Dua Lipa "Levitating" infringement lawsuit

[lermgalieu]

the burden of proof in an infringement case is a preponderance of evidence. and one may recall the harrison 'my sweet lord'/'he's so fine' infringement suit and the concept of 'subconcious plagarism'!

but now i am curious ... does an infringement suit have to prove intent? i don't recall that being a standard.

They are required to show access, but I believe that's a pretty low bar these days. However, if one can prove willfulness, it may enhance damages.

 

[lermgalieu]

I'm suggesting that the more obscure the band, the less likely a platinum-selling artist from another nation would hear that song. Yeah, I understand how internet works. I also subscribe to and actively listen to dozens of new music blog streams. But it reads like you're saying there is no such thing as "obscure" because there is the internet. There are hundreds of thousands of recorded artists and hundreds of thousands of non-published artists. It's mathematically reasonable to say there are more bands she hasn't hear than she has. Do you not agree?

Sure I agree, but (a) to me, it looks like this band is likely regional or semi-obscure. The song is out there, and apparently gained some low level of notoriety. MY band is obscure, not so sure about this one; and (b) again, you keep saying "she" - I doubt she ever heard this. She works with writers and producers from all over the world and one of them did. I am pretty certain of that, but given it's simplicity and the skill/ears of such writers and producers, it could have been in their head in great detail after a listen or two.

 

[Killing Floor]

the burden of proof in an infringement case is a preponderance of evidence. and one may recall the harrison 'my sweet lord'/'he's so fine' infringement suit and the concept of 'subconcious plagarism'!

but now i am curious ... does an infringement suit have to prove intent? i don't recall that being a standard.

I think "subconscious" plagiarism is a thing. We all have referenced quotes or notes that we heard but did not credit. But my point is the odds of her hearing an obscure local band that has 27 self-published songs that are available through their own website, that suggests that she already knew Artikal Sound System and sought out their music through their website or by visiting one of their local bar gigs.
Does this seem reasonable?
The difference between this above and your George Harrison point is that the Chiffons' He's So Fine was a legit Billboard #1 hit for 4 weeks. Harrison heard that song whether or not he meant to be influenced by it.
There's no provable chance that Dua Lipa heard some song from A.S.S. (teehee) any more than you have heard it.

 

[Shepsdad]

12 notes. Good luck. Nothing against an obscure bottom market cracker "reggae" band from Florida who's very essence is copying and cultural appropriation, even their name is a cheeky take on another more popular band. Good luck. If you win (settle) maybe you'll get better gigs for 3 months.

One thing that's a certainty, nobody on DL's team ever heard that band or that song.

I don’t really care where they’re from, what their band concept is, or how successful they are in their market, and with the internet, anybody can hear anything from anybody else. If THEIR song was taken/copied/stolen by someone else, it doesn’t matter what anyones feelings are, they should be compensated appropriately.

 

[Altitude]

I don't see this one prevailing.

People keep saying that after the Blurred Lines case it's open season. But when I listen to Got To Give It Up, I hear not one or two but maybe four or five musical elements in common with Blurred Lines. That atop the fact that Got To Give It Up is almost certainly in the musical vernacular of the team that produced Blurred Lines, it really is almost impossible that the one didn't influence the other.

This reggae tune and Levitating share a i-v-iv chord progression with the chords represented on the downbeat of each measure along with mundane similarities like the time signatures being the same. Yes, the overall product does sound similar but in this case I think it's because the ingredients are simple enough in both songs as to easily be arrived upon in separate writing situations.

 

[bass12]

Sure I agree, but (a) to me, it looks like this band is likely regional or semi-obscure. The song is out there, and apparently gained some low level of notoriety. MY band is obscure, not so sure about this one; and (b) again, you keep saying "she" - I doubt she ever heard this. She works with writers and producers from all over the world and one of them did. I am pretty certain of that, but given it's simplicity and the skill/ears of such writers and producers, it could have been in their head in great detail after a listen or two.

Yeah, the band's videos have thousands of views (one has over 200,000 views - and it's not for the song linked in the OP). It's absolutely possible that someone involved with the creation of Due Lipa's material was aware of this band/song.

 

[Nuage420]

Netflix Song Exploder did an episode on Dua. You can get a good idea of her creative process by watching it.

 

[Killing Floor]

I don’t really care where they’re from, what their band concept is, or how successful they are in their market, and with the internet, anybody can hear anything from anybody else. If THEIR song was taken/copied/stolen by someone else, it doesn’t matter what anyones feelings are, they should be compensated appropriately.

