What’s kind of amazing in this case is also how much Katy Perry’s team dropped the ball with the defense. I threw together this video in less than a week. They had 4 years.
Rata 4U first off we’re talking about copyright law, not patent law. That 70 years thing is more or less accurate for copyright law, though I think it’s life of the author plus 77 years. I may be off, it’s been awhile since I took communication law in college. This video is arguing that what the plaintiff did was not unique enough to be copyrightable and I think he makes a great argument there. What the plaintiff claimed to have owned has been in the public domain for centuries, and is too insignificant to really count. On that first part, if I made a Snow White movie, Disney could not sue me for copyright infringement. Snow White was always in the public domain, and them making a Snow White movie does not give them ownership of the story, like you are arguing. And on the later point about significance, I think the video makes a better argument than I could in a comment.
It is good for this stupidity to be brought to light. However, I would be happier if the videos on these were not monetised, as they are also making income off the backs of other peoples music. How ironic!
New Rule: All music copyright infringement cases must have a jury consisting of musicians, engineers, composers, etc. as those would truly be the peers of both the plaintiff and defendant!
Yeah, I've thought this for many years, it's a good point. This always comes into play with cases that involve so called "expert knowledge", which just means the knowledge that any "practitioner", even an amateur, should possess. It's certainly not limited to just music, but arises often in all the creative media. With criminal cases, a jury of "peers" from the general population is integral to concepts of fairness and social justice, so the Finders of Fact (jury) must be taken from the population at large. But in expert cases, shouldn't the Finders of Fact BE experts? I've thought ever since I realized that in most cases they are not, probably when I was 8 years old or something. But people like this Musicologist are paid superbly to form a set of "facts" that their Employers can use to make their case. "Truth" is fairly inconsequential to the Process itself. That doesn't really seem cool. How can you possibly make a decision in this case, unless you are knowledgeable about the Lore, the Body-of-Work that represents the State of the Art in creative music? That is to say, KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WRITTEN MUSIC OF THIS TYPE AND OTHERS. If one person turns to a novice jury and says "Oh, yes, it does use the same 4/4 time signature as Piece A... but so do most of the songs ever written." That's when the classic squinty-eyed old juror says "Ooooooooh, I didn't know thaaaaat.......well, I guess that changes things doesn't it? Theeey didn't tell us thaaaaaat, young man." And so on.
@@bladebaron9351 I absolutely agree with you but I'm somewhat alarmed that the defence didn't seem to have one or more expert witnesses of their own saying exactly what this video says, complete with previous similar examples. I would have thought that most non-musicians just seeing this short video would be inclined to throw out the case. Having said that, an entire industry shouldn't be hurled into turmoil because one defence in one case was seriously lacking.
Yep. Over the years some 'rights' to old songs, ditties and even what would amount to nursery rhymes come into 'ownership' of faceless corporations. Do a web search on 'Men at Work', 'Downunder' and 'kookaburra sits in the old Gum tree's, one flute section in that song saw the band taken to the cleaners by 'rights owners' decades after either song was released. This video ably demonstrates the absurdities, seems Katy Perry's legal team was lacking. Is there an appeal process for such a decision?
@Ann Coulter Is Right lol it's because the jury doesn't have a single clue as to what all of the case meant. Do you even understand what this video is pointing at?
When those couple notes kinda make the whole song tho... Kinda like the Under pressure bassline. If it's catchy enough to be associated with one song, then years later done by another song...welp.
@jmarks881 But the bassline is not really what forms the memorable part. It's all about that synth running through the song. Many many songs share the same notes and progressions, but some guitar lines/synth lines/piano lines etc are so easily recognizable and play such a big part in the recognition of the song overall, that if anyone else does that after, it can be easily identified as a copy.
Christians are sure they go to heaven cuz Jesus right?! so they do whatever the shit they want to, including doing this laughable case. Sorry all true Christians, your peers make you look damn bad
@@guitargeekette I don't agree at all. Have you actually listened to the two songs? It's not even the exact same synth pattern. And it's not such an outlandish pattern that two producers couldn't come up with it seperately. I mean, what's next? Trap rappers suing each other over using the triplet flow and 32nd note hihat patterns? Somebody copyrighting the I-vi-IV-V and its variations and suing every pop musician on the planet? This is laughable. Even if you were to say that Dark Horse copied Joyful Noise, whether consciously or unconsciously, there is A LOT more going on in the Katy Perry song than that ostinato. It actually starts out with a totally different synth pattern, there's a different chord progression and bassline, and there are actual melodies in the verse and chorus. As Rick Beato said, you could award Flame with maybe 10 or 15% of the royalties, but 100% is just absolutely laughable. It's just an unknown mediocre rapper cashing in on somebody else's success. Similar to what the Marvin Gaye estate has been doing the last couple of years. Same as with the Zeppelin/Spirit case.
