Jessie J Sued for Plagiarising Melody

Some of you may remember my post about Men at Work being sued for plagiarising Kookaboora sits in the old gum tree in their hit Down Under

This is something that fascinates me, how someone can claim a group of notes formed into a melody for themselves and then try to seek compensation from those who "copy" it. The latest high profile case is that of Jessie J being sued by a band called "Loomis and The Lust" for using a melody from their song Bright Red Chords in her song Domino.

Related Articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/9359136/Jessie-J-sued-over-hit-Domino.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18616154

From what I can see, the dispute is in the similarities between the melodies of the two phrases of the verse starting at 0:06 in Domino ("I'm feeling sexy and free; like glitter's raining on me") and 0:22 in Bright Red Chords ("I put the needle in the groove; to a song that fits the mood").

Having listened to the two versions many times now, I can see how they are *similar* but not how one is a copy of the other. I've transcribed the melodies as I hear them:

Domino

Bright Red Chords

Following is my thoughts on similarities and differences between them.

Similarities:

• Start points: The melodies both start after a quaver rest on the first beat of the final bar of a 4-bar phrase (in the case of domino, the 4th bar of the entire song, in the case of Bright Red Chords, on the 12th bar)
  
• Tempo: Domino is 127bpm, Bright Red Chords is 120bpm
  
• Melodic Intervals: They both start by alternating between the 6th, rising to the tonic and back again in quaver beats.

Differences:

• Context: Domino is a pop song about a girl begging the love of her life to spend the night with her, bright red chords is a pop rock song about dancing to a great song the singer has put on his record player..
  
• Key: Domino is in Gmajor, Bright Red Chords in Dmajor
  
• Harmony: Domino has a guitar playing a riff based on power chords under the melody: Iii (G/D), IV ©, Ii (G/B), IV ©. Bright Red Chords has no no harmony under the melody, but a repeating guitar/bass riff playing around it: I (D), V (A)

There's probably more. Feel free to add and share your thoughts. Thinking back to the men at work case, can someone legitimately claim copyright to a group of notes strung together in a similar melodic/rhythmic pattern without taking into account the context that they are being played in?

*Note: Edited to add transcription of melodies as attachments*

I've just seen that the artist has placed a "mashup" of his melody, transposed up to match the Key of Domino and dubbed over Jessie J's song. You can hear that here: http://www.loomisandthelust.com/ (who's plagiarising now?!)

Given that the melodies are only *similar* and not *the same*, do you think that this is more of a publicity stunt than a serious lawsuit?

do you think that this is more of a publicity stunt than a serious lawsuit?

My view of it is this.

People should be more concerned with creating new and innovative sounds/songs/art instead of being concerned with "FAME". After all, why do you create art? Because you feel completely compelled to do so or are you motivated by a desire for money and fame? Those who copy other artists are not artists but charlatans and wannabes. We see enough evidence of that. There is nothing wrong with being influenced by other artists. Of course that is completely unavoidable. But outright plagiarism is a copout .

That being said. I am a big proponent of copyright law. It's no different than patent law, or any other property rights. I believe this is tough to call. There are obvious similarities and obvious differences between the two songs. It seems like a publicity stunt or a frivolous lawsuit.

Either way, to my ears they both sound like something I've already heard.

Can someone legitimately claim copyright to a group of notes strung together in a similar melodic/rhythmic pattern without taking into account the context that they are being played in?

Yes, context is immaterial. So is tempo. So is genre and key. So is everything else except melody and lyrics.

On one hand, the questions you're posing here serve the purpose of exploring the notion of "what is copyrightable", but on the other hand your argument seems biased against composers and songwriters having any rights to protect or put value on their works: you characterized a melody as merely "a group of notes strung together" and to me, that choice of words sets out to minimize, denigrate, and otherwise render valueless the efforts of any composer or songwriter. From this, I get the distinct feeling that you think that music composed by any individual should be free for anyone else to exploit. Is this in fact your position?

Ouch, no, ski! I do not mean to consider a songwriter or composer's efforts immaterial. You hit on my definition of a melody in the wrong way. If my post comes across as me questioning the validity of copyright as a whole then it certainly wasnt intentional! The questions I am posing are most certainly "what is copyrightable" and, specifically, "at what point does a melody/rhythmic pattern/lyric/harmony or combinaton of all become a copy of something rather than something that is similar"?

I refer to the current situation between these two artists as a case in point and was hoping it would spark discussion mainly around these points.

OK, cool, thanks for clarifying that! I was all, like, getting my back up and stuff. Now I can relax! 8)

The question of "what constitutes plagiarism" is definitely a tricky one. Here's a story from a composer friend of mine who was asked to write a "sound alike" of a famous piece by a classical composer whose music is still under copyright. There was a musicologist on the gig, hired to evaluate the pieces he and a team of other composers were writing for that project (they were all "sound alikes").

After he submitted the piece, the musicologist came back and basically told him to go back to the drawing board; while the melody and chord progressions weren't infringing on the original piece, what my friend wrote was to much "in the spirit" of the original. And he cited court cases where infringement was declared for this very nebulous concept of "spirit".

Makes ya go "hmmm...", right?

Interesting stuff.

Regards,

Ski

Just for the record (or CD or digital download ... )

Don't try to use 'Happy Birthday.'

Don't try to use 'Happy Birthday.'

Here's a story from a composer friend of mine who was asked to write a "sound alike" of a famous piece by a classical composer whose music is still under copyright. There was a musicologist on the gig, hired to evaluate the pieces he and a team of other composers were writing for that project (they were all "sound alikes").