If you make waffles in your house you and you are not Waffle House...
Nobody said they don't have similarities. There are only 12 notes in western music. If they are somewhat similar but different genres and really not "exactly the same" they are not the same. And you can't assume Dua Lipa or one of her producers heard that song unless you are arguing that everyone hears every song simply because it is available on the internet. Have you heard every song? No? Then how would she?

 

[yodedude2]

I think "subconscious" plagiarism is a thing. We all have referenced quotes or notes that we heard but did not credit. But my point is the odds of her hearing an obscure local band that has 27 self-published songs that are available through their own website, that suggests that she already knew Artikal Sound System and sought out their music through their website or by visiting one of their local bar gigs.
Does this seem reasonable?
The difference between this above and your George Harrison point is that the Chiffons' He's So Fine was a legit Billboard #1 hit for 4 weeks. Harrison heard that song whether or not he meant to be influenced by it.
There's no provable chance that Dua Lipa heard some song from A.S.S. (teehee) any more than you have heard it.

yes, agreed. but if the melody is a clone, or a near clone, does it even have to be previously heard for an infringement case? i suppose so ... i recall there was an infringement suit against michael jackson long ago, and the claim was that the plaintiff had sent jackson a demo tape. jackson's defense was that he never heard the demo tape. i don't recall how that case turned out, though.

edit: jackson successfully defended against the claim. turns out the demo tape was dated after a demo jackson recorded ... Jackson wins 'Dangerous' copyright lawsuit - UPI Archives

 

[Vinny_G]

But she's not the only one to be credited in the composition of that track. Her collaborators (Clarence Coffee Jr., Sarah Hudson and Koz) may have heard this band before. This is what justice will have to clarify, I suppose.

 

[yodedude2]

and of course the vanilla ice bit, where he actually added a note! and 'copied' a hook, not a melody! and still got the hammer

 

[lermgalieu]

I think "subconscious" plagiarism is a thing.

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. A court doesn't examine the mental state of the infringer and conscious awareness does not need to be proven.

 

[MDBass]

the burden of proof in an infringement case is a preponderance of evidence. and one may recall the harrison 'my sweet lord'/'he's so fine' infringement suit and the concept of 'subconcious plagarism'!

but now i am curious ... does an infringement suit have to prove intent? i don't recall that being a standard.

You’re correct.

Intent, or “proving that the defendant heard the original”, isn’t where the burden of proof lies with infringement cases.

 

[lermgalieu]

You’re correct.

Intent, or “proving that the defendant heard the original”, has nothing to do with infringement cases.

Correct about intent, but there does need to be some kind of reasonable access shown. With a publicly released tune, I think that's a fairly low bar.

 

[MDBass]

Correct about intent, but there does need to be some kind of reasonable access shown. With a publicly released tune, I think that's a fairly low bar.

Correct.

The original evidently has hundreds of thousands of views and the internet exists: there’s the reasonable access.

 

[gln1955]

Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. A court doesn't examine the mental state of the infringer and conscious awareness does not need to be proven.

But, the penalties for willful and non-willful infringement are vastly different.

 

[Altitude]

yes, agreed. but if the melody is a clone, or a near clone, does it even have to be previously heard for an infringement case?

I'd argue that it isn't, though. The "chorus" of the reggae song does sound like Levitating in both the guitar and the vocals, but the vocals are actually mirroring the guitar there and are therefore a single musical element, and a very simple one at that. Considering the basic nature of the chord progression, I think it's very plausible that they were arrived upon separately.

Again, to contrast with Blurred Lines and Got To Give It Up - there you have a multitude of percussion tracks that are similar, an organ voice that is similar, a move from I to IV to V in about the same place followed by a walk back to I, falsetto vocals in both tunes, and the sound of ambient noise from a crowd of people in the background in both songs. All of those are distinct musical elements and they all occur in both songs.

Frankly I think Pharrell wrote Blurred Lines as a musical tribute to Marvin Gaye on purpose and knew exactly what he was doing, only he didn't expect Gaye's estate to figure it to be damaging.

If Got To Give It Up is the standard for comparison now, this song doesn't approach the same level of deliberate musical similarity in my opinion.

 

[Wood and Wire]

Netflix Song Exploder did an episode on Dua. You can get a good idea of her creative process by watching it.

Ha!

 

[lermgalieu]

But, the penalties for willful and non-willful infringement are vastly different.

Correct (I also mentioned that above)

 

[Winslow]

Frankly I think Pharrell wrote Blurred Lines as a musical tribute to Marvin Gaye on purpose and knew exactly what he was doing, only he didn't expect Gaye's estate to figure it to be damaging.

That was the sense I got. Similar enough that a reasonable person would think, "Ha, I get it, that's cool," while someone else, perhaps looking for some quick cash, would hear an opportunity.