Actually, ‘yeah’ would most likely be intellectual property of a mr Layne Staley. Lil John stole it and now mr Staley’s estate will be suing mr John for royalties on every single ‘yeah’ he ever uttered.
Fuff Mcduffin as a juror representing on this case who doesn’t understand any of the jargon you just typed, I rule in favor of the one you are presiding
@@McDuffin Pursuant to the suit filed by Mr. Staley's estate, the current owner of the Beatles catelouge will be filing their own motion. When they receive their settlement they will love you, yeah, yeah, yeah!!
She would have had a chance ----- UNLESS everyone in the jury, the judge and opposing counsel were Christians heavily influenced by the swarmy Christian evangelists and other fascist thought. Just saying.
In the appeal, judge recently ruled said that a copyright over this would amount “to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself, especially in light of the limited number of expressive choices available when it comes to an eight-note repeated musical figure”. Great to hear a judge understanding the magnitude of the copyright.
faroshscale it’s more that there’s a lot of words new to those of us with no knowledge of music theory (? i assume what this is?) and while i personally understand what he’s saying - he’s very good at explaining! - i can’t for the life of me explain this to someone else coherently
Damn these people got salty at you really quick, from a non musical background a lot of the words, terminology this guy used can come across as being a bit confusing, yall need to c h i l l
"Kinda dangerous." Adam Neely giving a lesson on the art of understatement. I've never heard of Todd Decker before and what I think about him after watching this video cannot be repeated in public.
I have to disagree, in fact I think Adam did something very deceptive. He played it with a similar rhythmic feel, tempo, and timbre to the two songs in discussion, but that is not actually how that Bach music sounds. He reduces the entire comparison to just melody, and then just states later that all the other tonal features aren't similar enough either. But it's not every feature individually, it's the combination together that makes it too close to the original song. In addition, none of the other examples he found are ostinatos, nor do they repeat nearly as many times as in these two songs. Honestly, I think Adam dressed up his fairly simplistic analysis in elevated language to make it appear more convincing than it was.
@@jackbarbey "Adam dressed up his fairly simplistic analysis in elevated language to make it appear more convincing than it was." So did Todd, and that was his point.
He claimed that 45% of dark horse was copyrighted and that he should get 45% of the money earned by PRISM The entire album Dark Horse is one song. He's money hungry and it shows
Thank you for posting this. As a songwriter/artist seriously planning on marketing my music, it makes me nervous to see these lawsuits coming out where people are losing because the "vibe" is too close. It honestly makes me afraid to think that I'll spend thousands of dollars to record and market a song, only to have some unknown artist sue me. If more of these silly lawsuits come out I hope that you'll keep making these videos and standing up for creatives
No! My Bb concert scale warmup! (I don't know why I am attached to this but I am.) Also, no! My Bb clarinet! That means I can't play it! I shall fail and I cannot have that. Literally almost every song we play has Bb in it.
true, but only if the song makes money. there is no need to sue if the song is a dud and it made no revenue. the ploy for sampling is to sample, knowing it is wrong, to try to get your song noticed and make enough revenue to get something out of your recording after the lawsuit. who wants to pay for permission of the usage of another's work and then make no money off of it. life is full of taking chances to make money.
Axle Grind Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Sampling isnt for greedy opportunists, its a tool for expression and reflection. They are used to add detail, contribute to the album's storyline, comedic value, etc. Take any hip-hop or rap album that employs skits to tell a story or be comedic. Sampling is beneficial for music, not for corrupt financial-based schemes. There is a huge difference between stealing a song and sampling a conversation, subway train, TV shows, etc. You needa educate yourself.
@@bluewuppo he obviously wasn't referring to sampling a conversation on the subway... Moot point at it's finest. Sampling a tracks melody effectively makes your track a remix which you need clearance for, yeah sometimes you'll get away with it but if the tracks blow up expect to lose most of your royalties for being dishonest as fuck...
2020: "You can't own rhythms" 2021: "You can't own pitches" 2022: "You can't own quarter notes" 2023: "You can't own bar lines" 2024: "You can't own the idea of computers" 2025: "You can't own the idea of music"
@@banjopink4409 Perfectly clear to me and I have zero knowlege of music theory. All that's needed are eyes and ears, the comparisons to earlier music was enough to blow the case out of court, and I'm certain your average 12 year old could follow that with ease. If you struggled with that I suspect you are the one in the minority.
When I first watched this I knew very little about music, but watching it again now I realise how laughably absurd Decker's claim is. Imagine trying to claim that a certain painter was the first to use red and green together, and now they legally own that colour combination
Can buy a vowel? I don't want to own a word. I want the letter "e". Muwahaha! This lawsuit reminds me of a diaper I saw once. Even better, can I copyright the color blue?
