Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay for Plagiarism
 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/160...coldplay.jhtml

Dec 5 2008 9:27 AM EST
Coldplay Sued By Joe Satriani For Allegedly Plagiarizing 'Viva La Vida' Melody

Guitarist claims the Grammy-nominated song is a rip-off of his track 'If I Could Fly.'

By Gil Kaufman




Not long after Coldplay's Viva la Vida album hit shelves this summer, the blogosphere exploded with suggestions that the title track bore a striking resemblance to a 2004 instrumental track by rock guitarist Joe Satriani titled "If I Could Fly."
Now, Satriani has accused the band of copyright infringement in a lawsuit filed on Thursday in Los Angeles federal court, according to a Reuters report.
A day after the Coldplay album was nominated for seven Grammys, including Record and Song of the Year for "Viva la Vida," Satriani's suit claims that "Viva" incorporates "substantial original portions" of his track "If I Could Fly," from the Is There Love in Space? album.
<embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:264962" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="configParams=instance%3Dnews%26vid%3D264962" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" base="." width="256" height="223">

Satriani, 52, is seeking a jury trial in the dispute, as well as damages and "any and all profits" attributable to the alleged copyright infringement. The songwriting credit on the Coldplay song is attributed to the band's four members: singer Chris Martin, bass player Guy Berryman, guitarist Jonny Buckland and drummer Will Champion. A spokesperson for Coldplay could not be reached for comment at press time.
Satriani isn't the only artist who has claimed the Coldplay song was eerily familiar. Around the time of the album's release, a lesser-known New York band named Creaky Boards claimed that Martin had attended one of their gigs and would have heard the tune "The Songs I Didn't Write," which also bears a similar melody. At the time, Coldplay's spokespeople denied that Martin was at the gig and said the band had written "Viva" several months before that show.


Here's a nice link to a youtube comparison of the two songs.


Based on my observation, Coldplay better get their checkbook out.

That's very difficult to prove in a court of law but I wish Joe all the best.

I HATE Can't Play.

Jesus.

That's about as blatant as it gets.

Apparently Gwyneth isn't that hip to them these days either.

I knew I had heard that song somewhere before -- so once I saw this earlier today, it was nice to learn I wasn't nuts.

Well, at least not when it comes to this issue.

MM
~~:)

:clap: No shit. Chicks love that band for some reason. Why do so many chicks have such aweful taste in music?

I saw coldplay live at the sprint center, they were amazing, but i like the previous albums

I've never heard of the first guy, but coldplay is pretty sweet. they rocked sprint center

What kind of guitarist doesn't know who Satch is?

song sounds great on the youtube link where they actually play the 2 songs at the same time.

the guitar fills out the song nicely

gah my avy spoiled my fishing attempt

I can totally believe that this wasn't intentional. I don't think for a second that anyone in Coldplay has listened to a Satriani record before.

So it probably isn't plagarism without any intent behind it. Who knows.

Satch > Coldplay, btw.

Yeah, it really did. There needs to me a full-on remix; I'd listen to it a lot.

This is totally accidental and there are probably at least 100 songs out there that are exactly the same as these two.

Here are the chords.
C - D - G - emin


The melody is only the same for three notes over the first two chords. After that, they are actually pretty different melodies, but of course the two harmonize together since they're played out of the same scale and over the same chords. Satch knows this wasn't done on purpose. He's well aware of how generic the two songs are and how common that melody is over these chords.

Name four other songs with that riff and that tempo and I'll side with your argument. If you check out the youtube link in the original post, you'll understand why Joe has a good case. You could have them both perform at the same time on the same stage... and you'd go away believing that at least one person on the stage knew what he was doing.

Then why is he suing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3kytzHrKpo&NR=1

His full-version mash-up.

Why don't they just tour together. make a zillion dollars and call it a day. Hell might even make coldplay bareable for those of us who like a silky smooth vagina over a brazen hard asshole

After actually hearing the comparison, there is no doubt in my mind that Satriani will receive a share of the royalties for this song.

The letter of the law states "Lyrics and Melody". The melodies are nearly identical throughout, as is the tempo and arrangement. That is NOT accidental.

