Guitarist Joe Satriani has asserted in a complaint filed on Thursday that substantial portions of his 2004 song "If I Could Fly" were copied by Coldplay in its song "Viva La Vida." Judge for yourself:
Of course, you can't really tell, from a comparison of the songs, whether or not there's been infringement; as in all copyright infringement cases, any similarities between the songs are not enough, standing alone, to constitute infringement (no matter how similar the two compositions might be), because the plaintiff has to prove not only that the songs are "substantially similar" to one another, but also that Coldplay actually copied from Satriani's song (i.e., that the similarities aren't due to coincidence, or independent development, or from both artists copying from some third source . . .).
What's Satriani going to do next, claim he invented the 12-bar blues?
And just so I'M not accused of ripping anyone off. I didn't first make this observation. A guitarist named
Terry Syrek did a few years ago though I don't think his page is online where he first made it.
1 - argue there's no way such similarities would arise due to coincidence, perhaps use a musicologist to say this, and say he was at a show therefore he must have copied.
2 - argue that since he was at the show, it's possible without the intent to copy, he did so unconsciously, such as in Harrison.
Comments?
I don't think they need to prove Martin was at one of Satch's shows. Satch is a legend among guitar players. It's entirely imaginable that someone in his band blasted the CD. Maybe they were all high on marijuana, heard a cool tune with a catchy melody, forgot about it and then viola the song "comes out" of Chris Martin without realizing it. That's the way it works in rock.
I say they the song has to be famous because it's such a stress to use these "seeping into the unconscious" into copying theories that it will probably only be available when it's something that is famous.
However, evidence tending to show that in the community of guitarists this song is as famous as the song in the Harrison case, it might work.
I haven't looked into the issue in detail lately but I'd imagine that almost all artist either get permission before sampling or risk a lawsuit.
Indeed, but one major difference is the classical composers can usually do things with pen and paper that is more "sophisticated" than rock composition. Studying this at Berklee College of music, I learned Stravinsky once said (and this phrase might not even be original to him) good artist borrow, great artists steal. Meaning when you borrow something you have to give it back because it belongs to someone else. When you steal, you "make it your own." A good classical composer can steal ideas and make them seem original. Now that's transformative use.
John Williams by the way, is considered a "lightweight" as a film composer (like the Def Leppard or Poison of composing) in part because when he lifts something it's so obvious. Williams of course is enormously successful; but so are lots of bubble gum pop artists.
Charles Ives, on the other hand, is considered the real deal.
"Access" does not mean that a song has to be famous -- just available to the accused copier. I take it that the plaintiffs' song was published and generally available, even if not a smash hit. That is more than sufficient to establish "access."
Also, the plaintiff does not have to show that the whole of defendant's song was copied nor that the whole of plaintiff's song was copied. It is enough if protectible expression was copied. That the defendant took only some plaintiff's song and then added his own portions is not a defense to copyright infringement.
From this short clip, it sure sounds copied.
I was not arguing the song need to be famous to show access. I was saying that in the situation, like in the "unconscious" copying case with Harrison, the song would need to be famous to be found copied under this theory. I believe the Harrison case had a tough time showing copying and in fact there was evidence of independent creation.
If you can show access, of course you don't need to be famous. Though I contend:
Wouldn't this standard render every song (and for that matter book, drawing, painting) "accessible" the second it is put into a store or itunes? This is a very broad standard. I think they will still need to show some specific access....maybe some proof of exposure to the song, a conert, a cd, or an MP3.
Basically, yes. This issue is discussed at length in NImmer's Copyright Treatise. Section 13.02. The majority of courts hold that a showing that work has been "widely disseminated" constitutes access. It is enough to show that the defendant could have had access to the work, not that he actually listened to a tape or performance.
Thus in Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Starware Pub. Corp., 900 F. Supp. 433, 437 (S.D. Fla. 1995), the Court held
"[v]irtually every adult in this country has had 'access' to the copyrighted photographs published in Playboy Magazines."
You don't have to show that the defendant actually bought a copy of Playboy.
(The access issue becomes more of an issue when someone submits a song to a company that is never published. The issue then is whether the author of the second work had access to the first.)
As a side note, this could serve to illustrate why pop music sucks.
Q.E.D.
1. As a guitarist myself, I can tell you that both main threads of comments above are correct: this chord progression has been done before; and chord progression alone doesn't begin to explain the similarities between these two songs, which are played so nearly identically that it's hard to believe the author of the second wasn't at the time of re/creation listening, or had very recently listened to, the first. It's not the chord progression but the "way it's played" that makes these recordings so similar -- pacing, effects, right hand technique, color/emotion, emphasis, even backing instrumentation. You need a guitarist to explain the how, but your ear can easily catch the what. This is a good case for some expert testimony, and it could lead to a good faith battle of experts -- in this case, guitarists.
2. This is why we have juries, or at least judge fact finders, rather than computers. Songs are for humans to hear. The human capacity to understand music (how it sounds, and also how it's created) so far surpasses anyone's ability to annotate a music score, or otherwise attempt to explain music academically (or blog-ademically ... sorry, guys and gals) as to make the paper exercise almost useless in a case like this. You need to explain a situation like this to actual humans -- after giving them much guidance, of course -- and then say "Jury, it's up to you." As much as we academically-oriented folk may wish it weren't true, sometimes good arguments in briefs can't resolve a legal problem.
