Anybody following the "Stairway to Heaven" trial?

Plagiarism is a tough call because it depends upon similarity and intent. If there are only so many ways to do something and two allegedly independent parties come up with the same solution, does that mean they were not independent or that there were so few ways to do something that similarity was almost guaranteed? Simplistically, if two songs use a major scale did one plagiarize the other?

In music you have to expect similarity in terms of chord progressions and rhythm when you are composing in a particular genre. At some point intent enters the picture and that is a hard thing to determine in court.

I will cynically note that the chord progression predates the 1970's - so the case needs to be resolved on some other factor, and if Randy California thought he had been ripped off why is it his estate that is bringing the lawsuit a decades after the fact?

And anyone who doesn't think intellectual property issues with music are confusing and ugly should look at the Zappa Estate and related feuds.

fronobulax said:

I will cynically note that the chord progression predates the 1970's - so the case needs to be resolved on some other factor, and if Randy California thought he had been ripped off why is it his estate that is bringing the lawsuit a decades after the fact?

Click to expand...

Assuming the Wikipedia pages are accurate (for Spirit the band and Randy California), there are several indicators California had a love-hate affair with the industry and maybe suffered from clinical depression.
He changed labels twice and retired to Hawaii in '72, and was pulled back into activity by bandmate Ed Cassidy in '74, and signed with yet another label.
I postulate there may have been other rights issues associated with which label owned what percentage of potential royalties, ie, how much of his own material California actually owned.
I see some comments implying California and the band were a one hit wonder, as if the contested material was the only thing worth redeeming and "lifting" as the Brits called it.
Let's not forget California was in a band with Jimi Hendrix in Greenwich Village at age 15; wrote "I Got a Line On You" at 16 and that brings into question the possibilities that his juvenile artist contracts may have been legally shaky as well, an extremely common phenomenon in the '60's.
Granted, his stepfather Ed Cassidy was the band's drummer and the bald guy ("Mr. Skin") most folks associate with the band's image, and already had a goodly amount of professional musician experience.
Further, "Taurus" was not the only material known to have been "used" by Zeppelin:
"In December (1968), they appeared at the Denver Auditorium with support band Led Zeppelin,[2] who soon after incorporated parts of Spirit's song "Fresh Garbage" in an extended medley during their early 1969 concerts. Spirit also appeared with Led Zeppelin at two outdoor music festivals in July 1969. Jimmy Page's use of a theremin has been attributed to his seeing Randy California use one that he had mounted to his amplifier;"- (Spirit (band) Wiki page)
Note that in '68 Spirit was the headliner, Zep's first album hadn't even been released yet.
"Fresh Garbage" is probably my favorite Spirit song and was used in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle , introducing a whole new generation to a tune and band that sounds as "fresh" today as anything else hitting the alternative playlists.
Take a listen to "Mechanical World" and "Nature's Way" as well.
Anyway I suspect California was depressed, amotivated, unsure of the strength of his case, or whether or not any potential recovery would even wind up in his pocket, and possibly unable to find a lawyer who thought it was strong enough to run with (and let's not forget the undoubted depth of Zep's pockets in fending off such suits as well).
He died in '97 at age 46 rescuing his son from a rip current in Hawaii.
The case was finally brought as an injunction against the re-issue of Led Zeppelin IV in 2014:
"In 2014, Mark Andes, and a trust acting on behalf of Randy California, filed a copyright infringement suit against Led Zeppelin in an attempt to obtain a writing credit for "Stairway to Heaven".[6][7] Page denies copying 'Taurus' ".[8] -(Spirit band page again)
So an injunction might have been the easiest way to get a case heard, and maybe needed to wait until the re-issue date? Something to do with copyright renewals, perhaps?

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that any of these songwriting lawsuits have any redeeming value. It's opening up a Pandora's box of future lawsuits for any two songs that "might" be similar. And this one in particular, where the "notes in question" are such a small part of the whole song, where so much time has passed, etc. IMHO it just seems like a money grab.

As has been said nicely by others, all music is derivative!

Slight veer - "Nature's Way" is a great song, and very nice to play on acoustic guitar! Sweet sounding chord changes...

walrus

I mean, really, the plaintiff's lawyer played the Mary Poppins classic "Chim Chim Cher-ee" from the Disney film to discuss its use by Page as a potential inspiration for "Stairway".

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/n...ed-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-trial-20160616

Enough already...

walrus

walrus said:

I mean, really, the plaintiff's lawyer played the Mary Poppins classic "Chim Chim Cher-ee" from the Disney film to discuss its use by Page as a potential inspiration for "Stairway".
walrus

Click to expand...

