"Dark Horse" copyright infringement ruling

[an-electric-heart]

to be honest i thought this was going to be about comic books

That was my first thought too, I'm a big fan of the Aliens universe stuff they did in the '90s.

[SAW75]

It's pretty similar actually.

[Passing Bye]

Why? Because of the Kesha story? I remember him from whe he was a guitar player on SNL. He's a good player and knows how to play and read and write music. That's a helluva lot more going for him than a lot of other peeps making music in pop world.

Majority of them are playing an instrument and writing, gather 5 of them in the room and they might come up with something actually usable or find a way to rip off something to be passable as their own or if they fail they will give credit to people they tried to rip off, that's why there's sometimes so many writers credited in one song.

[aMUSEd]

Couldn't hear any resemblance but that might be because I kept skipping through them as they are both unlistenable.

[jacqueslacouth]

For the life of me I can't understand why Christian songwriter types aren't all suing the fark out of each other...I have never heard anything that remotely resembles original work in their lyrics...

"lift me higher"
"Almighty father"
"Forgive my sins"
"Living in your light"

Blah, blah, freakin' blah!!! Talk about repetitive, inane crap!

[BertKoor]

What if we can convince a dude that published a simular ostinato before 2008 to sue that rapper for his millions?

[Ou_Tis]

What if we can convince a dude that published a simular ostinato before 2008 to sue that rapper for his millions?

The Christian rapper's musicologist tried to argue the combination of high synth timbre + ostinato melody was what did it (even though the timbres are obviously substantively different). As Adam Neely points out this was already done in the 1980's by Art of Noise in Moments of Love, a song which was extensively sampled in hip-hop music and which Flame's producer probably would have heard (stronger evidence for that than there was for Martin and Dr. Luke having heard "Joyful Noise"). So at least the rapper's claim to own the copyright will probably be ruled invalid, and whoever owns the rights to the Art of Noise song should sue him for copyright infringement. He won't get the millions, and instead he'll lose a chunk of whatever he made from that song (it won a "Dove" award and had been pretty popular for a Christian rap song).

But I'm still hoping the validity of claiming copyright infringement for something so simple and traditional will be overturned in the appeal.

[SAW75]

I’m all for artist freedom and not suing the crap out of each other but I honestly don’t get people’s problem with this judgement in particular.... if they proved she heard this or was aware of this song than it’s straight up plagiarism. The intent of that riff is exactly the same. You don’t have to be a musicologist to get that. Has nothing to do with how simple the line is. How would you feel if you were this rapper? I don’t know WHY she would want to take it... but it seems she dug something about it... if she was aware of the guy’s tune.

[McLilith]

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason he sued Katy Perry was basically vindictive religious discrimination / paranoia on his part. He seemed pretty freaked out about the references to magic in Katy's song, and seemed horribly threatened by that. I got news for the guy. Not everyone is Christian, nor do they need to be. Also, no sane person would get bent out of shape merely by an artistic reference to "magic" in a piece of musical art. I bet, if a Christian musical act recorded a song with a vague and trivial similarity to one of his songs, he'd probably let that slide.

Also, his "expert musicologist" asserted that the timbre of the synth used on Katy Perry's recording was copying the timbre of the synth used on the rapper's recording. However, if you actually listen to them, the timbres of the two are distinctly different. So, that claim is blatantly false.

Furthermore, since when is "instrument timbre" a big concern in a lawsuit concerning copyright infringement of someone's recorded song? What if that riff had been played on piano or acoustic guitar? Would he be suing everyone who had recorded music with a piano or acoustic guitar, just because they copied "his" timbre on their recordings?

This whole thing really needs to be overturned on appeal.

[McLilith]

What if we can convince a dude that published a simular ostinato before 2008 to sue that rapper for his millions?