Furthermore, while don't think this is "intentional", it did happen. Chris Martin probably heard the Satriani song in passing years ago, only to write his version years later. A lot of times, composers don't understand where the "music comes". I'm sure he wrote it not realizing that he'd heard that melody and song at some point in years past.

Regardless, I'd be shocked if the judge didn't award 50% of the royalties and copyright credit to Joe Satch.

Yeah, its hard for me to see how Satch wouldn't receive some percentage of the royalties. And you would know more than I would.

I just let my wife listen to this (she's a huge Coldplay fan) and she goes "They don't sound anything alike."

I called her reeruned, kicked her out of the room and now she's pissed at me. Oh well. It was worth it.

I hope you're right.

Here's one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G57CgtX-BsI

Once it gets to the verses. The guitar melody is the same for the first two chords. The rest is different enough that the casual listener won't compare the two, but the parts that are similar are the exact same parts. The same three notes being played over the same two chords for the same duration. It happens a lot.

While the initial guitar line may be similar, 80% of the song is different. That's very unlike the Coldplay/Satriani comparison.

VERY different.

Again, letter of the law states "Lyric and Melody".

Joe most certainly has a case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQCymJjKLsM

Here's number two.

The exact same chord progression. The vocal melody isn't the same, but the same three notes are the top line on the piano throughout. Same shit.

The only thing that is similar about the Coldplay/Satriani case is those three notes over the first two chords. I just pointed out another case where a song has those exact same three notes over the exact same first two chords. It doesn't matter how similar or how different the rest of the song is.

I think Joe's a much better musician, and I really could care less about Coldplay. I don't listen to much modern stuff. But you're not really making an argument here man. Lyric and melody... Joe's stuff doesn't have any lyrics. Coldplay's melody is only the same for three notes. Of course, they're the hook notes and they're repeated over and over again, so you're going to latch onto those. But, I've just given two other examples where those same three notes are used in a similar fashion. As I was instructed to do.

Admittedly, I'm having trouble finding a 3rd or 4th. I've found plenty of songs that have the same progression, but none that use those exact three notes in the same spot. But I think the point is pretty clear that it's common enough that Joe shouldn't think he's got a patent on it.

Dude, look: I worked in a executive position for two of the biggest music publishing companies in the world for more than a decade. I know and understand copyright law as well or better than maybe all but a handful of people on the planet. Not Chiefsplanet, planet Earth.

Given Braincase's example, Joe Satriani ABSOLUTELY has a case. Not only can you lie the songs over each other to hear the similarities, they're the same exact tempo and same exact structure. Chris Martin's melody is a near perfect match for Satriani's guitar line.

Huey Lewis won a similar case in the 1980's. The "Ghostbuster's Theme" was deemed a copy of "I Want a New Drug" and Lewis was awarded royalties and copyrights and IMO, Satriani has a stronger case.

Again, I'd be absolutely SHOCKED if Satriani weren't granted 50% of the copyrights to the Coldplay song.

It's not a patent: It's a copyright.

And yes, Satriani DOES own the copyright to his song.

That part...right there is exactly why Coldplay will be cutting checks to Satriani.

Yeah, the cord progression is pretty basic and if they were the same and that was all it was then that would be it. But because of the structure, tempo, melody being the f'ing same it's a rip job and Coldplay's sucktitude continues to be confirmed.

I'm pretty sure Vanilla Ice ended up cutting a check to Queen for about 7 notes in Ice Ice Baby as well.

Well in reality, it's the copyright assignment and back royalties. Any further royalties due after the settlement would defer to the new copyright splits (50/50, 40/60 or whatever).

No money will come out of Coldplay's pocket. The music publisher will owe Satriani his back royalties if the judgment is made in his favor. The music publisher at that point would make a financial adjustment to Coldplay's co-publishing account in the amount of back royalties due to Satriani.

Regarding Vanilla Ice, he "sampled" the David Bowie/Freddie Mercury song. Before ANY royalties can be paid (mechanical, performance or sync), the song splits must be agreed upon by all interested parties (in this case, Bowie, Mercury and "Ice").

