Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Dua Lipa "Levitating" infringement lawsuit
- Thread starter friskinator
- Start date
He makes some good points, but he always manages to irk me. Adam Neely: “Copyright should be used to protect those who meaningfully contribute to the musical language”. Uh, no. Contribution has nothing to do with it. Was there copyright infringement, yes or no? And then he just can’t help himself as he makes reference to “a mostly white reggae band from S. Florida... as they profit off of black culture”, as if that has anything to do with the matter at hand. UB40 is coming to get you, Adam.
And then he just can’t help himself as he makes reference to “a mostly white reggae band from S. Florida... as they profit off of black culture”, as if that has anything to do with the matter at hand. UB40 is coming to get you, Adam.
Yea, he does that in many videos and I don't understand why...
If he's going to virtue signal then I hope he demonitized his entire channel so not to profit off of anyone's culture that isn't his...
I disagree there- his whole point was that all the compiled similarities between the songs were all things originally referenced from much earlier (and more popular, and in this case, black) music (ie, the Charleston groove and the melody via OutKast and/or the Jackson 5), suggesting that the actual influence for both most likely came from earlier and more accessible popular music (his was the first time I heard of the limited release of the Artikal track/album, though it still definitely doesn't mean it wasn't heard by one of the producers just that it'll be considered more doubtful unlike many of the other music copyright lawsuit materials). Meaning that small group from Florida can't actually claim ownership of those particular similarities. I'm still not totally convinced though- the more damning thing that he mentioned originally but never went back into is when you add the lyrical similarity to the other parts, which makes it seem far less likely to me that it was merely a coincidental similarity.He makes some good points, but he always manages to irk me. Adam Neely: “Copyright should be used to protect those who meaningfully contribute to the musical language”. Uh, no. Contribution has nothing to do with it. Was there copyright infringement, yes or no? And then he just can’t help himself as he makes reference to “a mostly white reggae band from S. Florida... as they profit off of black culture”, as if that has anything to do with the matter at hand. UB40 is coming to get you, Adam.
I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing with. I’m not saying that in this case Artikal have a legitimate claim, but Neely’s suggestion that “copyright should be used to protect those who meaningfully contribute to the musical language” is unfounded.
Not really "unfounded", because he is expressing an opinion (his channel in general is a mixture of theory and opinion, and not statement of "musical fact" which is what I dig about him)- he is arguing that if anything the original innovators should be the ones to be given credit for particular musical "tropes" (his word) and not just whatever artist down the road who themselves have borrowed those ideas. His perspective as expressed in many of his videos about music copyright is that many of these lawsuits are pretty spurious and have the potential to set a dangerous precedent, so his opinion is coming via that perspective. I don't necessarily totally agree with him in this case, but also think his take is a good one with good points.
Neely said (after referring to "professionals") that "...there's the general understanding that copyright should be used to protect those who meaningfully contribute to the musical language.". In my previous post I should have said that I don't think this is the general understanding (on the part of, for example, musicologists) at all.
Last edited:
Here’s one:
EDIT: As I caught up with the thread, I realized this link has been posted more than once before - sorry this didn’t add to the conversation.
Last edited:
That is his opinion of the purpose of a musical copyright from the perspective of a professional musicologist- in other words, bringing it back to "the professionals know there is always prior art", combined with paraphrasing the breakdown from a professional musicologist (that he showed Twitter posts from in the video) that referenced prior popular music (OutKast, etc) that predates both songs. He has also done other videos on the subject in the past with alot more paraphrasing/referencing of other musicologists on the issue ("musicologists" in this case being the "professionals" he is speaking of in the Dua Lipa video) in essence saying that most of these lawsuits are fairly frivolous at best and dangerous at worst. He is saying that (he thinks) no musicologist would go to bat for this case because there is just nothing particularly innovative/special about the ideas in the Artikal song that themselves weren't already referencing prior art to justify risking one's professional credibility/career over defending in court. Even without a "professional"/musicologist onboard, the lawsuit may well result in a settlement or judgement
Last edited:
I get that. My issue is with Neely stating that there IS a "general understanding". If he had said that there "seems to be" then that would be different. A small detail, yes, but when we're talking about opinion or perception then such a detail is significant.