 

After he submitted the piece, the musicologist came back and basically told him to go back to the drawing board; while the melody and chord progressions weren't infringing on the original piece, what my friend wrote was to much "in the spirit" of the original. And he cited court cases where infringement was declared for this very nebulous concept of "spirit".

 

Makes ya go "hmmm...", right?

Sound-alikes are a completely different ball game to the "domino vs bright red chords" and "Down under vs kookaboora" situations as they are coming from the angle of "how can we completely rip off this entire piece and make it different enough so that we dont have to pay royalties to the original composer?". I know a lot of people make a living from this sort of thing but, to me, that is the worst form of plagiarism! I'd be interested to know the trade off in costs between commissioning someone to write a sound-alike and the costs in ensuring that it's ok legally against the cost of just using the original and paying the damned composer his/her royalty.

Exactly. How does one define "spirit"? Can't be copyrighted, but apparently it's enough of a factor to carry some weight, and that's why I brought it up. What it suggests is that a charge of plagiarism can be legally pursued based on a much less tangible thing than music (melody) and/or lyrics.

Re sound-alikes, the savings in cost can sometimes be substantial enough to make it worthwhile to hire a composer and a musicologist.

Strange, but true.

About that "spirit", I distinctly remember that somewhere in the nineties in commercials a lot of tunes/music started popping up that had the exact sound of some megahit ("Englishman in New York"), but some very obvious different notes/chords at some points in the music. I always wondered how legal that was, on the other hand, it sounded like they very deliberately and cleverly changed some chords and notes to avoid any copyright lawsuits - the tunes sounded as if they were composed by a lawyer.

Still, to me it always sounded as if they had plagiarised the sound ("spirit"?). Nothing that would show up on a score though. And I never heard of any lawsuits against any of these commercial-composers...

Kinda reminds me of the trouble that John Fogarty had with his song The Old Man Down the Road. Saul Zaentz owned the copyright to all of Fogarty's old material with Credence Clearwater Revival and claimed that Old Man sounded too much like the CCR hit Run Through the Jungle. He was actually trying to sue Fogarty over this but Zaentz eventually lost out on that case.

I can definitely hear the similaritys between the two songs but they're not the same and I'm glad that Fogarty won out on that one.

the tunes sounded as if they were composed by a lawyer.

That's brilliant! Spot on. Mind if I use that one?

I recently heard a sound-alike of Take Me Out to the Ballgame on an episode of American Pickers. It was SOOOOOO badly done it wasn't funny. It was like, yeah, a lawyer was sitting there and telling the composer:

Lawyer: Now you have to go up because they went down there.

Composer: Like this? (dink, dink dink dink dink dink... dink...)

Lawyer: Yeah, that's good, but on the second dink you should probably do more.

Composer: The second... dink?

Lawyer: The second, you know, thing you did.

Composer: Thing?

Lawyer: Oh, what do you call them... Keys? Tones?

Composer: Notes. They're called notes.

Lawyer: Right, notes, of course! You'd think I'd remember from high school. I played trumpet.

Composer: That's nice. OK, how much more?

Lawyer: Right. So on the second note, do more.

Composer: How much more?

Lawyer: I dunno, more so that it's not the same, but not too much more because we still need it to sound familiar.

Composer: How about this? (dink, diddily dink dink dink dink... dink....)

Laywer: Wow, you play really well.

Composer: Thanks. How was that?

Laywer: Yeah, I liked the trumpet, but I never thought I could make a living at it. And then there was pressure from the 'rents to join dad's litigation firm. I'll bet I still have that thing up in the attic. Maybe I should look for it, practice a little, and then I could help you out.

Composer: Thanks, but we're on a deadline. So what about that last thing I played?

Laywer: I think that might be too much. Can you try one less? And go down instead of up?

...and so it goes...

It was like, yeah, a lawyer was sitting there and telling the composer:

 

Lawyer: Now you have to go up because they went down there.

Composer: Like this? (dink, dink dink dink dink dink... dink...)

Lawyer: Yeah, that's good, but on the second dink you should probably do more.

Composer: The second... dink?

Lawyer: The second, you know, thing you did.

Composer: Thing?

Lawyer: Oh, what do you call them... Keys? Tones?

Composer: Notes. They're called notes.

Lawyer: Right, notes, of course! You'd think I'd remember from high school. I played trumpet.

Composer: That's nice. OK, how much more?

Lawyer: Right. So on the second note, do more.

Composer: How much more?

Lawyer: I dunno, more so that it's not the same, but not too much more because we still need it to sound familiar.

Composer: How about this? (dink, diddily dink dink dink dink... dink....)

Laywer: Wow, you play really well.

Composer: Thanks. How was that?

Laywer: Yeah, I liked the trumpet, but I never thought I could make a living at it. And then there was pressure from the 'rents to join dad's litigation firm. I'll bet I still have that thing up in the attic. Maybe I should look for it, practice a little, and then I could help you out.

Composer: Thanks, but we're on a deadline. So what about that last thing I played?

Laywer: I think that might be too much. Can you try one less? And go down instead of up?

 

...and so it goes...

I'm sure that's kinda how it went when Bill Gates was working on the first version of Windows.

Only replace Lawyer (also known as Laywer ) with Lawyers.

And replace Composer with Programmers.

If Johann Pachelbel were around he could make a fortune.

Then again, there are plenty of songs that go I V vi iii IV I IV V that I adore, Vreally.

Sure, it's impossible to objectively define and copyright 'spirit'. But, cannot some opinion be present in the law? It'd be terrible to have a government run solely by opinion- but a government solely run by over-reaching generic rules is what sentences a 25-year old Utah citizen to 55 years in prison over a small marijuana sale, or a Californian named Michael James 25 years to life in prison over a $94 bad check.

I'm pretty certain anyone with ears could tell the difference between