Won't back down/stay with me What do you think?

[kenny mac]

Tom petty and jeff lynne are two of my favourite songwriters but I'm not sure about this.
Ok they sound similar but we all work off the same chords and to me this just makes being a songwriter harder.
For instance Listen to the second part of a day in the life then mr blue sky?
Where do we go from here?
Noël Gallagher has sayed be borrowed from this and that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw

[64Guitars]

There are only so many chords and useful chord progressions. It's inevitable that there will be multiple songs using the same chord progressions. I doubt very much that Tom Petty was the first to use that particular chord progression. I'd like to see someone who used it earlier than Petty come forward and sue Petty for copyright infringement.

Actually, I think copyright laws should be abolished. It hinders art since all art borrows from and builds on previous art.

[64Guitars]

[chip]

It appears there has been some sort of settlement in or out of court. 12% ish, royalties, money for old rope.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/jan/29/tom-petty-on-sam-smith-similarity-stay-with-me-wont-back-down-musical-accident

[kenny mac]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/39b92a9ad3/tom-petty-won-t-back-down?fb_ref=Default

[Vanncad]

Well, I'm a Tom Petty fan, but I think it's pretty sad.

I agree with 64.
I think it was Eddy Van Halen that said "There's only 7 notes, and how you mix them up is up to you...".
We're running out of notes cause the baby-boomers used them all up. 

If Tom Petty is gonna sue Sam for this, then Led Zeppelin shuld should sue Tom for "I Should Have Known It" (Aka - "Nobody's Fault but Mine").
And if Zepplin wins that suit, then Blind Willie Johnson better sue Zep,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_o4omd8T5c

and so on, and so on...

I guess whenever money is involved, somebody's gotta get paid...

[Hook]

Nobody had  problem calling Vanilla Ice a criminal for taking "Under Pressure" & It does seems pretty damming when with just a little tempo & pitch adjustments they layer exactly. For me it's not the chords but the combination of melody & chords. If all we are going to write are 4 chord songs with simple melodies then we are going to repeat ourselves endlessly. I think there is a point where you have to ask "did I write this song". Ok it's the same chord pattern as  whatever in the verse but is the melody different, do the lyrics have the exact same syllables, is my chorus different, bridge, etc???
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about copywrite, I don't get mine done, but that's for time & $ reasons not ethics. If I did have success with a song I would like to receive compensation and perhaps some legal rights to the tune. How does that work without copywrite?

Personally I'd like to see Tommy boy there donate his proceeds to charity, me or something. I doubt he really needs it but what do I know. If you write 4 chord songs you better watch out for Tom Petty, he's written them all and he seems a bit protective.
Rock On!

[AndyR]

I read up a bit on this yesterday - it seems it wasn't Tom Petty who made the noises, he hasn't sued anyone, he's apparently surprised at the fuss that got made... It was the publishers (or the record company, can't remember), whose job it is to make these noises, who approached the other lot's publishers and went "er... excuse me, a moment of your time?".

It appears that both sides accept the similarity and both regard it as an understandable accident. Things were apparently settled very quickly and amicably outside of court.

And Hook - you've already got copyright. The moment you put it in any recorded form (written down, recorded on a tape, whatever), you, as creator of the thing, have copyright until you sign that right away. It is the right to exploit your own creation, no-one else has the right to do so unless you give them permission. Typically, in the case of marketable songs, you DO sign the copyright over to your publisher (whom you might own yourself), otherwise the publisher can't do the job.

Anyway, you have copyright until you say otherwise... The problem for us unknowns is PROVING that you are the creator and therefore own the copyright in that work. And that's why there's a bunch of people online offering to protect our copyrights for a nice fee - when they have just as much chance of protecting it as the good ole sealed jiffy bag to yourself and then stuck in your bank or wherever...

btw, and this might be a little contentious here... It's my strong belief that people saying that copyright law should go are no friends of anyone who is creative. This includes idiots like John Lennon (idiotic in this instance) making fluffy pronouncements like that when I suspect he no longer felt the need to protect his income (not that he put his money where his mouth was, as far as I'm aware, and placed all his stuff in the public domain for others to profit from as they saw fit).

Copyright law does NOT stop/stifle creativity - you can create whatever the hell you like based on other people's work, there is NOTHING to stop you doing this, it's perfectly legal. It would be perfectly legal for me to deliberately take, say, one of ORH's tunes on here, write some new words and post it as an AndyR original. It wouldn't be illegal because I'm not trying to profit from anything I post, and therefore not from ORH's work either - I'm not taking the bread from his table. Isn't it interesting we DON'T do this sort of thing on here? It's because we respect each other and... we do all firmly believe in the ownership of the songs that we create!! (Jim's gonna let me down now and say he doesn't own his own songs )

It's when you want to SELL what you've created, either claiming it to be your own work, or just keeping quiet, hoping no-one will notice... that's when Copyright law comes into play. There's nothing creative in that process, it's just the marketing/exploitation - copyright law is not stopping creativity, instead it seeks to stop people stealing the income generated by the fruits of someone else's labour.

If copyright law were removed, then there would be nothing stopping producers/singers/whoever wandering through sites like this looking for their latest composition to sell to the masses (through their existing media/marketing/distribution channels that we don't have ourselves) - and whoever originally wrote the thing on here wouldn't have a leg to stand on. THAT'S what copyright law does for us, without it, we wouldn't DARE put our music out in a public forum like this, in case someone "stole" it from us... (except it wouldn't be stealing, it would be legal). What would the lack of Copyright Law do for sharing and collaboration?? It would knock it on the head!

Possibly, yes, in this particular Tom Petty case, it might be argued that the similarity between these two songs isn't what copyright law was invented for - to protect the income of the creator of an artwork being undermined by cheap knock-offs. But, in this case, both sides do appear to have agreed that the second song IS a "copy", not intentional, just an unfortunate accident. And both sides have agreed on a financial deal and it appears that Petty/Lynne have not been added to the credits of the later song. So, both sets of creators are apparently happy and satisfied... So, in fact, what damage has copyright law done in this case?

To answer the thread title - What do I think? I think the right thing has happened. It's an unmistakable "copy". Both sides accept it. Both sides have agreed it was accidental. Both sides have agreed on restitution. And the money didn't all get spent on lawyers(!)

Cool

[Oldrottenhead]

hi andy. i would love you to take one of my songs and make it into something shiny and new. i don't think any of my songs are copyrighted in the true sense of the word. however if rod stewart decided to cover one of my songs i would like a writer's credit and my share of any revenue it produced.

that said i do my songs for fun and sharing, copyright is not really an issue and i don't expect any of my songs ever to create a revenue stream, lol.

re the aforementioned song i think it has been settled sensibly, especially when you consider the men at work song "down under". and it's supposed similarities to "kookaburra"  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_Under_%28song%29#Copyright_lawsuit

[Gnasty]

I think for these simple 3 and 4 chord progressions it is most easier to sound similar and it can happen by accident.
It all comes down to the melody that is sung and if the bpm and style is similar.

If i make a painting of the Mona Lisa. Make her blond and put a mustache on it and call it Moe Lisa and want a million dollars. Who`s going to buy it? Is that creativity? It`s different no? But would it be an infringement?
Of course it is!

I do believe we should have copyright. To say everything is the same and built from something before is kind of right but we have the ability to change and with this we are creative in a different way than everyone else.
 
Here in Canada musicians can be protected with SOCAN. I`m all for it.

http://www.socan.ca/