By the way, speaking as a guitarist and actual human ... and IP lawyer ... I'm betting Coldplay is going down. Settle this one, boys.
the guy friggin' rocks.
Not, of course, after the lawyers do some pleadings and discovery. Strictly for due diligence, of course. :)
As a matter of curiosity: do bands like Coldplay have insurance that covers their defense in matters like this? I've never done IP work but a friend of mine at an insurance firm defended a restauranteur in a trademark suit brought by another restaurant over whether the restaurant name was too similar to that of the plaintiff's; he mentioned that of course his client wanted to fight to the death because it "wasn't his money."
Andrew Hoepfner plays with Creaky Boards and their song is called "The Songs I Didn't Write". Post's post regards Guitarist Joe Satriani's song "If I could Fly".
I'm responding because I heard about the previous claim by Creaky Boards and remember hearing a quote from Chris Martin's lawyer that they had ample evidence that Martin never attended the concert, and in fact was on the other side of the US at the time Hoepfner that he saw Martin in the audience.
read more here
My personal favorite is the chorus of Rush's "Stick It Out" and the verse of Pearl Jam's "Go." The two albums they're on--Counterparts by Rush and Vs. by Pearl Jam--were both released on Oct. 19, 1993. That week, Vs. was #1 on the charts and Counterparts was #2.
Anyway, see for yourself:
Go (starting at 0:30)
Stick It Out (starting at 0:50)
When a big artist with a huge market to draw from copies a less-pervasive artist, ill-gotten profits as a part of relief is at least inefficient.
Satriani could be benefiting from the infringement, both in terms of sheer profit for this particular song, but also for exposure the lawsuit brings him.
Yes, Louis Armstrong rocks. I assume that's who you're talking about.
Not to be snarky, but neither song uses ii - V - vi.
The coldplay song is IV-V-I-vi (IVmaj7-V7sus-Imaj9-vi, to be more specific) and the Satriani one is ii-V-I-vi. And the use of the use of the major seventh to begin the melody (or 9th, in the case of Satriani) is actually pretty sophisticated for a pop song. (which might be an argument that Chris Martin had 'help' in coming up with it)
"We’re one of the world’s worst, but most enthusiastic plagiarists, as a band. We’ll try and copy anything but tend to fail so we come up with something that sounds like us, only through trying to sound like somebody else."
"The key rule was that we could steal from anybody except ourselves."
Chris Martin in an interview about recording the album Viva La Vida.
Coldplay - Talk
http://www.back2office.com
Post your resume and find your dream job Now !
Search Jobs Post Jobs on India's Premium Jobsite
Search Professionals
India's growing job site.Jobs available in sectors like Accounting,
Marketing,IT,Engineering,Finance,BPO/Call Centers,Bio Technology,
Banks,Adminstration,HR/IR/MR,Media,Sales,Security,
Business Mgmt.,Retails,Hotels &Others.
Find Jobs In India,UK,USA,Middle East.
I've heard that attributed to Poe.
Hmm. I've seen it attributed to T.S. Eliot. I'm beginning to suspect none of those people actually said it.
But they certainly improved on his idea.
The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism.
For context, most of the paragraph containing the quote:
Maybe they were all high on marijuana, heard a cool tune with a catchy melody, forgot about it and then viola the song "comes out" of Chris Martin without realizing it.
Hey! As a violist, I resent the disparaging implications here. Sometimes we do it on purpose.
Are you serious? Joe Satriani is better known than the Johnny-come-lately band Coldplay. Satriani has sold more than ten million albums. Fourteen albums received Grammy award nominations for Best Rock Instrumental Performance. His top-selling albums go back to the late 1980s, and his recent concert DVDs and studio albums still have respectable sales. I think Joe's just miffed that a rip-off song is part of Coldplay's latest multi-Grammy album.
I'm not making a value-judgment or any statement about popularity over time.
Back in August a band called Creaky Boards claimed Coldplay stole the song from them (and claimed that Chris Martin had been at one of their shows.) The band said they had no intention of suing, and it was later shown that Chris Martin wasn't even in the country when the gig occurred.
Now Satriani sues, BUT all three songs (Creaky Boards, Coldplay, and Satriani) are predated by one written by a popular Argentine rock group called 'Los Enanitos Verdes.' Their song 'Frances Limon' was recorded in 2002, and the Satriani song sound like a blatant rip-off of it. (Where as the Coldplay/Creaky Boards ones are less similar).
If I were in Coldplay I'd be happily cutting some deal with Los Enanitos Verdes; one that included the Argentines suing Satriani for copyright infringement.
There is a more popular song (though I can’t remember which one) that I hear on the radio every month or so which always makes me think I’m about to hear PJ Harvey’s “Down By the Water”. Hook--(Little Fish Big Fish Swimming in the Water, Come Back Here Man Give Me My Daughter) But it isn’t.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.