
“I was sued for sounding like myself” - jon-wood
https://readthink.com/i-was-sued-for-sounding-like-myself-da089f34d953#.lzk66uqbc
======
chasing
John Fogerty wasn't sued for sounding like himself, he was sued for
plagiarizing a song he didn't own. Although Fogerty won and apparently
eventually got his legal costs back.

"In the bizarre self-plagiarism case, Fantasy and its boss Saul Zaentz claimed
that Fogerty's 1985 song Old Man Down the Road was merely his old Creedence
song, Run Through the Jungle, with a new title. The label wouldn't have been
able to bring the suit if Fogerty hadn't sold them the rights to his old
material, something any aspiring pop star would be strenuously advised not to
do in these more artist friendly days. Fogerty won the case, but then had to
jump through further legal hoops to win back $1.35m dollars in costs."
([http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/11/artsfeatures3](http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2000/jul/11/artsfeatures3))

Let me use this to point out: I hate it when even these little fudges happen.
"Unsuccessfully sued for self-plagiarism" becomes "sued for self-plagiarism"
becomes "sued for sounding like himself" \-- which actually means something
quite different. And then that winds up the headline, people remember it and
form opinions based on it. And now we've got some dumb new falsehood floating
around whenever people talk about record companies and music publishing. "You
can literally be sued for sounding like yourself! Media companies are monsters
that want to destroy human life on earth!"

Gotta get those clicks, though. Click click click.

~~~
rayiner
A lot of the outrage cottage industry runs on people not reading past the
headline or first paragraph. If it's too outrageous to be true, it probably
is.

~~~
ohitsdom
Unless it involves Comcast.

------
S_A_P
I've heard the Michael Jackson/McCartney story before. I think that what
bothers me about the whole thing is that if it were _me_ that was friends with
McCartney, I would have offered to make it right with a personal friend.(maybe
sell/give up some of the rights so he can at least get a piece of his own
songs) Instead, Jackson said something to the effect of "Its just business".
That is a pretty shitty move IMO. However, it seems that McCartney isn't
wholly innocent here either. Why not get the surviving members/yoko in on the
bidding process and return the songs to the group that created them. It was
just a big rent seeking exercise. I think this is also a case of inflated egos
prevent common sense from ruling the day.

As for Fogerty, Saul Zaentz(the owner of fantasy records) was famously
screwing over CCR and Fogerty as well as making poor decisions on their
behalf. I would have been pretty upset if I were John Fogerty too. The record
business seems to attract the shadiest of characters and young naive artists
are easy pickings for these guys.

~~~
vinceguidry
I read somewhere that Jackson tried several times to sell the catalog back to
McCartney, but they couldn't work out a price. The Beatles catalog was just
out of McCartney's league. McCartney wasn't new to the rights-management
business, in fact, he taught it to Jackson, he just didn't have the capital.

> It was just a big rent seeking exercise.

I wouldn't necessarily conclude that. It's true, the Beatles catalog was a
huge money-maker for Jackson, but Jackson's people were remarkable stewards.
Managing rights is not just a matter of sitting back and collecting royalty
checks. You have to manage things so that you stay in the public eye. One
could say that the Beatles might not be quite as popular now without Jackson's
management.

~~~
S_A_P
I dont know if snopes is the most reliable source, but according to
that([http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp](http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp))
Lennon/McCartney have always received 50% of the songs, so maybe the situation
was as bad for sir Paul as he made it out to be. I also want to be clear that
I don't think that Michael Jackson is the only bad actor in this whole saga,
and it looks like you may be right that Paul and Michael did
try(unsuccessfully) to work out a
deal.([http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/michael-jackson-
beatles-...](http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/michael-jackson-beatles-
songs-can-paul-mccartney-get-them-back/)). Seems that it makes for great
gossip more than anything, and maybe it is equivalent to a "rap beef"...

~~~
vinceguidry
All I'm saying is that of all the people to pick to own the publishing rights
to my songs, Michael Jackson isn't the worst choice. He was probably right
when he said it was "just business". I mean, it's not as if McCartney was all
that opposed to the practice of selling publishing rights, not only did he
sell his own rights, but he also participated in the whole regime by buying
other artist's rights.

------
ap22213
Copyright is such an amazingly profitable concept. Just how profitable it is
just really blows my mind.

I had a friend who created one of the early, best-selling games on mobile.
Early into his success I was like, 'Your game is awesome. I see people playing
it every day on the metro. That's crazy! But, if you're smart, you need to
turn that game into something iconic. You need a 'character' that will lock
those players into a cultural experience. Trust me: your game will eventually
fade, but that 'character' will remain - and you'll literally make millions on
the copyright for 100 years. And, you won't even have to do much to maintain
it.'

But, instead of creating their own iconic characters, they opted to license
other company's iconic characters. Now, years later, the game has much fewer
sales (as expected). And, I'm not sure how much revenue they're making, but
I'm guessing it's not much.

I'm not in the game development business. So, I don't know much. But, when I
get a chance to talk to game developers, I try to stress the importance of the
cultural experience. The game play will make or break a game, sure. But, if
you have the copyright on that cultural experience - that will generate
revenue for forever.

------
bruceb
"In 1988, Fantasy Records, the company that owned the rights to Fogerty’s CCR
classics, sued Fogerty for releasing a song that — get this — sounded too
similar to one of Fogerty’s earlier CCR songs."

"Sounding like" in the title makes it seems he was sued for having the same
voice (as himself) but is more like he wrote a song that was very similar to
one that has already been written.

He would not have been able to sell his songs for as much if he can then just
create a song that is nearly the same afterwards. Hardly as outrageous as the
title implies.

