tommyo (02/25/83)
So the Brothers Gibb have been found guilty of plagiarism. It seems almost impossible. For you uninformed, a fellow from Ill. took the Bee Gees to court, saying that their hit HOW DEEP IS YOUR LOVE from "Saturday Night Fever" was stolen from a song he had written about 2 years earlier, I forget his title. The words differed, but the music was supposedly similar. The "original" had never been released though it got sent to some record companies. Anyway, a court found the Bee Gees guilty. There was a copy of the opening notes from each version in today`s Chicago Sun-Times. You couldn`t trade songs note for note, but they were very close, the first 4 or 5 being exactly the same. Personally, I can`t believe that such a popular group with such talent would actually purposely "steal" somebody`s song. As a followup, wasn`t George Harrison sued some years back for copywrite infringment? As I recall, it was claimed that his MY SWEET LORD was taken from the old Chiffons tune HE`S SO FINE. Does anyone remember if he lost or won that case? Tom O`Connor ihuxw!tommyo
trb (02/25/83)
Re: What happenned with the "My Sweet Lord" case? As a followup, yea, Harrison was sued by the Shirelles cuz "My Sweet Lord" was a hack on "He's so Fine." Harrison lost, and he later wrote a song called "This Song" which was his commentary on the whole affair, in which he claimed that this song wasn't stolen from anywhere, etc. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
ljm (02/25/83)
This decision bothers me a lot. The good news is that Harrison eventually prevailed on appeal, so maybe there is a precedent. As a musician, and also as someone who spent ten years in radio, and also produced a few records, this whole deal is so blatant that my stomagh hurts when I think about it: some bozo decides he can make a few bucks by harassing a celebrity, files a copyright infringement claim, gets a jury trial (the real goal - since a jury is almost always unqualified in such matters and will side with a percieved 'underdog'), and wins a decision based on ignorance... First (and I hope the BEE GEES lawyers out there are taking notes) - what was the motive for the Bee Gees to steal this guys sone? None. They know (or their management knows) what the penalties are, and what legal hassle would ensue. Also, if they really like the song, they could cover it and pay the guy his mechanicals anyway. Second, what was their opportunity to copy this song? Probably zero. If the guy sent his demo to "a couple of record companies", I can tell you what happened to it: it got thrown in a bin with about 200 other tapes (a good weeks' average), and then maybe some one listened to it on a Friday afternoon after the beer party and threw it back in the bin. Jeez, I heard the tape on the news and it sounded like dogfood to me productionwise -- that alone would bury it in the trash. Third, a decision like this sets a really bad precedent: Hell, a lot of songs sound alike -- anybody who's been in radion will tell you that one of the ways to program music is to find and exploit these similarities. (Sometimes this is called 'segueing' songs together). If there were a suit filed for every instance of apparent similarity, the courts would be clogged for centuries. Fourth, the songs aren't that close! The first few notes are the same - that happens all the time. The rest of the melody, and the modulation into the bridges, are vbery different. Almost any trained musician should be able to testify to this. I'm extremely disappointed that the defense councel didn't do a better job on this point at least. Now, please don't assume I'm a Bee Gees fan (ugh). But these guys are really getting the shaft, and that's good for them, or the music world. Boy am I pissed, Lou Mazzucchelli decvax!brunix!ljm
gh (02/25/83)
I agree that the verdict is very peculiar. According to our local newspaper report, the jury found that there was "infringement, intentional or not". Yet according to my favorite source on copyright(*), infringement must be intentional, and the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendent had knoweldge of the original work. If the Gibbs just happened to write a very similar song, they should be in the clear. The George Harrison case with "My Sweet Lord" vs. "He's So Fine" turned on the point that George *must* have heard the original, and the melody that he thought he was creating was actually coming out of his dim memory. Graeme Hirst, Brown CS decvax!brunix!gh gh.brown@udel-relay (*) William S. Strong. "The Copyright Book". MIT Press, 1981. [The best guide for discusssions of the 1978 copyright law.]
dfz (02/25/83)
I believe George Harrison settled the "My Sweet Lord" case out of court for $500,000. He then wrote "This Song", which purportedly was his cynical response to the whole matter.
hal (02/25/83)
Yup. George Harrison lost his copyright infringment case also. It's a good thing Bach lived several hundred years ago. He would be up to his ears in copyright litigation if he had to put up with such laws. Our legal system seems to have lost the distinction between theft of intellectual property and coincidental similarities or using another composer's material as the inspiration for an original work of art. Hal Perkins
orel (03/01/83)
As has already been mentioned, George lost his case. What has not been mentioned is that he was found guilty by reason of "subconciously" copying the song, or something like that. In other words, he did not have to intentionally do it to be guilty. He just admitted that, yes, maybe the song happenned to be on the radio just before he wrote "My Sweet Lord," so maybe it was still on his mind. Maybe. Then again, if George was guilty, why oh why have Jagger & Richard(s) not sued Ray Davies for his ripoff of "Jumping Jack Flash" in his 1979 song "Catch Me Now (I'm Falling)." Maybe the Stones have too much class to do that sort of thing... Not about to infringe on anyone's copyright -- -- Matt Orel (!decvax!yale-comix!orel)