It is, in fact, the point. In the legal system, hearsay testimony is generally not accepted. One of a small list of exceptions is called 'testimony against interest'. I don't know if that fits this legally or not, but it gets the idea across.
That's what real hackers do,, expose the falsity of the establishment. If were paying attention watching the film "The Matrix" hackers reveal the truth to the world so that people can choose to think for themselves and not be told what to believe, I think and say. Never too late for social media to rescue us from insanity, Red Pill that shit...
The verdict was overturned on appeal on the March 16, 2020. US District Court judge Christina A Snyder said "It is undisputed in this case" that the ostinato was "not a particularly unique or rare combination."
Breaking news: Pythagoras also comes back from the dead to sue Bach for using fifths. He is also to sue every mathematician for using the Pythagorean theorem.
@@craigsimpson1230 Not sure the jury is in on that. His music is in the public domain because he is believed to be dead for more than [insert number depending in legal framework of copyright in your country] years. In a scenario where the dead come alive again, this believe is wrong and he is currently not dead for that number of years. In the post apocalyptic zombie hellscape of returning dead people, that would be a court case to watch closely... But I think the plaintive, Zombie Bach, should be paid.
I agree except for the Commission part- she has a good appeal with this evidence. Not that it wasn't obvious at the time that the suit was solely a result of religious bigotry on the part of the plaintiff and had little to do with the riff..
From the perspective of a PhD student, this line of argument by Decker is absurd. The few examples you provided in this video illustrate this of course, but also it's worth acknowledging that entire systems of analysis exist that consider this 3-2-1 motion to be one of the fundamental musical foundations of large swathes of the Western Canon (Schenker anyone?). Great video, as always.
This reminds me of the time I sent an essay of mine through plagiarism checking software and it came back that I strung together the same 7 words as someone else when they published their paper on a different topic… in the 80s 😂
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b You are a very stupid human being. Probably one of the juries in this stupid lawsuit. Hell, you might be related to the idiot musicologist who was called as an expert.
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b I'm sorry for whatever pain you've suffered that motivates you to waste all our time typing something like that. I hope you find something positive that helps you find joy in doing good.
@@kingkv3 of course. I record all of my farts on audio. I also put them all in jars just in case my team of lawyers need to take them to a lab for testing.
Well, there are several examples: Some sports announcers have a phrase that no one else can use and blacks have the "N" word. There are others, so you don't have to imagine.
no music or art exists in a vacuum. Everything creative must have some elements from previous works. I bet all of my riffs have many disjointed parents.
Which is ironic, because if one is entitled to a trial by a jury OF THEIR PEERS, be it a criminal or civil trial, then the jury should have been ENTIRELY COMPOSED OF PEOPLE WHO HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF MUSICAL COMPOSITION.
Jurors that are informed on the subject are often weeded out. If a learned juror gets through selection, they could introduce defacto expert testimony neither side gets to examine as well as introduce facts not entered into evidence.
@Akilleus, hey there you IGNORANT TROLL, you don't know what you are talking about. There is virtually nothing about these two songs that is alike other than that stupid descending minor line which is in MILLIONS of compositions all the way to the beginning of time. Its not original in the slightest. Nothing in pop music and especially nothing in rap is remotely original. Rap "music" is notorious for stealing as rap "artists" are the most musically ignorant people on the planet... next to you of course.
Honestly, this sounds TOO MUCH like all those other cases I hear about people specifically damaging a really famous person to get money or get more fame.
What's even more important: Stealing stuff from others and recombining it into even better works of art is an essential part of music history. The classical composers all quoted each other and used each others material without shame, and this has always been a great inspiration for beautiful works of art. That's how culture works-nobody starts from scratch, we all build on what has been there before. It is a tragedy that modern copyright stifles progress in this way.
exactly!!! no one, i repeat, NO ONE, is completely original or self-sustaining when it comes to art. that's literally against the very foundation of what culture means. i am beyond bewildered why some people (and in positions of power at that, oh geez) don't get this.
@@davidmorris8319 It's because we live in a hyper-individualistic culture that makes people believe that artists and businessmen are superhumans whose accomplishments owe nothing to society.
The most popular genre on the planet currently, Hip Hop, is based off of people using other peoples records and rapping over them😂 music isnt supposed to be owned. If someone blatantly STEALS your song as in multiple things are the same such as lyrics, rhythm and a harmonic line then yes that person infringed on your copy right but even in hip hop dudes use each others lines very frequently
My civil procedure professor is an expert witness and makes SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY, if he gets into this realm he could make a lot of money especially if he is testifying for defendants with huge pockets.
