Is this plagiarism? (Update: jury says no) (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Townsend had just overcome a crippling addiction and Let's Get It On was orginally a more uplifting song about get on living life



A friend of Townsend's 16 year old daughter was in the studio, and 33 year old Marvin was immediately smitten and basically freestyled the version we know on the spot

The teen was Jan who Gaye would soon have an affair with and marry, she recently passed away

 

[efil4stnias]

Here's the 2 songs in instrumental version only. Personally, I guess I hear a similarity, but not enough to be plagiarism.

sorry i just dont see how someone can say that the drum beat is same. Tempo? Eds is a step slower than Gaye- Hard snare? sure. but the arrangement is not same.

But if musicians are now attempting to say a specific measure/note/count is theirs, no way.

 

[Madmarsha]

I mean, has Shakespeare ever sued the infinite monkeys?

 

[SWJJ]

I'm not educated in music. I don't hear it.

 

[superchuck500]

I mean, has Shakespeare ever sued the infinite monkeys?

You can’t sue a monkey, let alone infinite monkeys

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I personally don't hear it but I never heard it in that Robin Thicke song either

That song actually involved a straight sample from the Gaye track itself. It was literally taken from the Gaye song.

Totally agree with Chuck. I really don't hear anything in Sheeran's track. However, someone should've lost their job for allowing Thicke's track to hit the market without some type of credit/compensation to Gaye's estate.

On a side note, that estate likes to sue folks...

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

You can’t sue a monkey, let alone infinite monkeys

Maybe you can’t
It’s like you’ve never heard of the devil’s advocate

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I think that's actually a pretty impractical idea - and would result in a massive proliferation of music copyright suits. Anytime someone has a big hit and someone else can win a "10% similarity" and get 10% of the revenues? Goodness, no.

The standard is "substantially similar" and often involves an almost forensic analysis of the music - but unless there is a clear "theft" of the music, such as the case of a direct sample, the question of substantial similarity can be a bit vague, and based on whether a typical listener would think it was substantially borrowed from the previous work.

But it is contrasted with "not substantially similar" that even allows for de minimus similarity, which seems reasonable given that in western music, especially western pop music, the range of tones and sounds that are typically employed is somewhat narrow.

So there's a threshold of what qualifies as "substantially similar" - and anything that isn't found to be substantially similar isn't a violation and owes nothing.

The point is these aren’t artistic discussions between artists
It’s legal arguments between corporate entities and ‘estates’
They hide behind the artists to make it seem less icky

 

[Complex Kid]

You can’t sue a monkey, let alone infinite monkeys

But a monkey can sue you (well Peta can sue you on behalf of a monkey...)

Monkey selfie copyright dispute - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Madmarsha]

You can’t sue a monkey, let alone infinite monkeys

You say that only because nobody has ever TRIED!

 

[Madmarsha]

But a monkey can sue you (well Peta can sue you on behalf of a monkey...)

You spelled PITA wrong.

But I digress.

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Smells Like a Feeling

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Smells Like a Feeling

Not all of those work but that was effin brilliant

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

Not all of those work but that was effin brilliant

Pretty sure this was well known even in the early 90s.

As far as I knew, Boston didn't sue. But they probably could have had a pretty good case.