He started that whole part with "I don't think that Musicologists and Music Theorists want to touch this because..." (...here's why I think that). It seems to me most of the evidence I've heard from that world (on his channel and elsewhere) seems to agree with his "general understanding" though maybe he could have worded it more elegantly somehow. Anyway musicologists and theorists are not lawyers, judges or lawmakers anyway so it is all just opinion on what music copyright should mean
Mr. Neely said he consulted music pros. Entertainment lawyers might have a different take on copyright, & would be worth listening to.
I agree that he seemed to back away from his earlier point of the lyrics matching the melodies. Something I would not enjoy defending in court - I would not be surprised if this case gets settled.
Artists like Dua Lipa that use teams of songwriters may have to take a page from companies hiring Mergers & Acquisitions investment banks, yet want to avoid insider trading problems, and explicitly ask each songwriter if their ideas are their own - especially if there’s a changing lineup of songwriters.
EDIT: Even if Team Dua Lipa coincidentally wrote a similar song & successfully defend themselves in court, Dua Lipa’s reputation is going to take a hit. Artists have the most to lose in these situations & should assert themselves. When they get a new song (even one they wrote themselves), they should have some checks in the process - there’s too much pressure for easy $ and prestige to assume the producers, songwriters & record companies will take care of it.
Last edited:
Agreed. He does make some good points, but overall Beato has the better arguments to support his statements.He makes some good points, but he always manages to irk me. Adam Neely: “Copyright should be used to protect those who meaningfully contribute to the musical language”. Uh, no. Contribution has nothing to do with it. Was there copyright infringement, yes or no? And then he just can’t help himself as he makes reference to “a mostly white reggae band from S. Florida... as they profit off of black culture”, as if that has anything to do with the matter at hand. UB40 is coming to get you, Adam.
And he did so without resorting to virtue signalling to get his points across.
Neely is using the video not just to make a judgement on this particular case, but to point out the potential implications of people getting behind these kinds of cases. The implication here being that should Artikal win in court (at least assuming lack of evidence that anyone on Dua Lipa's team actually accessed their music before composing her song) they are essentially being granted ownership of ideas that other artists demonstrably performed/recorded first (and on records that were much older, more popular, and more accessible than the Artikal recording and so far more likely to have been the actual inspirations for the Dua Lipa track). It'd be like the legal version of "whoever cries the loudest gets the first piece of cake" and also just open the door potentially for even more lawsuits.
Frankly, his point about a white reggae band getting direct credit/ownership/money for the ideas of black artists in this case has merit if they were to win in court (again assuming a lack of direct evidence that the Dua Lipa team actually ever heard their song) and is not just virtue-signaling. I thought he made that point decently clear in the video by examining the roots of the individual similarities between the two and how they've been used previously in popular music. Its pretty on-brand for his channel these days and I like his approach and his sometimes potentially uncomfortable/unconventional takes on things.
I still don't entirely agree with all his takes on these kinds of cases, but I do agree that we are at a point where there are potentially damaging/dangerous implications for creators and art in general if these kinds of lawsuits become more prevalent
That is my point. If it goes to court the only thing that matters to the judge is whether that Floridian band can prove that their song, only one particular song, has been ripped off or not. That's it. And it's not first time there has been such a case, and I've provided some more examples here:
Dua Lipa "Levitating" infringement lawsuit
That part about the band's ethnicity doesn't add anything. In court it certainly wouldn't. And that's the thing with some of those youtube channels; they attempt to convince their listeners by exciting their emotions rather than producing a rational argument. You can see this sort of thing occurring in talk shows, when a host or a guest says something that essentially has zero added value to a discussion. But the crowd goes wild and starts clapping and cheering, because supposedly it's the "right" thing to do.
The team of Dua Lipa should be ashamed of themselves. They have to admit that they stole the melody and copied the rest of the song (the only thing that they did better is the production).
If Hayley Williams got songwriting credit for Olivia Rodrigo’s “Good 4 U”, this is gonna be a slam dunk.
I listened to both tracks on youtube. Meh. I’m not as sold as the other claim.
Since I have never heard any of Dua Lipa's music AFAIK, I could end up inadvertently copying it. That's why the issue arises for me - you can be copying consciously, unconsciously, or just because there are 'only so many notes'. On the latter I could write music by fairly arbitrary note choices (already somewhat true) and just copyright everything I do. Eventually someone will have the same combination. Sue, and then profit?