Expert Witnesses get paid a bundle to go testify. No doubt that he got a significant portion of the awarded winnings, or even a flat fee + a percentage
No, the problem is the combination of antagonistic system in which basically, experts merely compare dick lengths with decision making by a bunch of clueless hacks. End result: the expert whose wiener shrivels the least under crossexamination by a complete layperson is found to be the more impressive by a bunch of equally clueless hacks who admire his mojo. Which, in the end, has more to do with how much testosterone he injected in the court room restroom and how much viagra he threw in than with any facts of the case.
Singers and songwriters can make some "joyful noise" now that a federal appeals court has now confirmed that Perry didn't infringe on Flame's copyright. All three judges unanimously agreed that "The portion of the ‘Joyful Noise’ ostinato that overlaps with the ‘Dark Horse’ ostinato consists of a manifestly conventional arrangement of musical building blocks ... Allowing a copyright over this material would essentially amount to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself." This sensible ruling protects the right of all artists to freely make use of basic musical building blocks that are rightfully in the public domain, just like individual words or common idioms in the English language. Good job explaining this case!
deepweeb dive that’s much different than the word “react.” Droid is just a shortened version of the word “android,” and it is often associated with the Star Wars films.
JayDolphin He didn’t really lie, just gave his “expert opinion” on the song. Or at least he didn’t necessarily lie. Also the other lawyers should have objected when he talked about how the tone “sounded” the same, because he was not in any way a sound engineer, and should not have been qualified to opine on whether or not the tone/waveform/whatever you call it was similar enough to be stolen.
JayDolphin yeah but,, i don’t think what he did qualifies as perjury. also i think perjury takes intent to lie so if he’s just wrong or giving a dumbed down version then that’s probably not enough to make a case out of, and definitely not enough to convict or anything
The opening sounds very similar to _Brave_ by Sara Bareilles...she just laughed it off and moved on, no lawsuit or whatever against Perry or anyone else involved in making _Roar._
It could happen, even I got a copyright claim on one of my videos for a seagull noise playing in the background in a video game. Copyrighted by freaking ambient nature sounds in a game. The person trying to claim one of my unlisted videos had done an album of nature noises, so it sounded like it belonged to them.
The real problem is that cases like this should NOT be going to regular court and being heard by regular folk. Just as there are specialty courts like military court, juvenile court, international court, and business court, there needs to be a music court created where these types of cases can be heard by people in the industry with the proper experience and expertise to render sensible and just verdicts.
no, there does not need to be a special court for everything, but the word "peer" needs to be taken as actual peers of the people in court instead of some randomly chosen people from the area near the court
@queenbeethatme100 You said, "Peers would never be people from any industry due to ethical and professional bias." But if the "peers" who are randomly chosen members of the general public have such a poor understanding of music theory that they don't know the notes on the musical scale, cannot read sheet music or cannot define basic terms like harmony, rhythm, melody, ostinato, etc. , then there is a problem with their competence to hear a technical case that revolves around the comparative analysis of the structure of two songs to determine their similarity. It's entirely reasonable to ask that a "jury of peers" has enough understanding of basic music theory to be able to comprehend and competently analyze and critique what the lawyers and expert witnesses are saying. There are millions of such people in the United States who studied music in high school band or play an instrument as a hobby to be able to competently hear such a case without invoking the ethical and professional issues that would be associated with professional musicians signed to a record label. So at the very least, prospective jurors should be given a short quiz to determine their understanding of music theory and those who fail should be filtered out.
One photography teacher told me, even if you think it was your idea, for sure unconsciously you heard or saw or had a contact with that (what ever is that) during your life, but you don't know when or even remember, inspiration comes from everywhere.
yes exactly, and that's good and important because you can't just come up with totally new ideas, you just alterate and reiterate on the stuff that came before. and just by coincidence, some things will turn out very similar, that doesn't mean you stole something just because the inspiration might be obvious in some places.
"Listen to this piece. I know it is the 367th time I've said it, but this is Katy Perry's Dark Horse, 🎶🎶....... Actually that's the sound of SpongeBob rubbing two pickles together."
LoveIsTheAnswer but she’s not. This would be the equivalent of a painter trying to sue another painter because they both paint trees, Or they both used red or something. It’s ridiculous. You can’t own the building blocks of music. You don’t want to live in a world like that.
@@nicholasrevill6610 What? Can you provide a link to that video/source please? Are you sure you aren't talking about the false copyright claim from Warner/Chappell? Because a copyright strike on RUclips and a lawsuit are completely different things
Reminds me of the jury selected for the Scopes Trial back in 1925. Some of the people chosen to serve that jury didn't even know what Darwin's Theory of Evolution even was. Which leads to my ultimate question. How can a jury even pass a judgement on something if they know almost nothing about it?