I think Satriani's case is considerably less valid than Huey Lewis,' but I should say that my opinion is that neither case should (should have) been held up. There are only 12 notes in all of western music. There are only 6 practical and common chords to use in any given key. Of all the millions of songs written every year, you just can't make any completely original pop song anymore. That's not to say that if it's obvious that somebody is just re-writing somebody else's songs that they shouldn't have to split royalties. But I don't think this is a Dane Cook situation here. This is coincidental, and all you do is lower the bar for music everywhere when you make musicians comb the entire history of music to see if they're allowed to publish a song they wrote in good faith. Lets not forget that George Harrison was also sued for the same thing. You'd have to be smoking crack to think that George Harrison is ripping people off.

If you can't hear or understand these facts, then your opinion is absolutely invalid:

1. Joe Satriani is known worldwide and has sold ten of millions of records.
2. Satriani's song was released four years prior to Coldplay's.
3. The main melody is identical.
4. The key of the song is identical
5. The arrangement is nearly identical
6. The tempo is exactly the same.
7. The simple fact that you can lay one song over the other and they're in perfect time and pitch is an excellent indicator of plagiarism.

Again, the Letter of the Law states "Lyric and Melody". Lyric being 50% and Melody being 50%. There is no statute for chord progressions or percussion or production or anything else. Lyric & Melody.

In my professional opinion (backed up by nearly 40 years in the music business, more than a decade spent in music publishing including copyrights, royalties, business affairs and creative), Joe Satriani deserves his day in court.

PERIOD.

And as far as originality is concerned, if you don't think that original and creative music is being recorded everyday across the globe, you're either not exposed or you just have absolutely no clue as to what you're talking about.

I interrupt this debate with Satriani news....

http://www.thequake1021.com/modules....ticle&sid=1221

I'd say Joe's gonna get paid. Way too similar to be an accident...

While we're on this subject, what the hell is up with Kid Rock using "Werewolves of London" to sing about "Sweet Home Alabama"? I'm a bit confused:

Kid Rock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwIGZLjugKA

Warren Zevon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhSc8qVMjKM

Skynrd's Sweet Home Alabama (which actually sounds like "Werewolves" if you remove parts of the guitar)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huLklsj_5HI

Aside from the fact that apparently you listen to this guy....

http://www.concertshots.com/August%2...lanta82402.JPG

Notice the sparkly shirt... AWESOME!

that may be intriguing.

Man. You really like to win, don't you? If Joe thinks that Alvin and the Chipmunks stole something from him, then he deserves his day in court. I'm offering my opinion here. Now, of course, my opinion DOES have merit, despite what you say. Yours does too. If you think the songs are too close then Satriani might want you to be the judge in this case. But I'm not backtracking on my opinion just because you disagree man. So, lets take your argument. Line by line.

1. I know who the guy is. I know he's popular. But that's not exactly relevant.
2. Obviously his song came out first. If it hadn't then this would all be a really dumb argument.
3. The main melody is NOT identical. It contains the same first three notes, and then it is completely different. Further, each song doesn't even have consistent "endings" to the phrase. Each time through the changes, both songs vary what they do over the G and Emin chords. But since the first three notes are the hook for both songs, that's what the listener's ear latches onto.
4. The key of the song IS identical. That's true. But, news flash. There are only 12 keys. Of those keys only 8 of them get used on a regular basis. That includes EVERY song that has been written in the western hemisphere that any human has ever heard. The key of G (these songs) is probably the tied for the most popular key with the key of C.
5. The arrangement isn't just "nearly" identical. It's exactly identical. It's a four chord progression that's been used since the invention of the piano on zillions of songs. (IV-V-I-vi) in the key of G. But if we outlawed anybody else to play any progressions that have been played before... We need to stop making music right now.
6. The tempo is most certainly not the same. The "Meshup" was doctored so that you could hear the two songs together. Satriani's tune is about 15 BPM slower at 128 BMP on average. Coldplays is significantly faster at 142. Both would be considered pretty up-tempo tunes, even for rock. But if you played the two cds together you're not going to get anything like that youtube vid.
7. Your last point only proves that when you take two songs of the same key and slow one down to make it the same tempo as the other, that they will sound good together. Well, that's the whole point of a key! It's so that I can play in the same key as somebody else and always harmonize with them. These are two songs that have the same chord progression and the same first three notes in the melody. That happens a lot, as I tried to show below. But you just don't want to hear my opinion, and for some reason want to bash my reasons and appeal to your authority on the subject. I'm just talking about the songs.

Win?

Please list your music publishing and copyright credentials.

Then, we'll have a proper discussion.

Otherwise, you're just spewing a bunch of worthless nonsense.

He's not singing 'about' Sweet home Alabama. The song refers to a time of his youth in northern Michigan.

Yes, I got that. Godawful song. I was talking about the line "singing Sweet Home Alabama all summer long". I thought it was a tribute song or something.

Coldplay will be cutting some checks to Satriani over this.

You can't make it any more clear than you did. Coldplay should hire you. If I was on the jury, I'd vote in favor of Coldplay after what you just posted.

There's nothing original about a 4/4 tempo... And, for that matter, apparently that melody.

Coldplay is guilty. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Are you joking?

Seriously?

Um, apparently, you know absolutely nothing about music.

I wonder who Joe stole it from?

Not at all. I thought mcan presented a pretty sound defense for Cold Play. If I was on the jury, I'd rule in their favor.

And for what it's worth, I'm a fan of Satch, and don't really listen to Coldplay.

I know enough to know that a 4/4 tempo isn't patented.

Ding

Patented?

ROFL

Then you're ****ing stupid.

For once, I totally agree with everything Dane has said about something.

As a musician, I cannot fathom how anyone can NOT hear the obvious similarities.

I hear the obvious similarities of four songs. Dane is right, they sound familiar. Mcan is right, that's because the chord arrangement is pretty generic.

As a musician, I know that C-D-G is pretty damn common too. No ballad could have been written in the last 30 years without it.

So, if they're similar enough that you can lay one on top of the other, hear the melody of Coldplay's song follow JS' solo nearly perfectly . . . how is that not some kind of actionable legal issue?

As a musician, you're certainly no prodigy.

First off, 4/4 does NOT refer to Tempo, as I stated earlier. It refers to Time Signature. Both songs are at the same exact TEMPO, meaning the same exact beats per minute. That is exclusive from time signature. That is no coincidence.

Secondly, the case at hand has absolutely NOTHING to do with the commonality of the chord progression and EVERYTHING to do with melody and plagiarism.

Again, copyright law states "Lyrics and Melody". If the melody is identical, regardless of the underlying "chords", that's plagiarism by the book.

Comprende?

Intellectual property is a very difficult concept for most people to understand. And YES, Satriani copyrighted the melody heard in both songs four years before Coldplay. The similarities are such that Satriani most certainly has evidence of plagiarism.

Copywrite is established at publication, correct?

Can we get a link to this piece of Legislation?

Dane, what does Case Law say in this matter?

I don't care about the rest of the stuff in this thread, I'd agree w/ whatever Case Law says about intentional or unintentional plagiarism.

Not necessarily.

You could write a song, record it and apply for US copyrights. No one but your friends and family may ever hear the song, but you own the copyright to that song.

Before a song is released to the general public, a lawyer will recommend that you copyright your material, regardless of whether or not you have a publisher. If you material is released through a record label it's very likely that you will or would have signed a publishing deal with a music publishing company and at that time (for as long as the contract states), the music publishing company owns the copyright and can exploit the song as they see fit.

Once that deal is signedm the music publisher will take (in this instance) 25% of the song earnings (royalties) for administering (i.e., collecting) royalties. Advances on future earnings are very common as well (sometimes into the millions).

As I stated earlier, if a judgment is made in Satriani's favor, Coldplay will NOT be "cutting checks" to him. The music publisher will re-assign the rights to the song so that future earning reflect his share. Any royalties due would be paid to Satch by the publishing company but that amount will be recoupable by Coldplay.

So for example, if that song has generated $4 million in revenues, Coldplay's account would be given a negative balance (unrecouped). Coldplay would then need to earn $4 million and one dollar before receiving any further royalties from publishing.

The guitar in that song sounds like Satriani's too. Should Joe be suing them too or should they be suing Joe?

Huey Lewis won.

Jagger/Richards own ALL of the Verve's song "Bittersweet Symphony",

There are too many cases of plagiarism to cite.

The bottom line IMEO is that Satriani definitely has a case and as stated earlier, I'd be shocked if he wasn't awarded a share of the song.

I never realized that about Bittersweet Symphony...Sort of Ironic, considering the title of the song.

Looks like I've got some reading to do.

That matter was settled - I imagine the Verve didnt have (at that stage) the $$$ to fight it.

Coldplay would have deep pockets.

Additionally, bittersweet symphony was a sampling case.

Clearly, you have no understanding of copyright law or intellectual property.

It isn't about "pocketbooks".

JFC.

It's PROTECTION.

The Verve case isn't exactly parallel, since the issue was an actual sample of a Rolling Stones song, not a ripped-off chord progression.

I just wasn't sure why you would raise a case that was settled out of court over a different issue (sampling), when you were asked to provide case law for the purposes of establishing a precedent?

But you're right, my grasp of American copyright and IP law is probably fairly weak, why the hell would I know anything about it?

I'd still like to see the relevant legislation, if that's where your "Lyrics an Melody" test is from. If it's a test from a case - I'd like to see that aswell.

The point being that the courts side with the copyright owners.

I was surprised at that ruling, honestly. But it just goes to show that the courts don't mess around.

Case law? Go **** yourself. Huey Lewis vs. Ray Johnson wasn't enough? There are hundreds of cases. Go research them yourself, Dickbag.

And while you're at it, go **** yourself.

****.

Why?

Do you represent songwriters in which you're currently "bleeding"?

That wouldn't surprise me.

Google is probably difficult for a dumb**** like yourself.

Roy Junior's brighter than you.

Holy crap dane, there was no ruling, the case was settled.

And, according to http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60402 , my guess about the band lacking the finances to fight the legal battle was spot on.

I doubt you know half as much as you claim to do, regardless of your supposed career.

Yeah for Wikipedia and websites. ROFL

Go **** yourself.

Well as usual, you are completely ****ing wrong.

Now, go **** yourself.

I'm surprised that such a hotshot hollywood executive who knows more about IP than but a mere few on the planet (earth) would use a case to make a point when he wasn't aware that the case didn't actually make it to judgement.

So, given your one person post from 2004, we're supposed to assume exactly what?

The bottom line is that copyright law is copyright law. If Coldplay and Satriani agree to terms outside of a jury ruling, are we to assume that the law didn't apply? The same laws apply to Jagger/Richards and The Verve.

Give me a ****ing break.

Your retort to being called out on seemingly knowing sweet-fuck-all about the Bittersweet Symphony case is that I've used the internet to collect some basic facts about it?

I'd rather use the simple resources in the time available to learn what basically occurred than spew complete excrement and hope people will blindly eat it up because I've talked up how important I used to be in the entertainment industry.

Furthermore, it appears that you can't even use Google effectively, ****:

Originally, The Verve had negotiated a license to use a sample from the Oldham recording, but it was successfully argued that the Verve had used 'too much' of the sample.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4]</sup> Despite having original lyrics, the music of "Bitter Sweet Symphony" is largely based on the Oldham track (the song uses the sample as its foundation and then builds upon, though the continuous riff is Ashcroft's creation), which led to a lawsuit with ABKCO Records, Allen Klein's company that owns the rights to the Rolling Stones material of the 1960s. The matter was eventually settled, with copyright of the song reverting to ABKCO and songwriting credits to Jagger and Richards.

In a Cash For Questions interview with Q magazine in 1998, Keith Richards was asked if he thought it was harsh taking all The Verve's royalties from Bitter Sweet Symphony to which he replied, "I'm out of wack here, this is serious lawyer shit. If The Verve can write a better song, they can keep the money."

ROFLROFLROFL

I'll tell you what you little piece of crocodile, criminal shit: I'll put my assets, bank account and life up against your pitiful existence any day of the week.

Again, go **** yourself.

It's all you've got.