The Christian rapper's musicologist tried to argue the combination of high synth timbre + ostinato melody was what did it (even though the timbres are obviously substantively different). As Adam Neely points out this was already done in the 1980's by Art of Noise in Moments of Love, a song which was extensively sampled in hip-hop music and which Flame's producer probably would have heard (stronger evidence for that than there was for Martin and Dr. Luke having heard "Joyful Noise"). So at least the rapper's claim to own the copyright will probably be ruled invalid, and whoever owns the rights to the Art of Noise song should sue him for copyright infringement. He won't get the millions, and instead he'll lose a chunk of whatever he made from that song (it won a "Dove" award and had been pretty popular for a Christian rap song).

But I'm still hoping the validity of claiming copyright infringement for something so simple and traditional will be overturned in the appeal.

I can't think of a particular example, but I swear, I really think other people have also used similar sounding riffs in their songs, in addition to this Art Of Noise song. There are probably other examples out there that predate the rapper's song, in addition to this example. That should further weaken his over-reaching claim to ownership.

[SAW75]

The Art Pf Noise example is different and completely irrelevant

[VitaminD]

"In 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, Paul reprimands church members who have filed lawsuits against each other. Their pettiness, suggests the apostle, lacks eternal foresight and discredits the testimony of the church. [...] Jesus advised his followers about how to carry themselves if they are the object of a suit: 'If someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well' (Matt. 5:40, NIV)."

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/20 ... 27.66.html

Yes, that is Christian vs Christian with regard to lawsuits. Katy Perry has loudly stated isn't a Christian, so that's not in dispute.

Yet the point of the verses you referred to was meant to make followers of Christ tread carefully and not get legalistic over every tiny detail within the church. Take the matter to your 'brother' (or 'sister') personally at first.. but shes not a 'sister.' So the verse is kind of moot in this situation.

In a matter like this where one artist apparently stole from another artist and then profited greatly from it, that's entirely different. The Christian can sue. In Acts 22, Paul uses his citizenship to avoid getting whipped... essentially using the state law to defend himself.

That said, should they? In situations where you could push someone away from the faith, it is dicey and not really straight forward. I am not sure if I'd have sued had it been my song. I do pray Katy has her 'Prodigal daughter' moment one day, and maybe something such as this is harmful to that...

Just listening to both songs, I can see this case both ways. The synth riff is very similar, especially in context. The rap has a same phrase in both songs. Yet the songs or even the riffs aren't entirely the same. This is a more murky Ice Ice Baby vs Under Pressure case. How different is different to be considered not the same? Apparently a jury unanimously agreed they were too close given the evidence of the case.

[VitaminD]

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason he sued Katy Perry was basically vindictive religious discrimination / paranoia on his part. He seemed pretty freaked out about the references to magic in Katy's song, and seemed horribly threatened by that.

Is that vindictive paranoia on your part? There are a lot of assumptions in your text.

[McLilith]

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason he sued Katy Perry was basically vindictive religious discrimination / paranoia on his part. He seemed pretty freaked out about the references to magic in Katy's song, and seemed horribly threatened by that.

Is that vindictive paranoia on your part? There are a lot of assumptions in your text.

It's not vindictive, because I'm not taking any negative action against the rapper. I'm certainly not trying to punish him or seek any sort of revenge.

It's not paranoia, because there is no fear or anxiety motivating my text. Also, I'm not fully convinced my speculations accurately reflect the truth. They are, after all, just speculations. However, if they were one day proven to be accurate, I wouldn't be surprised.

Those aren't assumptions. Those are speculations. Nowhere in the text you quoted did I make any definitive statements. That's because I'm not making any assumptions. I realize I could easily be wrong about the rapper's motivations. I'm just pondering aloud a possibility.

[McLilith]

The Art Pf Noise example is different and completely irrelevant

The riffs used by the rapper and Katy Perry are also different. They differ in the notes and intervals they use. They differ in key. They differ in timbre. They differ in their use or non-use of portamento. They differ distinctly in tempo. They differ in prominence within their respective musical works. The riff used by the rapper is used much more extensively throughout his recording. The riff used in the Katy Perry recording is used much more sparingly in comparison.