~~~
fabulist
The title is a quote from Fogerty, so I think it is appropriate. Additionally,
I took the correct impression from "sounding like."

------
kazinator
> _This is the world of music publishing — a world where you can write a song,
> sell the rights to that song, then have to pay royalties to perform that
> song (which you wrote), and then potentially get sued if you write another
> song that sounds too similar to that first song you wrote._

This is the world of software development--a world where you can write some
code for someone else who owns the copyright (such as your employer), and the
have to license it to use it, and potentially get sued if you write and
release nearly identical code.

~~~
anon4
Yes, exactly. The modern world of intellectual "property" (and there aren't
quotes scary enough to put around the word) is fucking insane and kind of sad.

------
ergothus
I followed through to a linked article from this one (
[https://medium.com/@david_hewson/never-quote-a-rock-lyric-
in...](https://medium.com/@david_hewson/never-quote-a-rock-lyric-in-a-book-
unless-you-re-rich-e39d53f85e7c#.whzkywtdl) ), which left me confused.

IANAL, but I consider myself reasonably well-versed in common forms of
copyright issues. I don't understand how quoting a single line of lyrics
requires permission.

Is it just the (unfortunately) normal "They'll sue you and it's not worth the
expensive of a defense" condition? Or was there a case that decided this?
While I'm aware that a cultural reference isn't covered under fair use
defense, I'd argue a cultural reference isn't a derivative product either.

Anyone have some data here?

------
jMyles
Does anyone else read articles like this (and specifically the second section)
and become overwhelmed by the sense that the "ownership" of an artistic work -
especially a song - is rather like ownership of a star or something equally
trivial?

~~~
rdancer
Artists tend to have mountain-sized egos. Few of the singers-songwriters admit
even to themselves that songwriting is a craft, not fine art, and when they
speak, it can be hard not to feel slightly bemused. When you look at nice
songs the same way you would look at a well-made shoe, or a well-designed
typeface, it is easy to appreciate them without feeling silly.

~~~
homonculus1
Do you also consider poetry a craft?

~~~
rdancer
Therein lies the problem.

Poetry set to music seldom works, because it is too dense. When it is done,
the music must be very plain, or only a short sections of the text are used,
or the text is chopped up and spliced without regard to meaning of the words,
or there is a lot of repetitions, or there is a lot of instrumental passages.
Often more than one of the above.

Song lyrics (you can call it poetry that is meant to be sung) carry much less
information, don't require careful attention of the listener, are mostly
linear. But song lyrics require something that poetry does not -- they have to
_work_ : They must be vocalizable with ease. They must rhyme. There must be a
leitmotif/chorus that is recognizable and catchy, et cetera. They must be
popular, and make money.

Some singers-songwriters write both poetry and songs[1] (or a poem is adapted
into a song[2], or vice versa) -- then you can easily see the difference
between the two.

[1] Few of my favourites: Leonard Cohen, Nick Cave, Filip Topol

[2] The God Abandons Anthony, by C P Cavafy:
[http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=12&cat=1](http://www.cavafy.com/poems/content.asp?id=12&cat=1)
\-- and a song based on it, by L Cohen and S Robinson:
[http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/42869/](http://songmeanings.com/songs/view/42869/)

~~~
jMyles
Good comment. You almost have me convinced.

But what is hip hop? Poetry or music?

~~~
rdancer
Hip hop is mostly white folks listening to millionaires pretending to be
gangsta, no?

For real, hip hop is a great example. Have you noticed how the denser parts
are always spoken, and the sung parts are always repetitive and don't say all
that much if anything at all?

Did you have hip hop in mind when you said that you feel ownership of a song
is trivial, though?

------
6stringmerc
Superb article, covers so much of the ins and outs of rights that it should be
required reading for anybody considering starting a music-oriented line of
business! IP law, with respect to music, is one of my favorite hobbies to stay
current with as much as I can. Also, there are plenty of fascinating
historical wrinkles and precedents that are entertaining in some sort.

\+ Fogerty got sued for sounding like his trademark songwriting style (think
AC/DC) - on the other hand, Tom Waits sued somebody else (and won) for trying
to sound too much like him.

\+ GoldiBlox tried to sue the Beastie Boys, claiming their derivative work for
a song for a commercial (and not getting Sync Rights) would be protected under
fair use - when the dust settled, the Beastie Boys took them to the cleaners
and GoldiBlox was publicly shamed.

\+ Recently a political ad used a re-worded version of "Times of Your Life"
that mimics the Paul Anka original closely enough that the rights holder is
suing them for unfair association and endorsement.

