Think Tom Petty's gonna sue?

[Kane Knight]

I keep hearing bits and pieces of a comparison between a RHCP song and a Tom Petty song, and the notion Petty might sue. Apparently, Dani California sounds like Mary Jane's last dance.

Now what I've heard of the songs sounds similar, but similar isn't lawsuit worthy (Or WCW, Nirvana, and Nickelback would all be out of business). Anyone actually listen to these two songs? I could give a fuck less about Petty, and I don't listen to RHCP...

[The Mask]

i just checked it out. it does sound pretty similar, the verse at least. both the guitar and vocal melody sounds dead alike.

[RoXer]

Big deal. The opening to Born of a Broken Man by RAGE sounds exactly like Army Ants by STP.

[The Mask]

that's only shocking because rage have ripped off a song by someone other than zeppelin

[Kane Knight]

that's only shocking because rage have ripped off a song by someone other than zeppelin

I thought only the sequel, Audioslave did that. Didn't Rage usually rip off bad blues rock riffs, rather than Zepplin?

[The Mask]

well, wake up is kashmir 2 and renegades of funk is no quarter pretty much.

[The Mask]

srsly though, i don't think it's even possible anymore to come up with a few albums of material without copying something someone has done before. at least in a basic band setting. over 50-60 years you're bound to come across plenty of stuff people have done before, cause there's only so much you can do.

[Kane Knight]

srsly though, i don't think it's even possible anymore to come up with a few albums of material without copying something someone has done before. at least in a basic band setting. over 50-60 years you're bound to come across plenty of stuff people have done before, cause there's only so much you can do.

Well, one of the major things is how much it copies. most of the claims that something is ripped off really don't count as copyright infringement or whatever. Since you can't copyright an arrangement, a progression, etc., they can only come up in copyright cases as supplements to other issues (realistically, that is. I could sue your pants off for using a C-E-G progression, but I'd likely never even make it to court). Leads, solos, vocals, are all things that are easier todeal with an easier to prove.

The real exception is riffs, because riffs are often generic, anyway, It's hard to call them intellectual property, as you're ripping off black men from 70 years ago. The easiest example is White Stripes fans whining that Jet ripped off "Screwdriver" for "Be My Girl," And Iggy Pop fans whining the stripes ripped it off from him. That is such a rudimentary blues lick it's not funny, and there's no way the Stripes, Pop, or Jet came up with it themselves. Is it stolen? No, not really. I mean another song had that sound, but it's like copyrighting a scale.

...Dibs on D minor, G major, and C dorian.

[Kane Knight]

Oh yeah, the point. Forgot that. Anyway, I mean, there's sounding like, and ripping off. And what I've heard of the songs, they do kind of sound alike, but I don't know about ripped off. It seems a stretch already, and I haven't evenm really compared songs, just the intros.

Note Rolling Stone reported this rumour 3 weeks ago (I was just reminded of it by the radio this morning), so I don't think there's much of an issue. I also loved it, because the DJ asked Petty not to sue, and then played one of his song intros back to back with another guy's song intro.

So yeah. I mean, it's impossible these days to come up with something that doesn't sound similar to something else (There was a Brittney Spears or Christina Aguillera song I used in theory and compared to a Mozart piece, structurally...I wonder if I still have that paper...), the question is ripping off. Some people say the lyrics are similar, or the vocals, or the whole song is similar, and maybe that's an issue.

[ct2k]

Dani California is shit anyway so really whats the big deal?

Oh yeah, it'll sell like hot cakes because the Chillis are so damn GOOD.

And i mean good in the Coldplay kinda way yknow?

[Just John]

I heard that Petty sueing, is just rumours. I wouldnt sue if I was him, I mean, I'd take it as a compliment.

[Kane Knight]

I heard that Petty sueing, is just rumours. I wouldnt sue if I was him, I mean, I'd take it as a compliment.

Note I already called it a rumour?

[JJ Moore]

'Superfreak' and 'Cant touch This' :shifty:

[Kris P Lettus]

http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html

WHAT IS THE LAW REGARDING SAMPLING?
Sampling is the use of portions of prior recordings which are incorporated into a new composition. Sampling has become an integral part of many genres of music today. When you sample someone's song without permission, it is an instant copyright violation. It is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material owned by another. Sampling without permission violates two copyrights-the sound recording copyright (usually owned by the record company) and the copyright in the song itself (usually owned by the songwriter or the publishing company).

If you want to use a sample legally, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The copyright owner is usually a publishing company or record label. Remember that you must obtain permission from both the owner of the sound recording and the copyright owner of the underlying musical work. The fee for a license to use a sample can vary tremendously. The fee will depend on how much of the sample you intend to use (a quarter second is a minor use; five seconds, a major use), the music you intend to sample (a Madonna chorus will cost more than an obscure drum beat), and the intended use of the sample in your song (it is more costly to build your entire song around the sample than to give it only minor attention).

There are two different ways to pay for a license. First, you can pay a flat fee for the usage. A buy-out fee can range from $250 to $10,000 on a major label. Most fees fall between $1,000 and $2,000. The other way to pay for the license is a percentage of the mechanical royalty rate. The mechanical royalty rate is the amount a person pays to the copyright owner to make a mechanical reproduction (copy) of the song. A license which is a percentage of the mechanical royalty rate is generally between ½ ¢ and 3¢ per record pressed. Everything is negotiable and it is not unusual to get a license for free, if you ask.

If all of this sounds confusing, there's hope. There are businesses devoted entirely to securing and negotiating clearances for samples. These firms charge less than an entertainment attorney would charge and are generally more knowledgeable about the going rates for uses.

If you use samples without obtaining the proper clearance licenses, you have to be aware of the penalties. A copyright infringer is liable for "statutory damages" that generally run from $500 to $20,000 for a single act of copyright infringement. If the court determines there has been wilful infringement, damages can run as high as $100,000. The copyright owner can also get a court to issue an injunction forcing you to cease violating the copyright owner's rights. The court can also force you to recall all your albums and destroy them.

There is also a rumor going around that you can use four notes of any song under the "fair use" doctrine. There is no "four note" rule in the copyright law. One note from a sound recording is a copyright violation. Saturday Night Live was sued for using the jingle, "I Love New York" which is only four notes. The test for infringement is whether the sample is "substantially similar" to the original. Remember, a judge or jury is the one who determines this and these people may be much less receptive to your music than your fans. My point is you cannot rely on fair use as a defense.

Sampling can also have tremendous consequences if you have a record contract. Most record contracts have provisions called "Warranties", "Indemnifications" and "Representations". These provisions constitute a promise that you created all the music on your album and an agreement to reimburse the label if it is sued. These same provisions are included in all contracts throughout the entertainment distribution chain. The record company has them with the artist, the distributors with the record company, the record stores with the distributors, and so on. Well, all these warranties point back at the artist who is responsible to everyone else! Therefore, if you violate someone else's copyright, you will be paying all the bills of your record company, distributor and any stores which incur expenses as a result of your infringement. This can run into serious money as you can imagine. You will also be in breach of your record contract. Read your record contract carefully before using any samples.

[Kane Knight]

...Too bad that has sweet fuck all to do with this subject, Kris...

[Kris P Lettus]

Copyright law about using others melody etc has "fuck all" to do with RHCP supposedly stealing part of a song from Tom Petty??

O_o

[Kane Knight]

Copyright law about using others melody etc has "fuck all" to do with RHCP supposedly stealing part of a song from Tom Petty??

O_o

Sampling is the use of portions of prior recordings which are incorporated into a new composition.

That's not the same thing as what's going on with the Chillis. If they were playing to an MP3 of Petty's, you'd have something. The problem is, sampling is essentially taking a soundbyte, whereas this is an issue of something different. Your little blurb even refers to use of a sound recording, which the Chillis did not in any event, as is clear if you've listened to both songs.

There is like one paragraph in there specifically dealing with copyright infringement, two if you want to be reeeeeal anal, and both deal with how it pertains to sampling. It's not using a prior recording as much as using a prior song (No prior elements). The definition of sampling above is a pretty strong indicator. :p

[Kris P Lettus]

It still talks about how much of a song can be used before it's illegal..