Nice video!! Interesting that this totally spurious lawsuit should have been overturned, Katy got lucky, or a competent judge 2nd time around. Maybe Colin Hay (of Men at Work) should seek another trial. I'm referring to one of the most embarrassing episodes in Australia's legal history. In June 2009, 28 years after the release of the recording of Men at Works song Down Under, Larrikin Music sued Men at Work for copyright infringement, alleging that part of the flute riff of "Down Under" was copied from "Kookaburra" (a children's nursery rhyme known to all and widely thought to be in the public domain). The flute riff included a musical 4-bar quote which had no doubt been initially played off the cuff at a live gig sometime but had come to be incorporated into the song as an essential element of "Australian-ness", and recorded with it in as is. The art of musical quoting other pieces of music dates back centuries and is widely practiced in jazz (and sometimes even rock) so I'm really not sure how it even came to be in court - imagine if a publisher of a pop song from the 40s tried to sue Dexter Gordon for doing one of his innumerable quotes. It would have been - quite rightly - laughed out of court. However the Men at Work defense team, instead of stating; "Yes it's a musical quote, and correct, not much point if no-one recognises it is there?!" they for whatever reason tried to argue that is wasn't intentional, or it wasn't that song, or was already in the public domain (a fairly valid argument as well as it happens). Anyway they lost something that should never have even got to court, Larrikin music is now much despised and has since changed their name, Greg Ham (the flute player) died not long after, and the legal system in Australia is now widely recognised as the farce it is, not least because the High Court of Australia declined to hear the appeal (and missed a golden opportunity to be seen as doing something constructive). For stupid music court cases it takes some beating - despite thousands of instances of musical "quoting" by instrumentalists I cannot think of another that has ended up in court. Oh and the amount awarded; 5% of royalties from 2002. Millions. Take-away? Greed pays - sue.
Pagan's still exist, although it's pretty much all in a newer form so it tends to get called neopaganism, but anyway him even daring to complain about that of all things should have been all the more reason to at the very least raise eyebrows. This is just some fundamentalist wacko that's totally intolerant of anything that is even superficially different from his beliefs and the fact that this shit can fly in a court room presumably out of the ignorance of the masses is a testament to the failure of our current court system on issues like this. How are you suppose to trust a jury "of your peers" (read: random ass people from the same geographical location at best) and a judge studied in law to rule on issues both are totally ignorant to? At that point it becomes a battle of persuasive use of words they can't understand, rather than a battle of facts.
@@historicalaccuracy15 I really don't see why all of this came about and in court under no circumstance should religion, race, gender, sexual orientation affect the final results. That's discrimination. Very well said in your comment too 👏👏👏
More like 400 years ago. Medieval people did not believe witchcraft was real, and would have accused you of vile heresy and blasphemy if you tried to make that claim.
Technically, you are the one that's copying yourself, so that won't work. If someone else started using your DNA without permission however... that would be a cool sci-fi flick.
The biggest problem has always been, that lawmakers do not understand the nuances of the art industry. And though the assumption is that they will argue their case in a way that explains the nuances, we clearly end up with cases that set precedent in a really unfortunate way. A jury of your peers, we’re no one on the jury is expected to understand music theory.
These court cases have nothing to do with music - each side just buys an expert who will testify to whatever the argument on their side is. The rest is theatre. The plaintiff (I don't know who he is) was only concerned with a dollar payout, he doesn't care what the ramifications of what he has done. Ultimately this is what the american 'sue everything' mentality has led to. If you changed payment so that lawyers only got paid 100/hour then most of these cases would vanish overnight because they are just parasites.
@@insertclevernamehere2506 Musicians are profit making machines that I wouldn't even qualify as humans, for the most part. Some exec is coercing them into suing, this is a profit-making scheme, I bet that lawsuits are built into their fucking budgets.
@TheBrabon1 Ha, nonsense, if you want to start that crap we can sue the entire Blues genre for 'ripping off' music, every time someone uses a I-IV-V progression!
Someone needs to use that Bach ostinato exactly in a composition and see what happens. Make it prominent and see if Flame sues them. Then say in court that they stole it from JS Bach. lmao. considering Bach is public domain.
@@tonytonychopper999 Even without that I understood enough to shake my head over the ruling. But there was probably no one like Adam showing laymen why it was so absurd to sue in the first place...
@@tonytonychopper999 I tried to get into music theory but they didnt put it in my schedual even though I requested it. I had to skip lunch everyday to go to the class. And then I just stopped showing because I was tured of showing up during half the class and not eating lunch. My school screwed me over
Ok so let me get this straight: Ice ice baby and under pressure aren’t the same because of a ting But Dark horse and joyful noise are the same because of something I’ve never even heard of? God I hate our courts.
