On the positive side these crazy copyright lawsuits will mainly affect mega pop stars (at least for now).
Also forcing pop stars to be more original is not a bad thing.
There are so many people who make a living at music who some maybe even intentionally steal from lesser known's, who will continue to go under the radar (at least for now).
On the flip side with computer algorithms it will be easy to find related songs for the litigious (a potential full time job haha). The laugh's stop when you finally release a major hit and celebrate like a boss then get a very disturbing letter in the mail.
¡ɹǝɥʇoɥɔɐǝ ɟo doʇ uo pǝʞɔɐʇs llɐ 'sǝɹuǝƃ ʇuǝɹǝɟɟᴉp 9 uᴉ 'sƃuos ʇuǝɹǝɟɟᴉp 9 oʇ ƃuᴉuǝʇsᴉl ɟo soɐɥɔ ƃuᴉɯlɐɔ ǝɥʇ ǝʞᴉl ƃuᴉɥʇou sᴉ ǝɹǝɥ┴

User avatar
diminished
Posts: 945
Joined: 15 Dec 2018

Post 31 Jul 2019

Another positive aspect about pop stars involved: they and their record companies now might get wet feet since their own money is at stake - and in the end may lobby for a copyright law reformation.

User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 31 Jul 2019

modecca wrote:
31 Jul 2019
Also forcing pop stars to be more original is not a bad thing.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 King James Version (KJV)

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

User avatar
NekujaK
Posts: 573
Joined: 09 Oct 2016
Location: USA

Post 31 Jul 2019

Imagine if there were a way to instantly compare any new composition against EVERY piece of music that came before it - throughout all of history, copyrighted or not. I'm fairly certain there would be very few (listenable) pieces, if any, that could survive such a test without being flagged at least once for outright copying/plagirism.

Some form of derivative copying is simply a normal part of the process. Not only are there a limited amount of notes and harmonic structures to work with, but it's impossible to listen to music all your life and not have all those sounds, melodies, and harmonics bounce around inside your head and eventually find their way, in one form or another, into what you create. It's going to happen... A LOT.

The real issue here is one of intention. Did the composers deliberately and knowingly lift a piece of music and call it their own? If so, that bears closer scrutiny. But I believe, perhaps naively, the vast majority of composers/songwriters simply write what they're inspired to write, without any conscious intent of outright copying.

Back in the 1970s, George Harrison was famously (and successfully) sued for his biggest hit "My Sweet Lord" because he allegedly ripped off The Chiffons'"He's So Fine". Yes, technically, the 3-note melodic hook is identical in both songs, but I really don't think George intentionally ripped off anything. I mean come on... this is the guy who wrote "Something", "Here Comes The Sun", and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", among others, and suddenly he decides he needs to copy a very well known pop song? I don't think so. I think he got blindsided by his subconscious, and like the rest of us, didn't have the benefit of instant encyclopedic recall of every song he ever heard to check against his new composition.

That said, outright plagiarism does happen in the music industry, especially when the stakes are high. I personally know two professional songwriters who pitched songs to different superstar artists in the 1980s and 1990s (one comes from New Jersey, the other died recently), had the songs rejected, only to hear unmistakable copies on the artists' next CDs, with the artists taking credit for writing them. In each case, the songwriters didn't pursue lawsuits because it cost too much money to do so, and they feared being blackballed out of the music industry. Going back 20+ years, this was not an uncommon occurrence. So sometimes plagiarism happens intentionally, but usually, it's in situations where the song being copied isn't well known, because there's less chance of recognition and litigation. But copying a popular hit song? I would think most artists/songwriters are smart enough to avoid intentionally doing that.

Nothing we create is absolutely 100% original.
wreaking havoc with :reason: since 2.5

User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 31 Jul 2019

I remember when Indaba was running remix contests for pop artists and the general consensus was the better projects were often overlooked in favor of less appealing projects. This wasn't just a few people being haters. The running joke was all the best ideas weren't winning competitions because they were being stolen. I didn't have any say in the matter as I knew my submissions were crap but I'll always remember that observation.

As for being original, maybe experimental noise artists hold the keys to this door, but that is just not how music appreciation works in theory. Music is a result of our tribal history as a species.
Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 31 Jul 2019

"At this year’s Grammys, no less than four of the eight songs nominated for Song of the Year were already in copyright lawsuits, and two of the remaining four were reportedly under threat of litigation."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhoc ... ht-verdict
Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

User avatar
dioxide
Posts: 1105
Joined: 15 Jul 2015

Post 31 Jul 2019

Sounded pretty similar to me. I think they made the right decision by awarding damages. I was surprised to see Dr Luke involved, although I guess none of us know who did the copying.

reggie1979
Posts: 661
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 31 Jul 2019

I'm surprised that there are not more lawsuits. 99% of music these days is a blatant plagiarism of everything else.

