leftybassman392 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) Radiohead are apparently suing Lana Del Ray over the copyright to 'Creep'. The claim is that her song 'Get Free' is a ripoff: Compare for yourself I know chord sequences are not supposed to be subject to copyright, but the one song does sound an awful lot like the other to my ears. What do you think guys? Edited January 8, 2018 by leftybassman392 typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannybuoy Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I listened to them this morning and have to agree. But then again supposedly Radiohead were sued for ripping off 'All I Need Is The Air That I Breathe' by The Hollies, so they haven't really got a leg to stand on! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) Who gives a damn? The original isn't much of a tune in the first place. Edited January 8, 2018 by Spoombung Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 ...and as dannybuoy says, theirs was a rip-off of the Hollies in the first place. It'd be more interesting if the material was notable in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyerseve Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, Spoombung said: Who gives a damn? The original isn't much of a tune in the first place. many, many people would disagree with you strongly on this. it also has absolutely zero bearing on the merit of the case 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftybassman392 Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share Posted January 8, 2018 I'm now waiting for lawyers for the Hollies pop up and sue everybody in sight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftybassman392 Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share Posted January 8, 2018 Just now, dyerseve said: many, many people would disagree with you strongly on this. it also has absolutely zero bearing on the merit of the case This. The quality of the material is irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoombung Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, dyerseve said: many, many people would disagree with you strongly on this. it also has absolutely zero bearing on the merit of the case True, it might be irrelevant as you describe but Pop Music is full of very similar (in this case very DULL) chord sequences and near-identical tunes. The more unremarkable and unimaginative the material combined with the sheer amount of material introduced to the market every year, the more you're likely to get stuff that sounds like other stuff and musicians squabbling over copyright. Edited January 8, 2018 by Spoombung 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I like Creep, there was some right terrible music around at around the same time Spoombung 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbasspecial Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 This is a massive shame for both parties. Neither one will come out of it well. She will look like a plagiarist and them as money grabbing hypocrites. They should have done what Sam Smith and Tom Petty did and agreed a fair split in secret. I believe she offered them 40% but they wanted 100%. The lawyers are just being lawyers, trying to justify their super expensive hourly rate but ruining the bands reputation in the process unfortunately. Classic case of 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. Shame because I met Radiohead back in 97 when we rehearsing at the same studio (Terminal). They seemed like really good guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I just clicked the link, that Lana Del Rey song is just awful. Her name translates as 'the king's wool', just as a fun side note. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Melody and words are the only copyrightable parts of songs. Recently publishers in the US have discovered that judges are crap at telling one part of a song from another and have been winning spurious copyright infringement court cases, sometimes to the tune of millions of pounds. Sadly publishers now see these "smash and grab" raids on songwriters as a valid income stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, pbasspecial said: They should have done what Sam Smith and Tom Petty did and agreed a fair split in secret. That's the way these things start, but if there is no agreement behind closed doors, then they hit the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftybassman392 Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share Posted January 8, 2018 Worth mentioning that Del Ray claims to have offered Radiohead 40% - the same figure that Radiohead themselves agreed to give Hammond & Hazelwood (the actual writers of 'Air That I Breathe'), as well as acknowledging their influence on the songwriting credit for 'Creep' - but that Radiohead's lawyers refused the offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretmeister Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 14 minutes ago, pbasspecial said: This is a massive shame for both parties. Neither one will come out of it well. She will look like a plagiarist and them as money grabbing hypocrites. They should have done what Sam Smith and Tom Petty did and agreed a fair split in secret. I believe she offered them 40% but they wanted 100%. The lawyers are just being lawyers, trying to justify their super expensive hourly rate but ruining the bands reputation in the process unfortunately. Classic case of 'they know the price of everything but the value of nothing'. Shame because I met Radiohead back in 97 when we rehearsing at the same studio (Terminal). They seemed like really good guys. The problem with "they should have