Well Queen and the artist who made Ice Ice Baby (forgot his name) were actually signed to the same label aka Universal Music Group. (I understand queen was signed to multiple labels but at the time of under pressure they were signed with UMG). Because of this, the guy who made ice ice baby was able to get permission from the higher ups (not the actual producer/artist) to use the melody. That's usually the case with many artists who are signed under one record label. But if they were to use the melody from queen if they were signed with say Warner Music Group, then they would be sued off their asses
Haha I was listening to 80’s songs the other day and under pressure came on I started singing ice ice baby. Also when Sledgehammer came on by Peter Gabriel I thought it was another song. But maybe it’s cool because they’re ripping off British Songs so as long as it’s not American they’re safe? Edit: Found it it’s Jermaine Dupre ft. Nas and Monica - I’ve got to have it
@@ryanfoltz1276 But those words & slogans are only copyright within specific and very limited fields. A slogan for a brand of kitchen cleaner, for example, could be used to advertise a car, without fear of infringement.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
What’s kind of amazing in this case is also how much Katy Perry’s team dropped the ball with the defense. I threw together this video in less than a week. They had 4 years.
they probably didnt think they lived in a universe stupid enough they could lose.
Heads up to musicians, hire Neely and Beato for your case.
good point. almost unbelievable
Why wouldn't you play the two licks back to back?
Someone needs to introduce Katy to you...
Could you imagine if country music people started suing each other over this?
or Reggae or Soca, or tecno, or heavy metal -- that's why it is called a genre
country musicians are at each other’s throats for using the same key change
The universe would implode!
Or blues lmao. Blues music is probably the most “sue-able” of them all if this case is any indication.
Oh... they all know, and laugh all the way to the bank...
ruclips.net/video/FY8SwIvxj8o/видео.html
What is wrong Katy Perry's lawyers that they can't construct an argument like this one?
They should have played this video in court😂
@Rata 4U that is the most bullshit thing I have ever heard.
This week
Stupid people keep saying stupid shit
Rata 4U were you on the jury - because that is the kind of stupid that would award the case to Flame - 🤦♂️
Rata 4U first off we’re talking about copyright law, not patent law. That 70 years thing is more or less accurate for copyright law, though I think it’s life of the author plus 77 years. I may be off, it’s been awhile since I took communication law in college. This video is arguing that what the plaintiff did was not unique enough to be copyrightable and I think he makes a great argument there. What the plaintiff claimed to have owned has been in the public domain for centuries, and is too insignificant to really count. On that first part, if I made a Snow White movie, Disney could not sue me for copyright infringement. Snow White was always in the public domain, and them making a Snow White movie does not give them ownership of the story, like you are arguing. And on the later point about significance, I think the video makes a better argument than I could in a comment.
@@jacencade4019 if it's that stupid then please don't try to hurt him. Maybe he hurts a lot already. Please just say why it's wrong
The jury's verdict has been finally reversed in May 2020.
this should be higher in the comment thread
Thank God. This shit is insane
Yeeeeessssssss!!!!!
For now, the case is not over
did she still pay of sumn
I'm so glad people like you and Rick Beato are shedding some light on how outrageous these lawsuits are
Nothing is going to change sadly
I agree
It is good for this stupidity to be brought to light. However, I would be happier if the videos on these were not monetised, as they are also making income off the backs of other peoples music. How ironic!
@@brin57 i think they are making money on behalf of the insight he's offering, not on the music itself
Can wait until UMG takes down your video where you defend them
lmao
they actually didn't for some reason
This comment is fucking gold
Everybody gangsta til this happens
This fucking happened!!
It’s interesting that Katy Perry’s attorney couldn’t find someone anyone as knowledgeable as Adam Neeley.
What the hell were they thinking?
Get her back in the news?
They knew exactly what they were doing.
Someone didn't read the court documents 🤷♂️
Rick Beato broke this down in a different way but same conclusion.
My thoughts exactly.
New Rule: All music copyright infringement cases must have a jury consisting of musicians, engineers, composers, etc. as those would truly be the peers of both the plaintiff and defendant!
I 100% support this. Getting brain washed by a biased "musicologist" makes no sense to me.
Yeah, I've thought this for many years, it's a good point. This always comes into play with cases that involve so called "expert knowledge", which just means the knowledge that any "practitioner", even an amateur, should possess. It's certainly not limited to just music, but arises often in all the creative media.
With criminal cases, a jury of "peers" from the general population is integral to concepts of fairness and social justice, so the Finders of Fact (jury) must be taken from the population at large. But in expert cases, shouldn't the Finders of Fact BE experts? I've thought ever since I realized that in most cases they are not, probably when I was 8 years old or something.
But people like this Musicologist are paid superbly to form a set of "facts" that their Employers can use to make their case. "Truth" is fairly inconsequential to the Process itself. That doesn't really seem cool.
How can you possibly make a decision in this case, unless you are knowledgeable about the Lore, the Body-of-Work that represents the State of the Art in creative music? That is to say, KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE HISTORY OF WRITTEN MUSIC OF THIS TYPE AND OTHERS. If one person turns to a novice jury and says "Oh, yes, it does use the same 4/4 time signature as Piece A... but so do most of the songs ever written." That's when the classic squinty-eyed old juror says "Ooooooooh, I didn't know thaaaaat.......well, I guess that changes things doesn't it? Theeey didn't tell us thaaaaaat, young man." And so on.
@@bladebaron9351 I absolutely agree with you but I'm somewhat alarmed that the defence didn't seem to have one or more expert witnesses of their own saying exactly what this video says, complete with previous similar examples. I would have thought that most non-musicians just seeing this short video would be inclined to throw out the case.
Having said that, an entire industry shouldn't be hurled into turmoil because one defence in one case was seriously lacking.
that is not how the fake law system works
No one is assured a jury of their peers unless it's a George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation
Music copyright trolling is ridiculous. This is like copyrighting the use of the color blue in a visual artwork.
Some artist actually did copyright some colors (ie: the blackest black)
And Cadbury purple
Yep. Over the years some 'rights' to old songs, ditties and even what would amount to nursery rhymes come into 'ownership' of faceless corporations. Do a web search on 'Men at Work', 'Downunder' and 'kookaburra sits in the old Gum tree's, one flute section in that song saw the band taken to the cleaners by 'rights owners' decades after either song was released. This video ably demonstrates the absurdities, seems Katy Perry's legal team was lacking. Is there an appeal process for such a decision?
Well copyright trollers do exist.
copiright law is a joke.
a joke made by these corporations, fuck them all.
When he finally said this is Katy Perry's dark horse, I almost didn't believe him
🤣🤣🤣
Mee tooo😂😂😂
Hahaha
fr, that got really annoying after the second one
@@lachlanstory9929 You must be easily annoyed.
He didn't throw shade. He threw the whole palm tree at Todd Decker
yes he did
He deserve it
No, he actually thrown the entire Amazon rainforest
@Ann Coulter Is Right how? can you elaborate? preferably with an elaborate and eloquent video like this one :)
@Ann Coulter Is Right lol it's because the jury doesn't have a single clue as to what all of the case meant. Do you even understand what this video is pointing at?
How bad must Katy Perry's lawyers have been that they couldn't come up with the same examples used in this video and make the plaintiff look foolish?
They just fished around in the couch cushions and came up with the 2.8 mil just to make the dude go away.
I was wondering just that. Who the hell did they hire?
Lionel Hutz, attorney at law! No. Money down!
Celebrity Lawyers arent human
A law suit over a two bar, straight quarter note pattern with only three notes. What a time to be alive.
When those couple notes kinda make the whole song tho...
Kinda like the Under pressure bassline. If it's catchy enough to be associated with one song, then years later done by another song...welp.
@@guitargeekette exactly
@jmarks881 But the bassline is not really what forms the memorable part. It's all about that synth running through the song. Many many songs share the same notes and progressions, but some guitar lines/synth lines/piano lines etc are so easily recognizable and play such a big part in the recognition of the song overall, that if anyone else does that after, it can be easily identified as a copy.
Christians are sure they go to heaven cuz Jesus right?! so they do whatever the shit they want to, including doing this laughable case. Sorry all true Christians, your peers make you look damn bad
@@guitargeekette I don't agree at all. Have you actually listened to the two songs? It's not even the exact same synth pattern. And it's not such an outlandish pattern that two producers couldn't come up with it seperately. I mean, what's next? Trap rappers suing each other over using the triplet flow and 32nd note hihat patterns? Somebody copyrighting the I-vi-IV-V and its variations and suing every pop musician on the planet? This is laughable.
Even if you were to say that Dark Horse copied Joyful Noise, whether consciously or unconsciously, there is A LOT more going on in the Katy Perry song than that ostinato. It actually starts out with a totally different synth pattern, there's a different chord progression and bassline, and there are actual melodies in the verse and chorus. As Rick Beato said, you could award Flame with maybe 10 or 15% of the royalties, but 100% is just absolutely laughable. It's just an unknown mediocre rapper cashing in on somebody else's success. Similar to what the Marvin Gaye estate has been doing the last couple of years.
Same as with the Zeppelin/Spirit case.
Everybody knows Lil John invented the phrase “yeah” in 2003
Actually, ‘yeah’ would most likely be intellectual property of a mr Layne Staley. Lil John stole it and now mr Staley’s estate will be suing mr John for royalties on every single ‘yeah’ he ever uttered.
Fuff Mcduffin as a juror representing on this case who doesn’t understand any of the jargon you just typed, I rule in favor of the one you are presiding
Oh also OVERRULED! Hehe I just wanted to say that!
@@McDuffin Pursuant to the suit filed by Mr. Staley's estate, the current owner of the Beatles catelouge will be filing their own motion. When they receive their settlement they will love you, yeah, yeah, yeah!!