These are just a few off the top of my head. Most of the good cases - by good
I mean really interesting - get settled out of court. "Blurred Lines" was one
I'm not going to get into because I approve of the outcome and there's so many
garbage arguments against the result that I simply don't have the patience
anymore to bother with it.

Oh, and this really stood out to me:

> _It’s estimated that the song “Yesterday” alone has brought in $30 million
> in royalties over the years._

Yeah, according to sources I've come across, it's the most covered song in the
history of songs. That means anybody can go ahead and do a version - but they
have to pay the Mechanical Rights. Gotta love it!

------
jawns
As an author and former journalist, I thought I was pretty well versed in the
fair-use defense. I thought that any short quotation from a copyrighted work
is protected under fair use, and I always assumed that a single line from a
song would easily qualify as a short quotation.

But this article (and the article it links to, "Never quote a rock lyric in a
book unless you're rich") suggest that you can be held legally liable for
quoting even a single line from a song without permission.

That definitely seems to go against the spirit of fair use.

~~~
ChuckMcM
That challenge with Fair Use, and always has been, that it _is not defined._
Not to any legal standard, so every use where the rights holder and the user
disagree over whether or not it was fair use, gets litigated. And
unfortunately there isn't a lot of definition in the case law that helps.

------
bruceb
More interesting is being sued for looking like someone else:
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-21-kim-
kardashian-old-navy_n.htm)

(Old Navy was sued not the actual person still interesting)

------
forrestthewoods
Everything in this article sounds totally fair and reasonable.

------
pjbrunet
I doubt anyone cares, but Frédéric Motte is the original Moby (electronic
music composer)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Motte](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Motte)

Richard Melville Hall, the DJ mentioned in the article, hijacked Frédéric's
name and reputation.

Maybe it was a win-win for both of them?

~~~
sleazebreeze
I don't think it is clear that Richard Melville Hall stole any name or
reputation from the game composer. Hall has said that "Moby" was a nickname
from being named after Herman Melville.

Additionally, they both appear to have been actively publishing in the early
90s. This seems more like an unhappy coincidence for Motte, but not a
malicious act by Hall.

~~~
pjbrunet
I was there. Motte was very popular in the Amiga/BBS days in the 80s,
worldwide, long before Hall had his supposed Moby Dick idea. Maybe that really
was his great-great-great-uncle? Maybe it just wasn't an original name for
popular electronic musicians?

If he wasn't aware of the original Moby, that tells you he was just ignorant
of the electronic music scene during the 90s, which is plausible because most
Americans had not been exposed to electronic music yet.

~~~
zck
Hall made his first release as Moby in 1990:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_%28song%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobility_%28song%29)
. I can't tell when Motte put out what, but at least from his wikipedia page,
he only started making songs and using "Moby" in 1988. I don't know how
popular he got where, but it doesn't seem obvious that Hall got the name from
Motte.

~~~
pjbrunet
You have to look for the Amiga MODs. Nearly all electronic music was in MOD
format back before MP3.

[http://amp.dascene.net/detail.php?detail=modules&view=5024](http://amp.dascene.net/detail.php?detail=modules&view=5024)

"This is a compilation of some of my demoscene music made between 1989 and
1993 when I was still called Moby, before some other guy took my moniker :P.
These tunes were released by some of the best demogroups ever : Sanity,
Alcatraz, Quartex, Dreamdealers... All tracks were composed using Protracker
on the Amiga." [https://elmobo.bandcamp.com/album/amiga-days-
remasters](https://elmobo.bandcamp.com/album/amiga-days-remasters)

The worldwide distribution was though BBS networks and the Internet. Just for
reference, when these Amiga modules started circulating, the IBM PC was only
capable of making "beeping" noises.

~~~
FireBeyond
Come on. Moby was releasing published songs in 1990, which means he was signed
to a label at least several months prior. This whole "89-93" thing is
misleading and invents a conspiracy theory where there is none.

Not to mention, I had an Amiga those days. And used Protracker. That doesn't
make Amiga MOD groups a required staple for anyone in electronic music in that
6-18 month window, and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Edit: in fact, per
[http://www.instinctrecords.com/artists/moby](http://www.instinctrecords.com/artists/moby)
:

"Born Richard Melville Hall, Moby received his nickname as a child; it derives
from the fact that Herman Melville, the author of Moby Dick, is his great-
great grand uncle. Moby was raised in Darien, CT, where he played in a
hardcore punk band called the Vatican Commandos as a teenager. Later, he
briefly sang with Flipper, while their singer was serving time in jail. He
briefly attended college, before he moved to New York City, where he began
DJing in dance clubs. During the late ’80s and 1990, he released a number of
singles and EPs for the independent label Instinct."

I think the jury of reasonable men err on the side of coincidence, not coat-
tail riding moniker-stealing.

~~~
pjbrunet
Like I said in my other comment, I looked up the pack to refresh my memory and
Motte was already dominating the BBS scene by 1989. By today's standards,
"new" Moby is more widely known than the whole BBS/Demoscene combined. But I
still think it's a weird coincidence.