done" comments is that Radiohead want 100% and apparently won't accept less. And she won't offer more than 40%. So that's a massive gap. If Radiohead refuse to accept less than 100% then their lawyer's opinions are completely irrelevant. They do as they are told by their client and nothing more. They may well have advised Radiohead to accept the 40%, or make a counter offer somewhere in between. But if their boss / client being Radiohead decide to ignore that advice... Why would you think the lawyers would do this without specific instructions from their client? And that's before we get to the issue that the decisions being made might actually be being made by the record label. Most record contracts allow the label to decide on all legal issues on behalf of the band even if the band disagree. Either way - that's still the client decision. Radioheads LAWYERS do not accept or reject any offer. They only communicate the decision made by the client. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgsjx Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, chris_b said: Melody and words are the only copyrightable parts of songs. Makes you wonder how the Blurred lines/ Marvin Gaye got anywhere. Yes they have a similar sound & feel, but so did just about every RnR song from the 60s & every Motown song from the 70s. Sound & feel. That is all. I've been lisening to Bear's Den & the album sounds like loads of 80s stuff. I think they're gonna be f**ked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftybassman392 Posted January 8, 2018 Author Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, fretmeister said: Radioheads LAWYERS do not accept or reject any offer. They only communicate the decision made by the client. Not to be overly picky, but the lawyers accept or reject offers on behalf of their client, surely? A minor technical detail to be sure, but all the same... Edited January 8, 2018 by leftybassman392 Clarification Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 If Radiohead are accepting advice from a lawyer that advice can also be, "Leave it with us. We'll take it from here." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Is it actually Radiohead, or Radiohead's publishers? There's an important difference. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cato Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 Is it Radiohead suing, or is it whatever record company has the rights to their first album? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Starr Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 1 hour ago, leftybassman392 said: Radiohead are apparently suing Lana Del Ray over the copyright to 'Creep'. The claim is that her song 'Get Free' is a ripoff: Compare for yourself I know chord sequences are not supposed to be subject to copyright, but the one song does sound an awful lot like the other to my ears. What do you think guys? I wonder if George Harrison ought to get his money back for My Sweet Lord. That court case seems to have been dependant upon a couple of short runs up and down the tonic scale. surely no more copyrightable than a chord sequence. Of course it wouldn't be George but his dependants and the Beatles agent was busily ripping them off and trying to buy the original copyright. So much copyright law has nothing to do with protecting artists rights and only to do with trading in ancient song rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpondonBassed Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 2 hours ago, leftybassman392 said: Radiohead are apparently suing Lana Del Ray over the copyright to 'Creep'. The claim is that her song 'Get Free' is a ripoff: Compare for yourself I know chord sequences are not supposed to be subject to copyright, but the one song does sound an awful lot like the other to my ears. What do you think guys? They are suing after they rejected LDR's offer of 40 percent of the proceeds. The back to back comparison on 6music this morning certainly demonstrated that the two songs sound like two parts of the same piece almost to the point of being the same. The whole vibe of Creep was there and when Creep was faded in, there was little doubt as to the similarities. I reckon someone's pulling a fast one. That or everyone around this artist lives in a Radiohead-free bubble. I don't think it is a deliberate rip-off but I don't think the offer of a 40 percent share of the LDR royalties is adequate either. If the offer is less than fifty percent towards Creep's publishers, it makes it look like she's taking the wee wee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpondonBassed Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 27 minutes ago, BigRedX said: Is it actually Radiohead, or Radiohead's publishers? There's an important difference. That's an important point. Thanks for bringing it up. I assumed the publishers but I really don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 53 minutes ago, Cato said: Is it Radiohead suing, or is it whatever record company has the rights to their first album? Generally the record company only owns the mechanical rights - i.e. they own the copyright on the recording but not the actual songs that go to make up the recording. However in the days when bands still signed recording contracts the publishing company which owned the copyright on the songs would usually be a subsidiary of the record company that signed the band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambient Posted January 8, 2018 Share Posted January 8, 2018 I guess that Radiohead’s outlook is that by accepting 40%, then they’re setting a precedent if this should ever occur again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.