See? I been toutin' "Chim Chim Cheree" around here for years!
:biggrin-new:
And it's a WAY BETTER tune than "Stairway"!
Jazzify it, baby, like Coltrane did for "My Favorite Things", then you'll see what I'm talkin' 'bout!!
:biggrin-new:

Al, I'd feel better about the song if it didn't promote drug use so aggressively:

"Though I spends me time
In the ashes and smoke
In this 'ole wide world
There's no happier bloke."

walrus

walrus said:

Al, I'd feel better about the song if it didn't promote drug use so aggressively:

"Though I spends me time
In the ashes and smoke
In this 'ole wide world
There's no happier bloke."

walrus

Click to expand...

I NEVER KNEW THAT!!!! :eek-new:
That's just supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Gotta admit though, truly a masterpiece of subliminal influence.
In fact I think now I can finally pinpoint just exactly where and when I went astray: in a movie theater sometime in September 1964.

But just for giggles now segue it into "Help" and then "Michelle" and then "We Can Work it Out".
Have a couple more hits and I'm sure more will come to mind, so to speak.... :highly_amused:

walrus said:

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that any of these songwriting lawsuits have any redeeming value.

Click to expand...

I have mixed feelings. To the extent that musicians produce intellectual property and should be fairly compensated when their property is used then lawsuits like this are a way to make sure that happens. But it is difficult to prove motivation and similarity alone is not very strong evidence.

fronobulax said:

I have mixed feelings. To the extent that musicians produce intellectual property and should be fairly compensated when their property is used then lawsuits like this are a way to make sure that happens. But it is difficult to prove motivation and similarity alone is not very strong evidence.

Click to expand...

I agree about artists being entitled to the fruits of their labor, but I'm not sure "intent" is even considered although being a civil issue that may vary from case to case.
I'm thinking of the aforementioned suit against George Harrison for "My Sweet Lord" where most agree he had no need to plagiarize (when you're already that successful and have a proven proven writing capability of your own, where's the motive and intent?) and even avowed complete lack of memory of the plagiarized tune.
"If I Recall Correctly" a mitigating defense offered was that while he may not have consciously remembered it, it might have been a subconscious recollection.
Still, the jury found against him.
I kinda think that was the one that got this whole ball rolling.
Personally I believe the "unconscious memory" defense in that case, as the Beatles were known Motown fans and routinely listened to everything they could. It's a way to see where the market's going and get new ideas or even a song to "cover".
Having listened to Best of Spirit on the way to work this morning, I do believe Page was actually influenced by some of California's style, and production techniques used on their first album, take for instance "Mechanical World" (Spirit's first single and would have been getting airplay at the time Zeppelin toured with 'em in Denver)".
I think Page took some of that "feel" into the studio and I don'rt see anything wrong with that.
But, "Taurus": It's not there.
The scales and chords are NOT the same, only "similar", and that's only exaggerated because it's the combination of 1/2 and 1/4 notes and time signature that make one think of "Stairway".
Interestingly, in "1984" I heard a clear forerunner of the bass line in "White Wedding" and in "Animal Zoo" the same bass hook that appears in Tommy James and the Shondells' "Crimson and Clover" 's middle 8.
(the Shondells were first)
Another aspect I wonder about is the use of obviously "ripped off" songs in TV shows where they change a couple of notes in the hook or something, like that's supposed to make it "original"?.
I see it a lot on Saturday morning car shows, the guys're obviously ripping off "Purple Haze" or "Foxy Lady" or "La Grange" or "Smoke on the Water"...you know what I'm talking about, I'm sure everybody here has heard examples at one time or another.
Can't recall ever hearing about anybody ever going after those guys, but maybe there's just not enough money to go after, or maybe they actually got releases?

I read an article about copying popular music to use in commercials. The gist was that ad agencies cut a spot to a popular song for pacing and then fall in love with that song. They then ask a composer to copy the song. From what I read it only has to be in a different key to not be considered plagiarism. The folks who record backing tracks for TV hate this practice but they have to produce what the customer will pay for.

I remember a few years ago the Stones were being sued for plagiarism but the plaintiff was unable to show that they would have heard his song and lost his suit.

crank said:

I read an article about copying popular music to use in commercials. The gist was that ad agencies cut a spot to a popular song for pacing and then fall in love with that song. They then ask a composer to copy the song.

Click to expand...

Interesting. It reminded me of the "Commercial jingle" market. "Back in the Day", some guys made a living writing nothing but jingles.
Some of those were pretty cool, like "No Matter What" for Alka Seltzer.
Of course it also gave us Barry Manilow ("I Am Stuck on Band Aid", "Like A Good Neighbor"), so maybe I shouldn't go there...

crank said:

I remember a few years ago the Stones were being sued for plagiarism but the plaintiff was unable to show that they would have heard his song and lost his suit.

Click to expand...

And we haven't even touched on the whole "sampling" thing yet.
I do recall seeing assertions that permission had been obtained in specific instances and is frequently sought in that "market".

IMHO, "sampling" is an embarrassment to those "artists" who do it. Absolutely nothing original about it.

