OT: Yet another plagiarism? Sheeran v Cardle $20m says so...

[miden]

So Cardle is suing Sheeran for copying his song...going for 20 million in damages!

 

This is perhaps the best comparo thingy I reckon..beat matched and key matched...pretty close not that it means I agree one way or the other. It could be a compelling argument though!

 

[video:youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgGa4hGl7v8

[ElmerJFudd]

Two copy cat tunes of thousands that have come before using the same I, V, vi, IV progression in the chorus with matching one note melodies set to ultra-boring rhythmic phrasing of their sort of unique lyrics and at the same tempo - since so many people record to the grid these days at whole number tempos. It's not so much an argument of plagiarism as it is a telling sign of how unoriginal pop music has become in general. And why? Because there are certain tempos, progressions, and melodies that are generally catchy, and since everyone is in the business (and it very much is a business) to win, then there is little reason to take any chances or risks when making a pop record.

[MotiDave]

who? which one of those songs is worth $20m, maybe I'm just not sufficiently hip to appreciate the nuance here?

[miden]

haha! yeah I tend to agree MD ...they probs both are happy with the action as they'll both profit from it in some way or another (haha or is that too cynical )

 

@ElJ yep agree with that too!

[DulceLabs.com]

I read somewhere the trick to a hit pop song to make something that is familiar and original at the same time.

[Baldwin Funster]

Vomit is being sued for copying puke. We all know barf really wrote that song.

[MathOfInsects]

I read somewhere the trick to a hit pop song to make something that is familiar and original at the same time.

[mate stubb]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/616/605/697.jpg

[Steve Nathan]

So they share the same 1/5/6-/4 progression in the chorus. That's the only similarity and it's not as if Cardle (whoever the f he is) was the first to use that worn out progression. I took the time to listen to the original recordings of both songs, and it's nonsense. There's barely any similarity. Cardle should get an ass whipping for this much gall.

[dongna]

For the record (if it matters), I don't think it's Cardle that's sueing. It's the co-writers of the song.

[ElmerJFudd]

Time to stay writing copycat pop songs, go through the copyright process, and scan new releases for ones that sound like yours.

[MathOfInsects]

I think it overstates it a bit to say they have nothing in common. The choruses are identical, and the verses are similar.

 

I also don't think it's quite as simple as, 'Well, of course they sound the same, they are both I - V - vi - IV." Of the 100 people on this board right now, if we all went to the piano at this moment and played our own melody over I - V - I, we'd play 100 different melodies, with different note durations, different styles, different preferences for consonance, etc. (That's why you can't copyright chord progressions.)

 

Melodic similarity is only one factor for copyright infringement decisions, though; the more important factor, as far as the courts are concerned, is exposure. And there is an inverse proportion: the greater the exposure, the less similarity may be needed to prove infringement. The less the exposure, the greater the similarity must be to raise a claim.

 

If two people in two different parts of the world write the same melody in isolation, without ever having been exposed to each other, and one of those two songs becomes a hit, the other is highly unlikely to raise a successful copyright infringement case--or at any rate, the standard for demonstrating similarity will be extremely high.

 

On the other hand, if a songwriter offers a song to an artist, or has a hit that the artist can be reasonably shown to have had exposure to, a claim of similarity has more merit, and the threshold for copying is lower. Once exposure is shown, THEN the court will look at various elements of melodic similarity, to see if any infringement might plausibly have occurred, intentionally or otherwise.

 

This comes with my usual caveat that copyright laws in general are NOT, at their core, truly designed to protect the artist, but rather to control the flow of income generated by the artist into the pockets of the major distributors. But given that the laws exist, the basis for determining infringement always includes both factors, in inverse proportion: exposure x similarity.