Music Legal: Can you SUE for someone jacking your style? (Action, Doog, Thicke)

[playahaitian]

We all know what happened to Pharrell and Robin Thicke when they were sued successfully by the Marvin Gaye estate.

But I want to know could the same apply to hip hop?

Could Ghostface actually sue Action Bronson?

Could Nas actually sue Your Old Droog?

Can a flow, cadence, subject content, pronunciation etc be something that can be debated in court?

Because i believe you COULD do this in literature?

Thoughts?

 

[playahaitian]

<iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src=""></iframe>​

 

[BDR]

Intellectual property?

 

[playahaitian]

Intellectual property?

but can you do that with music and film?

 

[chilibrick]

if that was possible, rakim would be suing left and right!

 

[DWBass]

Apparently, yes. The Blurred Lines case was bullshit. Surprised there haven't been more cases popping up now as there have been some way more apparent jacks out there.

 

[jasonblacc]

if that was possible, rakim would be suing left and right!

Really? Who?

 

[WattDogs]

I think that Your Old Droog actually predates Nas....

And I don't think you can sue for similarities unless they are in performance, i.e. dance, singing, etc. But for personal things like inflection of voice, naaaah....

 

[TheyCallMeBe]

I think that Your Old Droog actually predates Nas....

 

[woodchuck]

Apparently, yes. The Blurred Lines case was bullshit. Surprised there haven't been more cases popping up now as there have been some way more apparent jacks out there.

I agree. Even worse, Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars gave Charlie Simmons writing credit on "Uptown Funk", because he said that the bassline "reminded" him of "Oops, Upside Your Head", even though him and the GAP Band jacked Parliament/Funkadelic's whole thing for that song, and others in the 80s. I wonder if Charlie wrote George Clinton a check. Also, if you could sue for swagger jacking, the Bar Kays would be homeless!

 

[Dannyblueyes]

The whole idea behind copyrights is that the creators have the exclusive right to content of their work. That means songwriters own the lyrics and melody while performers own all recordings of the performance. That copyright does not include chord progressions, drum patterns, musical styles, performance styles, or subject matters.

IMO it shouldn't include style either. There are too many great works of art that have been made from fusing other styles and bringing them to the next level. For instance, Michael Jackson's classic "Billie Jean" performance which was based on a Gene Kelly routine and a Soul Train dance. Also art is often too subjective to prove that one person copied another's style. If, for instance, Chuck Berry were to sue the Beatles for ripping off his style, all the Beatles would have to do is find a public domain recording of an artist with a style somewhat similar to Berry's and claim they copied him instead. It's a lot harder to do that with words and music.

The Blurred Lines case was a travesty. The only reason Thicke and Williams probably lost was because of their arrogance. Ed Sheeran ripped off Marvin Gaye's style far worse with his cover of Let's Get it On (AKA "Thinking Out Loud), but the Gaye family didn't sue him. Probably because they knew they weren't going to clean up twice.

 

[mangobob79]

The whole idea behind copyrights is that the creators have the exclusive right to content of their work. That means songwriters own the lyrics and melody while performers own all recordings of the performance. That copyright does not include chord progressions, drum patterns, musical styles, performance styles, or subject matters.

IMO it shouldn't include style either. There are too many great works of art that have been made from fusing other styles and bringing them to the next level. For instance, Michael Jackson's classic "Billie Jean" performance which was based on a Gene Kelly routine and a Soul Train dance. Also art is often too subjective to prove that one person copied another's style. If, for instance, Chuck Berry were to sue the Beatles for ripping off his style, all the Beatles would have to do is find a public domain recording of an artist with a style somewhat similar to Berry's and claim they copied him instead. It's a lot harder to do that with words and music.

The Blurred Lines case was a travesty. The only reason Thicke and Williams probably lost was because of their arrogance. Ed Sheeran ripped off Marvin Gaye's style far worse with his cover of Let's Get it On (AKA "Thinking Out Loud), but the Gaye family didn't sue him. Probably because they knew they weren't going to clean up twice.

With the Ed Sheeran thing, it was only a similar chord progression and not the style per say, his delivery was nothing like" Get It on" the song owes alot more to Van Morrison "crazy love" becos the tail end of the chorus is straight jacked from the main "hook line " in " crazy love " ,sonically Gaye & Sheeran weren't alike, but " blurred lines" was a str8 groove Jack and the cowbell attack was too much even though I still believe it was bs but the groove and chords movement was hard to ignore

 

[The Untouchable GDFOLKS]

Who said your old droog came out before Nasty Nas

 

[Dannyblueyes]

With the Ed Sheeran thing, it was only a similar chord progression and not the style per say, his delivery was nothing like" Get It on" the song owes alot more to Van Morrison "crazy love" becos the tail end of the chorus is straight jacked from the main "hook line " in " crazy love " ,sonically Gaye & Sheeran weren't alike, but " blurred lines" was a str8 groove Jack and the cowbell attack was too much even though I still believe it was bs but the groove and chords movement was hard to ignore

Interesting. I had never heard the Van Morrision song before, but yes, its much closer to "Thinking Out Loud" than Marvin Gaye's is. That being said, if you're going to go strictly based on style then the Curtis Mayfield estate could sue them both for copying "People Get Ready". They could probably get John Mayer for "Waiting on the World to Change" as well.