Andy Summers of The Police would agree:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/police-puff-daddy-rip-off/

walrus

walrus said:

IMHO, "sampling" is an embarrassment to those "artists" who do it. Absolutely nothing original about it.

Andy Summers of The Police would agree:

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/police-puff-daddy-rip-off/

walrus

Click to expand...

i have to disagree here, it can be done right, with much new creativity behind it, and sound amazing. of course, proper credits should always be aknowledged, and paid monetarily. but with that said, there is plenty of garbage out there too that I completely agree would fall into the "embarrassment" category. sampling is just another version of "covering" a song, its just a different degree of variation and creativity. that is my opinion at least.

my issue with the Stairway thing though, is that almost 50 years have past. the songs sound similar but again, just my opinion, there has to be a statute of limitations in the time that has passed, no? Perhaps Led Zeppelin would have decided back in the 70s (or 80s, or 90s...) to remove STH from airplay, subsequent pressings of their records/cds etc...had a judge ruled against them back then, and found them guilty of the copyright infringement back then? maybe the band says "well if the judge says its not our song and we have to share profits we will pull the plug on this as best we can, and literally make less money on it...we can write our own new song to be our most famous ballad, which will be better than evevn STH...". but the way it is now, they are making a claim on 50 years of Zeppelins fame and fourtune, all the interest on all the money they never got, modern day legal fees, and honestly, a long list of other little things that certainly add up to a whole lot more than it would have back then. im sorry but this is just a joke. im sure those guys are really talented, but they are not Led Zeppelin, and you can't just swoop down in 2016 and expect to raid the 2016 stash and be taken seriously. at least not by me. lucky for them though, I am not the judge so it doesnt matter. All the power to them if they can get some money from Jimmy Page, Im certain he has more than enough and could share the wealth just fine and the world may be a better place for it...but this is just ridiculous.

so many angles, just a fictional example: maybe Jimmy Page "would have never bought that Beverly Hills mansion for $20 million in 2005" if Stairway were not entitely mine at the time, or prior to that..."now that mansion is only worth $12 million, and I am forced to sell at a loss because of this claim...where were you for 40 years before that??? u must have heard the song on the radio all the time...you didnt realize it was yours until now??"

times that scenario by about 10,000 and that is how many ways this lawsuit is just wrong

Bob Dylan did not get his Fender Stratocaster back, from 1965 Newport Folk Fest- after it surfaced just a few years ago. he abandoned his interest in the guitar back in 1965 and by default, forfeited ownership of the guitar at that time. its the same exact thing here, if Led Zeppelin did indeed use the same exact song, then you allowed it to happen. same as adverse possession of private property. no difference. they didnt take anything, it was given to them. they had too much opportunity to claim it wihin a reasonable time frame. the song was on the radio every hour of the day forever. still is.

My up thread reference to intent was a little sloppy, but intent would be a a possible factor in assessing damages. Intent is sometimes a factor in determining whether a crime is murder or manslaughter and it is the only thing, IMO, that converts a crime into a "hate crime" but it is probably not as relevant here as I was thinking.

Permission to use a song written by someone else and permission to use a recording by someone else are actually two different copyright issues. Often an ad agency can get permission to commission a performance by a studio band and use that in an ad for much less than they would pay to use the original recording. That said, there are cases where the ad agency's budget was such that using the original recording was deemed to be much better than using a facsimile.

In broad terms a copyright in the US can last for 90+ years. I seem to recall some reforms that prevented a perpetual renewal as might occur when an estate is managing intellectual property. If copyright infringement is being claimed there is a five year period to file suit (ignoring the distinction between civil and criminal litigation). This may explain the timing. As noted up thread, Zeppelin re-released some material and thus claimed copyright. This opened a window for California's estate that was closed by a failure to act earlier.

mavuser said:

i have to disagree here, it can be done right, with much new creativity behind it, and sound amazing. of course, proper credits should always be aknowledged, and paid monetarily. but with that said, there is plenty of garbage out there too that I completely agree would fall into the "embarrassment" category. sampling is just another version of "covering" a song, its just a different degree of variation and creativity. that is my opinion at least.

Click to expand...

I'm in total agreement here. Sampling can be done extremely well and creatively, creating new and unique music. And just like anything, it can be done in a talentless and lackluster way.

Tom, this may be the first time we have disagreed - I'm embarrassed! :blushed:

(But not enough to change my mind!)

walrus

fronobulax said:

As noted up thread, Zeppelin re-released some material and thus claimed copyright. This opened a window for California's estate that was closed by a failure to act earlier.

Click to expand...

yes i realized this prior to my rant, it doesn't change anything for me though. The re-release may have never come to be, if the claim had been made decades ago.

walrus, is this an opportunity to celebrate our differences? HAAAA HAAAA!! :encouragement: