Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay for Plagiarism

[Braincase]

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.


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.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by phillip

Copyright violation doesn't have to be intentional wrongdoing. It can be subconscious. Look up Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs.

I wasn't trying to be comprehensive, just trying to make a quick point.

I don't think my class is a problem. I have a very experienced professor at a top 25 law school.

Edit - From that case:
"What happened? I conclude that the composer,12 in
seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was
working with various possibilities. As he tried this
possibility and that, there came to the surface of his
mind a particular combination that pleased him as
being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective
listener; in other words, that this combination of
sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious
knew it already had worked in a song his conscious
mind did not remember. Having arrived at this
pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was
made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the
song became an enormous success. Did Harrison
deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not
believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear
that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He’s So
Fine with different words,13 and Harrison had access
to He’s So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement
of copyright, and is no less so even though
subconsciously accomplished."

Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.

I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.

[Time's Yours]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

My quote that you quoted was in response to DJ's Left Nut saying there was no possible "ordinary listener" test. That's why I pulled that part out. Like I said, I was pretty sure I had read Satriani could prove access--because ColdPlay was at one of his shows or something--but its been a while

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Do you have a citation for it? I'll take a look at it over the next few days. It seems to me that this interpretation has been disfavored if not outright overturned.

I believe the CA courts have adopted the far more strict definition provided earlier, though I'll need to see the citation first.

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.

There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.

As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?

Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.

[Mile High Mania]

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

I think you're correct here, but a quick keycite would confirm it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Alternate, inconsistent pleadings are allowed in every state in the union.

There's no way in hell they'd have staked their entire case on that one particular theory of recovery. They'd have also provided the standard inference arguments as alternate theories which they could fall back on.

Dude, they gave the guy the song! That's the reason why record companies and music publishers do not allow unsolicited material: They're terrified of copyright lawsuits exactly like this.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

As for your other post - it cuts both ways. If you were certain you didn't plagerize and you were a 'megaband' wouldn't you be eager to prove it in court?

Not in this case.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Like I said, if the evidence involved didn't at least put a scare into Coldplay's counsel, there's no way they'd have settled it. Would it have been enough to support a verdict? Obviously we'll never know, but there had to be something substantial there in order to survive pre-trial dispositive motions and draw a settlement offer that appears to be significantly more than a mere nuisance settlement.

With fans worldwide already extremely fickle, with the fact that Coldplay's own fans believe all their music sounds the same, with declining record sales and with the /Twitter/TMZ age in full-effect, Coldplay (IMO) was smart just to let Capitol Records handle it and move on.

[Time's Yours]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

That's from like 1971. Case law has moved far beyond that.

Its from 76. But the "ordinary person" test that Left Nut WRONGLY called my law class out on still exists according to the link I posted (from a quick google search)

Though the case is old, I believe the basic elements are still alive today, being:
(1) Access (i.e. ColdPlay has heard the song) and
(2) substantial similarity to an ordinary listener

Experts are heavily used to determine which parts may have been infringed and how close they are, etc. But the test the jury is to use is whether to an ordinary person they sound substantially similar.

Dane, I never disputed that access was a requirement.

citation is: 420 F.Supp. 177

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by phillip

Its from 76. But the "ordinary person" test that Left Nut WRONGLY called my law class out on still exists according to the link I posted (from a quick google search)

Though the case is old, I belive the basic elements are still alive today, being:
(1) Access (i.e. ColdPlay has heard the song) and
(2) substantial similarity to an ordinary listener

Experts are heavily used to determine which parts may have been infringed and how close they are, etc. But the test the jury is to use is whether to an ordinary person they sound substantially similar.

Dane, I never disputed that access was a requirement.

citation is: 420 F.Supp. 177

1 is far more important today than 2.

I mentioned this very early in this thread. Case law has now evolved to the point that Joe Satriani would have to prove that Coldplay heard his song before releasing their song.

Otherwise, it's case dismissed.

[Time's Yours]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

1 is far more important today than 2.

I mentioned this very early in this thread. Case law has now evolved to the point that Joe Satriani would have to prove that Coldplay heard his song before releasing their song.

Otherwise, it's case dismissed.

1 was important at that time too. The "He's so Fine" song was so popular the court took for granted that Harrison had heard it. But wasn't Coldplay at one of Satriani's shows or something???

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

You missed the most important part:

The plaintiffs alleged they submitted their song for recording by Vassar and that Vassar rejected the song. Plaintiffs later recorded, copyrighted, and released the song on their own. Vassar also later recorded a song that plaintiffs alleged infringed on their copyright in the song they recorded.

So in this case, there is definite proof that Vassar heard the song, firsthand.

In the Satriani case, that would have to be established otherwise, Satriani would lose.

Proving that would have been extremely difficult.

Ah, let me re-address as I didn't read this post correctly the first time. The critical component is the bolded part.

Are you still attempting to assert that this can only be provenvia direct evidence? Because that's absolutely not true. In Vassar's case, that's what they attempted to do, but it's certainly not the only way to go about it. As I spent several posts trying to show you the first time around, this can be 'proven' via inference.

I think it's far FAR more than 10% likely that a jury would hear these two songs played together and infer that Coldplay ripped the song from Satriani.

[Time's Yours]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think you're correct here, but a quick keycite would confirm it.

KeyCite only has one case distinguishing it, and that case is from S.D.N.Y.

[Time's Yours]

Here's more from that Scott and Scott website:

"Courts use the substantial similarity test to determine the net impression of the ordinary observer and to decide whether a reasonable, ordinary juror could find, based on the “overall look and feel” of the relevant expressive elements, that the two works are substantially similar."

Dane, you might be right about Satriani being unable to prove access, but if Satriani could show that Coldplay heard the song, these two are definitely similar enough to cause a problem legally, IMO.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by phillip

KeyCite only has one case distinguishing it, and that case is from S.D.N.Y.

But so is Brighttunes, which would be why the case distinguishing it is from the same district. The rest of the legal world doesn't give a rip.

Has this standard been adopted by the California courts? I don't believe it has been.

The Southern District of NY has absolutely no say in what standard to apply here. My recollection is that the standard in California is an intentional misappropriation standard.

In which case, the ordinary person standard is inapplicable.

[Time's Yours]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But so is Brighttunes, which would be why the case distinguishing it is from the same district. The rest of the legal world doesn't give a rip.

Has this standard been adopted by the California courts? I don't believe it has been.

The Southern District of NY has absolutely no say in what standard to apply here. My recollection is that the standard in California is an intentional misappropriation standard.

In which case, the ordinary person standard is inapplicable.

Could be different in CA...but honestly, I don't care enough to research CA copyright law, so I'll leave that to you guys if you want to hash it out.

I was just making a quick point since I thought it was funny we had just studied this briefly. You called out my class saying there couldn't possibly be an ordinary person standard. Obviously, that standard exists in an least some jurisdictions.

I'm going to bed, lol.