Strange similarity in IP in American music?

I'm not going to comment on this case, but having a strong interest in this issue generally (my background's in the music industry and I retain a strong interest in it) I would recommend these links to anyone interested in this issue as good pragmatic advice:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6ac14023-9386-415e-ae04-e8e58b2d8fb7
https://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/what-the-law-says-about-music-plagiarism


The Buzzfeed one I think is particularly good (even though more informally written) because it makes the point, which straight legal advice oddly often misses, that there must be a strong element of originality in the material that is being claimed as a source (as in all IP claims). A 3 minute pop song will sound like another 3 minute pop song, there has to be something significantly different that sets apart the two songs involved from all other works.


The other key point is that the claimant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the alleged copyer was aware of the claimants work. There was a famous case where it was shown that the copyer had been to a concert where the claimant had performed the piece in question. In the "My Sweet Lord" case the decision was made that because the original song was successful and being widely broadcast the balance of probability was that George Harrison would have heard it (even if only subliminally). Just having work in the public domain isn't going to be enough.


There are two professional composers/producers in my direct family. If either of them ever thinks of suing for breach of copyright I'll be advising them to think very, very carefully about it - without a clear case for both the two points above it's a good way to make lawyers rich and the claimant very poor.


Of course different jurisdictions differ, but in my experience most are broadly similar.


Cheers,


Andy

I'm not going to comment on this case, but having a strong interest in this issue generally (my background's in the music industry and I retain a strong interest in it) I would recommend these links to anyone interested in this issue as good pragmatic advice:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6ac14023-9386-415e-ae04-e8e58b2d8fb7
https://www.buzzfeed.com/reggieugwu/what-the-law-says-about-music-plagiarism


The Buzzfeed one I think is particularly good (even though more informally written) because it makes the point, which straight legal advice oddly often misses, that there must be a strong element of originality in the material that is being claimed as a source (as in all IP claims). A 3 minute pop song will sound like another 3 minute pop song, there has to be something significantly different that sets apart the two songs involved from all other works.


The other key point is that the claimant must show that there is a reasonable probability that the alleged copyer was aware of the claimants work. There was a famous case where it was shown that the copyer had been to a concert where the claimant had performed the piece in question. In the "My Sweet Lord" case the decision was made that because the original song was successful and being widely broadcast the balance of probability was that George Harrison would have heard it (even if only subliminally). Just having work in the public domain isn't going to be enough.


There are two professional composers/producers in my direct family. If either of them ever thinks of suing for breach of copyright I'll be advising them to think very, very carefully about it - without a clear case for both the two points above it's a good way to make lawyers rich and the claimant very poor.


Of course different jurisdictions differ, but in my experience most are broadly similar.


Cheers,


Andy