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2266
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 01 Aug 2019

dioxide wrote:
31 Jul 2019
Sounded pretty similar to me. I think they made the right decision by awarding damages. I was surprised to see Dr Luke involved, although I guess none of us know who did the copying.
Right, I think most people are listening to the lyrics and vocal melodies being different. The synth melody are undeniable and also not common. Hard to fight that.

User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 01 Aug 2019

The idea of somebody jacking a melodic riff (notation) makes this kind of silly for me. It might be worth mentioning the portamento on Joyful Noise is really annoying to me like it's trying to be cool and edgy electro but it's not. On a side note, these kinds of riffs are more popular now than they were during the time these songs were produced but that isn't relevant to the case. There's probably somebody on Beatstars with at least a variation of it. Is there a case if you nudge the timing of one note?
Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

DougalDarkly
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Jul 2019

Post 01 Aug 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
31 Jul 2019
I'm surprised that there are not more lawsuits. 99% of music these days is a blatant plagiarism of everything else.
99% of music since the late 19th century has been made with the same 12 notes, played at different times and in a different order.

What surprises me is when someone genuinely thinks they've created something new.

User avatar
Reasonable man
Posts: 369
Joined: 14 Jul 2016

Post 01 Aug 2019

DougalDarkly wrote:
01 Aug 2019
reggie1979 wrote:
31 Jul 2019
I'm surprised that there are not more lawsuits. 99% of music these days is a blatant plagiarism of everything else.
99% of music since the late 19th century has been made with the same 12 notes, played at different times and in a different order.
That reminds me of this classic sketch

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... s5Gz8ohsCM

reggie1979
Posts: 661
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 01 Aug 2019

DougalDarkly wrote:
01 Aug 2019
reggie1979 wrote:
31 Jul 2019
I'm surprised that there are not more lawsuits. 99% of music these days is a blatant plagiarism of everything else.
99% of music since the late 19th century has been made with the same 12 notes, played at different times and in a different order.

What surprises me is when someone genuinely thinks they've created something new.
I don't agree. Current "popular" music is an almost EXACT carbon-copy of itself. It's irrelevant if I like it or not, it is relevant that I can recognize it.

reggie1979
Posts: 661
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 01 Aug 2019

Reasonable man wrote:
01 Aug 2019
DougalDarkly wrote:
01 Aug 2019


99% of music since the late 19th century has been made with the same 12 notes, played at different times and in a different order.
That reminds me of this classic sketch

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... s5Gz8ohsCM
??????????

I mean, I realize I'm not the foremost expert on British humor, but that has NOTHING to do with what I'm saying. Rap (as an example) in the 2000's + is quite LITERALLY the same drums, the same tempo and the same " beat" with boring lyrics that my nephew could make with Yahtzee. Yet it's the most popular thing in the history of "music" .......... ??????? I mean the "Gangsta" stuff from olden days is FAR more interesting and clever. Now, it's pre-homogenized, suburban cookie-cutter nonsense with mannerisms to make anyone deft to nuance.

reggie1979
Posts: 661
Joined: 11 Apr 2019

Post 01 Aug 2019

And Katy Perry should shut it. She made her living being a patsy. Why is she suing over this?

DougalDarkly
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Jul 2019

Post 02 Aug 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
01 Aug 2019
Current "popular" music is an almost EXACT carbon-copy of itself.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that it's NOT a new thing, people have been 'copying' each other for a long time:

https://www.businessinsider.com/mozart- ... ?r=US&IR=T

And this old chestnut sums up why 'originality' is a vain aim of an ill-informed or inexperienced artist in the first place:



TL;DR - You're right!

User avatar
Reasonable man
Posts: 369
Joined: 14 Jul 2016

Post 02 Aug 2019

reggie1979 wrote:
01 Aug 2019
Reasonable man wrote:
01 Aug 2019


That reminds me of this classic sketch

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... s5Gz8ohsCM
??????????

I mean, I realize I'm not the foremost expert on British humor, but that has NOTHING to do with what I'm saying. Rap (as an example) in the 2000's + is quite LITERALLY the same drums, the same tempo and the same " beat" with boring lyrics that my nephew could make with Yahtzee. Yet it's the most popular thing in the history of "music" .......... ??????? I mean the "Gangsta" stuff from olden days is FAR more interesting and clever. Now, it's pre-homogenized, suburban cookie-cutter nonsense with mannerisms to make anyone deft to nuance.
A yea i agree. In fact i've given up criticizing modern popular music and how its put together myself .In reality the only way to have an opinion that matters is to produce the type of original music that... ideally ....exposes the banality of modern popular music... easier said than done.

I just quaoted your line about the 'same' notes at differnt times played in a 'different' order whereas the punchline of the sketch is that he's playing the same (right) notes but in a different order.
Its a joke thats all........ I dont really care about Katy perry and i dont even know who the dude is thats suing her .i dont even want to listen to that track if i'm honest!

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7830
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Aug 2019

I don't agree this is a new thing - it's just that it's NOW a documented thing.

This is how all music has been made for all time.
The only difference in the last few generations is that it's being recorded as audio, leaving a "record" that's easy (especially today with the internet) to compare.
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
reasonsuser88
Posts: 245
Joined: 29 Apr 2019

Post 02 Aug 2019

Funny thing is people are saying Joyful Noise sounds like a hip hop song titled This Is Why I'm Hot which was released a year prior to Joyful Noise. I'm more inclined to believe that a Christian rapper copied the delivery of a mainstream hit from another rapper but we probably won't hear anything more. Katy Perry supposedly tarnished a holy vibe with Illuminati symbolism but that portamento on the Joyful Noise synth makes me think these people aren't all that holy. Anyway, looks like Katy Perry's camp is forking out $2.78 million. May the Lord set fire to the riches obtained by greedy vultures.
Lookin' like a corpse at two in the morning.:skull:

User avatar
JiggeryPokery
Posts: 1015
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 02 Aug 2019

selig wrote:
02 Aug 2019
I don't agree this is a new thing - it's just that it's NOW a documented thing.

This is how all music has been made for all time.
The only difference in the last few generations is that it's being recorded as audio, leaving a "record" that's easy (especially today with the internet) to compare.
:)







The latter two came out within a month of each other I think and, a little before my time ;) , apparently it was quite a big deal and much conversation was had about who nicked from who, although both Bowie and The Sweet, quite truthfully I expect, considered it coincidence.

DougalDarkly
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Jul 2019

Post 02 Aug 2019

JiggeryPokery wrote:
02 Aug 2019
The latter two came out within a month of each other I think and, a little before my time ;) , apparently it was quite a big deal and much conversation was had about who nicked from who, although both Bowie and The Sweet, quite truthfully I expect, considered it coincidence.
These 3 tracks are a great example! I don't think anyone was copying anyone else's record, they were all using the same blues riff - so they didn't copy each other exactly, rather they ALL copied from an earlier (way less financially succesful, and lets face it, less white) source.

User avatar
Loque
Posts: 5650
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 02 Aug 2019

DougalDarkly wrote:
02 Aug 2019
JiggeryPokery wrote:
02 Aug 2019
The latter two came out within a month of each other I think and, a little before my time ;) , apparently it was quite a big deal and much conversation was had about who nicked from who, although both Bowie and The Sweet, quite truthfully I expect, considered it coincidence.
These 3 tracks are a great example! I don't think anyone was copying anyone else's record, they were all using the same blues riff - so they didn't copy each other exactly, rather they ALL copied from an earlier (way less financially succesful, and lets face it, less white) source.
Hey! Someone copied the pattern "ding, ding, ding -pause-"! That is a copyright violation!
:reason: 10, Win10 64Bit.

DougalDarkly
Posts: 13
Joined: 31 Jul 2019

Post 02 Aug 2019

Loque wrote:
02 Aug 2019
Hey! Someone copied the pattern "ding, ding, ding -pause-"! That is a copyright violation!
I guess that's exactly the point being discussed - at what point does something (a string of notes in a rhythm) stop being a ubiquitous, natural expression that we can all use, and become a 'copyright-able' property which we cannot use for fear of financial ruin?

People have indeed copyrighted 'ding, ding, ding - pause', and 'ding - pause, dingalingading-dong'!

Again, although this may seem to be an issue with 'modern' music, this shit's been going on since at least 1777:
http://eprints.chi.ac.uk/2350/1/Little, ... nology.pdf

I honestly don't think there's anything new to learn here, for now it's just lawyers arguing until the death of civilisation...

[edit] ...and artists arguing amongst themselves! ;)

User avatar
MrFigg
Posts: 2441
Joined: 20 Apr 2018

Post 02 Aug 2019

Fuck it. I’m writing a song with ding ding ding pause in it. Bring it on muthahs!!!

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests