Led Zep Vs Spirit issue

BacteriumFendYoke

Platinum Member
Sampling?

No thievery there. The vast majority of the time, samples are cleared by licensing.

If you want to hear parody of the sampling technique, Aphex Twin's '28 Mixes for Cash' is hilarious. He uses millisecond samples of other pieces in most of the 'remixes' that are imperceptible.

As long as it's done legally, I have absolutely no issue with sampling whatsoever. Sampling is a tool like any other and can be done well and can be done badly. It's an absolutely valid artistic decision - whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

As for the tune? Similar chord progressions are definitely apparent and Zeppelin were known to use other peoples' music as inspiration for their own but this lawsuit is really spurious.
 

harryconway

Platinum Member
Is there a similarity? Sure.

But overall, it seems like a cash grab by people who weren't even affected by it.

from the provided link:


So the estate of a guy who passes away 17 years ago is suing over a song released 43 years ago.

Sounds fishy to me.
Agreed. Similar and identical are two different things. Sure Page might have taken the ball ..... and then he ran with it. Built a whole 'nuther song around it. Added a few other parts. Do enough searching, and you could probably find an earlier song that influenced Randy California.​
 

porter

Platinum Member
Sampling?

No thievery there. The vast majority of the time, samples are cleared by licensing.
Yup. This is kind of a basic technique and not a wholesale steal like it was originally described here. (There's a great episode of a podcast called Song Exploder about a piece that was sampled intensely here- sort of relevant, I guess.)
 

WhoIsTony?

Member
Yup. This is kind of a basic technique and not a wholesale steal like it was originally described here. (There's a great episode of a podcast called Song Exploder about a piece that was sampled intensely here- sort of relevant, I guess.)
great piece their by Alfred Darlnigton

Madvillainy is a great record
 

TheHeelDrummer

Senior Member
The real question is why the other song no one gives a crap about and why Stairway to Heaven is one of the most popular songs of all time.

Obviously the same song.
 

cbphoto

Gold Member
The real question is why the other song no one gives a crap about and why Stairway to Heaven is one of the most popular songs of all time.
+1

Obviously the same song.
Nope. Not even close. One tune has shit-o-la strings borne out of a Precious Moments dream sequence. The other has a solo guitar . . . then Bohham. Clearly not the "same song".

And if the chord progression is the same, then every 12-bar blues written after 1910 would be liable for copyright infringement.
 

Green_C

Member
+1



Nope. Not even close. One tune has shit-o-la strings borne out of a Precious Moments dream sequence. The other has a solo guitar . . . then Bohham. Clearly not the "same song".

And if the chord progression is the same, then every 12-bar blues written after 1910 would be liable for copyright infringement.
As holder of the copyright on the I-IV-V chord pattern I'm going to be rich once I get my list of infringing songs together. I should have it completed in about 40 years. ;^)
 

tamadrm

Platinum Member
Page and Plant,have been on the losing side of several law suits reguarding song writing credit and similar melodies showing up in some Zep tunes.I listened to both tunes and while the Spirit tune is similar,Stairway isn't a direct rip off,as was "He's so Fine",and My Sweet Lord" was...intentional or not.In Harrisons case I believe the later,with Page,not so much.

Listen to "The Lemon Song",and "Killin Floor".Page was sued for that one and lost,and had to give writing credit to Chester Burnett,who wrote "Killin Floor".

Steve B
 

Power Tom

Senior Member
Well, theres has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise copyright doesn't mean anything. Does it not devalue artistry if theres no moral objection to copying songs ideas?

I guess there will be a legal definition as to what constitutes 'theft' or 'breach of copyright' or whatever Zep are supposed to have done and the lawyers will decide if they think Zep breached it or not.
 

Bull

Gold Member
If the plaintiffs win this case,people are going to be forced to stop writing songs.There's not even a melody.
 

Pachikara-Tharakan

Silver Member
Copy and paste from the Mick Jagger- She's the Boss" wiki...

"In 1986, Jamaican reggae singer Patrick Alley attempted to sue Jagger over the song "Just Another Night," which Alley claims he had recorded in 1979 and released on his 1982 album, A Touch of Patrick Alley. Alley claimed that Sly Dunbar (who played drums on She's the Boss) also played on his recording. The case was cleared in 1988, with Jagger stating "My reputation is really cleared. If you're well known, people stand up and take shots at you."

(Sly even brought the kit in the court room and played to the judge....i wonder what tom angle he had at that time)
 

GruntersDad

Administrator - Mayor
Staff member
Here is the main reason. Now that the man, California has passed, his member wants to do something. To date, Stairway to Heaven has raised over 1/2 billion dollars. spirit wants a chunk
 
T

The Old Hyde

Guest
Copy and paste from the Mick Jagger- She's the Boss" wiki...

"In 1986, Jamaican reggae singer Patrick Alley attempted to sue Jagger over the song "Just Another Night," which Alley claims he had recorded in 1979 and released on his 1982 album, A Touch of Patrick Alley. Alley claimed that Sly Dunbar (who played drums on She's the Boss) also played on his recording. The case was cleared in 1988, with Jagger stating "My reputation is really cleared. If you're well known, people stand up and take shots at you."

(Sly even brought the kit in the court room and played to the judge....i wonder what tom angle he had at that time)
hahahah is it so obscure they couldn't find a recording to bring to court?
 

FreDrummer

Silver Member
Although the court will have to look solely at the legal aspects, they've already lost in the court of public opinion:

"FORTY years later?!?! GMAFB!!!!"

It's not as if this "Stairway to Heaven" tune only recently surfaced...
 

Pocket-full-of-gold

Platinum Member
Let's just hope this case isn't heard by the (less than) Honourable Justice Peter Jacobson in the Aussie Federal Court. He seems to have a habit of bad judgement calls when it comes to copy write infringement. Just ask Men At Work who were taken to court, to subsequently lose, what many though was a frivolous claim with little standing. Yet......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_(song)


Edited section from Wiki:

Copyright lawsuit[edit]

Sections of the flute part of the recording of the song were found to be based on the children's song "Kookaburra", written in 1932 by Marion Sinclair. Sinclair died in 1988[3] and the rights to the Kookaburra song were deemed to have been transferred to publisher Larrikin Music on 21 March 1990.[21] In the United States, the rights are administered by Music Sales Corporation in New York City.

In June 2009, 28 years after the release of the recording, Larrikin Music sued Men At Work for copyright infringement, alleging that part of the flute riff of "Down Under" was copied from "Kookaburra". The counsel for the band's record label and publishing company (Sony BMG Music Entertainment and EMI Songs Australia) claimed that, based on the agreement under which the song was written, the copyright was actually held by the Girl Guides Association.[22][23] On 30 July, Justice Peter Jacobson of the Federal Court of Australia made a preliminary ruling that Larrikin did own copyright on the song, but the issue of whether or not Hay and Strykert had plagiarised the riff was set aside to be determined at a later date.[24]

On 4 February 2010, Justice Jacobson ruled that Larrikin's copyright had been infringed because "Down Under" reproduced "a substantial part of Kookaburra".[25]

When asked how much Larrikin would be seeking in damages, Larrikin's lawyer Adam Simpson replied: "anything from what we've claimed, which is between 40 and 60 per cent, and what they suggest, which is considerably less."[26][27][28] In court, Larrikin's principal Norman Lurie gave the opinion that, had the parties negotiated a licence at the outset as willing parties, the royalties would have been between 25 and 50 per cent.[29] On 6 July 2010, Justice Jacobson handed down a decision that Larrikin receive 5% of royalties from 2002.[29][30] In October 2011 the band lost its final court bid when the High Court of Australia refused to hear an appeal.[31]

Since the verdict, Colin Hay has continued to insist that any plagiarism was wholly unintentional. He says that when the song was originally written in 1978, it did not have the musical passage in question, and that it was not until two years later, during a jam rehearsal session, that flautist Greg Ham improvised the riff, perhaps subconsciously recalling "Kookaburra". Hay has also added that Ham and the other members of the band were under the influence of marijuana during that particular rehearsal. Greg Ham was found dead in Melbourne on 19 April 2012. In the months before his death, Ham had been despondent over the verdict, and convinced that "the only thing people will remember me for" would be the plagiarism conviction.


Common sense doesn't always prevail, it would seem.
 

Midnite Zephyr

Platinum Member
I heard about the lawsuit yesterday and heard both opening riffs and must say that Led would be a little lighter in cash if I were the judge or jury. It's too close not to be suspicious, and wouldn't be the first time Led had to pay for "borrowing" others music. Spirit recorded the song in 1968 and Led in 1969 after Spirit was their opening band.
Led Zeppelin 4 was released in Nov. 1971
 
Top