I agree. Even worse, Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars gave Charlie Simmons writing credit on "Uptown Funk", but he said that the bassline "reminded" him of "Oops, Upside Your Head", even though him and the GAP Band jacked Parliament/Funkadelic's whole thing for that song, and others in the 80s. I wonder if Charlie wrote George Clinton a check. Also, if you could sue for swagger jacking, the Bar Kays would be homeless!

I think that he saw what happened in the Robin Thicke case and decided to cover his ass. I highly doubt the Gap Band would have sued him or won if they had tried. It's similar to when the Rolling Stones gave K.D. Lang credit for their song "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" when they realized their chorus was similar to her song "Constant Cravings."

 

[mangobob79]

Interesting. I had never heard the Van Morrision song before, but yes, its much closer to "Thinking Out Loud" than Marvin Gaye's is. That being said, if you're going to go strictly based on style then the Curtis Mayfield estate could sue them both for copying "People Get Ready". They could probably get John Mayer for "Waiting on the World to Change" as well.



I think that he saw what happened in the Robin Thicke case and decided to cover his ass. I highly doubt the Gap Band would have sued him or won if they had tried. It's similar to when the Rolling Stones gave K.D. Lang credit for their song "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" when they realized their chorus was similar to her song "Constant Cravings."

Yeah "waitin on the world to change " was pure Mayfield, from the chord progression to the groove ! I wondered how he could be so blatant but I guess he was doing it as a "tribute " type thing becos even his delivery and subject matter was Mayfield. That was interesting

 

[woodchuck]

I think that he saw what happened in the Robin Thicke case and decided to cover his ass. I highly doubt the Gap Band would have sued him or won if they had tried. It's similar to when the Rolling Stones gave K.D. Lang credit for their song "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" when they realized their chorus was similar to her song "Constant Cravings."

That's exactly what happened. Btw, you want a good laugh? Start from the 1:05 mark. Talking to my pops about this about 15 years ago, and he said that the guitarist that wrote the Bowie riff used to be in JB's band.

 

[bigjayler]

[/QUOTE]

Wow Someone owes JB' s estate some loot

 

[WattDogs]

Who said your old droog came out before Nasty Nas

I was wrong...thought I read it somewhere, went looking back & found they were actually referencing Nas. My bad.

 

[respiration]

We all know what happened to Pharrell and Robin Thicke when they were sued successfully by the Marvin Gaye estate.

But I want to know could the same apply to hip hop?

Could Ghostface actually sue Action Bronson?

Could Nas actually sue Your Old Droog?

Can a flow, cadence, subject content, pronunciation etc be something that can be debated in court?

Because i believe you COULD do this in literature?

Thoughts?

Great topic, bro

I would say that the Robin Thicke case changed the way people can be sued.

I'd say it's long overdue.

The model was that if a song's melody had seven consecutive notes (one right after the other) in common with another song, there were grounds to sue.

So then, you have hacks like Pharrell who will basically take the exact groove of Got to Give it Up...all the instrumental parts, and just alter one or two notes to avoid having seven consecutive notes of Marvin's song - and then call that bullshit "songwriting".

I don't think they are gonna be able to prosecute swagger jacking rappers. But I too get sick of these white imitators getting shine from mimicking Black legends. I'm sick of them and the white supremacist recording industry that props them up while relegating the O.G. legends to the background. It's a clear agenda in place.

 

[mangobob79]

Great topic, bro

I would say that the Robin Thicke case changed the way people can be sued.

I'd say it's long overdue.

The model was that if a song's melody had seven consecutive notes (one right after the other) in common with another song, there were grounds to sue.

So then, you have hacks like Pharrell who will basically take the exact groove of Got to Give it Up...all the instrumental parts, and just alter one or two notes to avoid having seven consecutive notes of Marvin's song - and then call that bullshit "songwriting".

I don't think they are gonna be able to prosecute swagger jacking rappers. But I too get sick of these white imitators getting shine from mimicking Black legends. I'm sick of them and the white supremacist recording industry that props them up while relegating the O.G. legends to the background. It's a clear agenda in place.

Hell yeah been going on for a quick second. .smdh

 

[respiration]

Hell yeah been going on for a quick second. .smdh

Yes indeed it has, sir.

 

[VAiz4hustlaz]

Great topic, bro

I would say that the Robin Thicke case changed the way people can be sued.

I'd say it's long overdue.

The model was that if a song's melody had seven consecutive notes (one right after the other) in common with another song, there were grounds to sue.

So then, you have hacks like Pharrell who will basically take the exact groove of Got to Give it Up...all the instrumental parts, and just alter one or two notes to avoid having seven consecutive notes of Marvin's song - and then call that bullshit "songwriting".

I don't think they are gonna be able to prosecute swagger jacking rappers. But I too get sick of these white imitators getting shine from mimicking Black legends. I'm sick of them and the white supremacist recording industry that props them up while relegating the O.G. legends to the background. It's a clear agenda in place.

 

[freshnclean]

I think that Your Old Droog actually predates Nas....

Either you are young or a cac

 

[34real]

I think in the near future it will come a time where artist will be in court sueing their asses off against other artist and anyone doing mixtapes where they've taken other's work and did what they wanted to do with it.
When it starts I think it will be industry driven because right now the industry as awhole has a large hole in it that's getting wider by the day and what's falling into that hole is money,music,artist and the rights to all of it is going down with it.
Then the second wave of this will be artist of the past coming after what they feel their owed from other's 'jacksing their style',sampling,redoing their music.

When this happens,it will really be the death of the industry.

 

[Helico-pterFunk]

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/29/bruno-mars-lawsuit-uptown-funk-copyright/

 

[TheyCallMeBe]

Was listening to pop radio and this faggot Bruno Mars stole another artist's sound. He's the modern Elvis.

 

[Helico-pterFunk]

 

[playahaitian]

Great topic, bro

I would say that the Robin Thicke case changed the way people can be sued.

I'd say it's long overdue.

The model was that if a song's melody had seven consecutive notes (one right after the other) in common with another song, there were grounds to sue.

So then, you have hacks like Pharrell who will basically take the exact groove of Got to Give it Up...all the instrumental parts, and just alter one or two notes to avoid having seven consecutive notes of Marvin's song - and then call that bullshit "songwriting".

I don't think they are gonna be able to prosecute swagger jacking rappers. But I too get sick of these white imitators getting shine from mimicking Black legends. I'm sick of them and the white supremacist recording industry that props them up while relegating the O.G. legends to the background. It's a clear agenda in place.

I agree but I wouldn't call Pharrel a hack.

 

[HotNixon36]

 

[peterlongshort]

Interesting. I had never heard the Van Morrision song before, but yes, its much closer to "Thinking Out Loud" than Marvin Gaye's is. That being said, if you're going to go strictly based on style then the Curtis Mayfield estate could sue them both for copying "People Get Ready". They could probably get John Mayer for "Waiting on the World to Change" as well.



I think that he saw what happened in the Robin Thicke case and decided to cover his ass. I highly doubt the Gap Band would have sued him or won if they had tried. It's similar to when the Rolling Stones gave K.D. Lang credit for their song "Has Anybody Seen My Baby" when they realized their chorus was similar to her song "Constant Cravings."

After the Thicke case Ronson was in interviews copping pleas like a muthafucka. I think at some point he said he had never heard of Morris Day and the Time.

I was like come on son!!!!

 

[Piff504]

Action Bronson and ghost voices sound similar. But they dont rap the same. Im a fan of them both. too bad Bronson's album was lackluster

 

[Complex]

Nas didn't invent a style. They just have similar voices. It's totally different than Bronson who actually rhymes like Ghost, who's style is unique.

 

[N*E*R*D]

Action Bronson and ghost voices sound similar. But they dont rap the same. Im a fan of them both. too bad Bronson's album was lackluster

I also agree.

Sound mad similar but the average listener can tell them apart

And Bronsons LP was a let down. A couple of joints but thats about it

 

[jasonblacc]

Action Bronson and ghost voices sound similar. But they dont rap the same. Im a fan of them both. too bad Bronson's album was lackluster

Nah he stole ghost flow and cadence . Ghost style is ahis own but Bronson does his mimic.

 

[Dannyblueyes]

I think in the near future it will come a time where artist will be in court sueing their asses off against other artist and anyone doing mixtapes where they've taken other's work and did what they wanted to do with it.
When it starts I think it will be industry driven because right now the industry as awhole has a large hole in it that's getting wider by the day and what's falling into that hole is money,music,artist and the rights to all of it is going down with it.
Then the second wave of this will be artist of the past coming after what they feel their owed from other's 'jacksing their style',sampling,redoing their music.

When this happens,it will really be the death of the industry.

If that happens you still have the "public domain" defense. Musicologists will dig up all the recordings they can find between the 1900's-1930's. In court they claim that both the plaintiff and the defendant jacked their style from one of these recordings. If the judge believes it the case gets dismissed.

It would be as if I wrote a play and called it "Romeo and Juliet". You see this play and do your own identical version called "Richard and Jenny" I sue you for copyright infringement. At the trial the judge decides both of us ripped off William Shakespeare. He can't collect the money because he's been dead nearly 500 years. Finding his rightful heirs would be a nightmare so at the end of the day nobody owes anyone anything.

I'm surprised that this defense isn't more common already.