*james hetfield
Katy failed the moment she didn't hire you in her defense team.... Don't be like Katy y'all.
Always hire Neely.
We need Adam as the expert witness for the defense, led by chief legal council - D James Stone, AKA LegalEagle here on RUclips
Add Rick Beato too
@@meme3796 hmmm, nah he ain't cool enough
She would have had a chance ----- UNLESS everyone in the jury, the judge and opposing counsel were Christians heavily influenced by the swarmy Christian evangelists and other fascist thought. Just saying.
In the appeal, judge recently ruled said that a copyright over this would amount “to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself, especially in light of the limited number of expressive choices available when it comes to an eight-note repeated musical figure”. Great to hear a judge understanding the magnitude of the copyright.
Judges are (generally) rather intelligent people. Of course they'd understand the issues a copyright like this would cause.
"bruh you can't just own a sound" *copyrights the lick*
oh god
I'm gonna copyright C4. Take that.
@@hansfranz8795 I'm going to copyright the tambre of the human voice. You better not speak, or you're going to hear from my lawyers!
@@hansfranz8795 I'm gonna copyright the concept of music
I just copyrighted Eb11 so nobody can abuse it ever again.
"I hope that you were paid well, because you kind of sold us all out" - Genius, 2019
I love how I’m watching this pretending like I know and understand everything he’s saying
I mean he explains it...it's not really hard to understand
Lol what's difficult to understand? Are you 12?
faroshscale it’s more that there’s a lot of words new to those of us with no knowledge of music theory (? i assume what this is?) and while i personally understand what he’s saying - he’s very good at explaining! - i can’t for the life of me explain this to someone else coherently
faroshscale I’m talking about the terminology, not the concept....
Damn these people got salty at you really quick, from a non musical background a lot of the words, terminology this guy used can come across as being a bit confusing, yall need to c h i l l
"Kinda dangerous." Adam Neely giving a lesson on the art of understatement. I've never heard of Todd Decker before and what I think about him after watching this video cannot be repeated in public.
Dare you to say Todd Decker 3 times in front of a mirror..
You have to wonder if TD has seen this video...
He sure is a forgetful little man
@@effsixteenblock50he has lol and he hates it, the whole washu music department got lots of hate mail from this video
“That’s actually Bach” You destroyed the whole case right there.
Leoben I laughed so hard! 🤣🤣🤣
I'm a bit slow, sorry didn't get this 🤔
I have to disagree, in fact I think Adam did something very deceptive. He played it with a similar rhythmic feel, tempo, and timbre to the two songs in discussion, but that is not actually how that Bach music sounds. He reduces the entire comparison to just melody, and then just states later that all the other tonal features aren't similar enough either. But it's not every feature individually, it's the combination together that makes it too close to the original song. In addition, none of the other examples he found are ostinatos, nor do they repeat nearly as many times as in these two songs. Honestly, I think Adam dressed up his fairly simplistic analysis in elevated language to make it appear more convincing than it was.
Jack Barbey aaaaa, so where do I direct my internet anger at now?? 😝
@@jackbarbey
"Adam dressed up his fairly simplistic analysis in elevated language to make it appear more convincing than it was."
So did Todd, and that was his point.
He claimed that 45% of dark horse was copyrighted and that he should get 45% of the money earned by PRISM
The entire album
Dark Horse is one song.
He's money hungry and it shows
Peyton James Christian my ass, dude just trying to squeeze as much as he can out of this.
Yeah. Exactly.
He’s just a piece of shit.
I wonder how much the "expert" Todd Decker gets from that.
To be honest that song was probably the main reason for album sales though.
xPorsum roar was even more popular than dark horse
The year 2030: Musician sued for using a snare drum. Jury awards damages.
2023: Sued for singing horribly in a song, just like this other song
Sued for blowing a flute
2035: musician sued for rhyming words
And the musician was sentenced to death.
Year 2031: Musician sued for playing A at 440Hz
Thank you for posting this. As a songwriter/artist seriously planning on marketing my music, it makes me nervous to see these lawsuits coming out where people are losing because the "vibe" is too close. It honestly makes me afraid to think that I'll spend thousands of dollars to record and market a song, only to have some unknown artist sue me. If more of these silly lawsuits come out I hope that you'll keep making these videos and standing up for creatives
Broken justice system brings ridiculous results.
I've copyrighted the note of B flat, so any song that has that note can and will be sued
Shit, rip every middle school band
Aww crap cant play my B flat clarinet anymore, guess I'll fail band
No! My Bb concert scale warmup! (I don't know why I am attached to this but I am.) Also, no! My Bb clarinet! That means I can't play it! I shall fail and I cannot have that. Literally almost every song we play has Bb in it.
You’ll never take my trombone alive!
I love your profile 😂
It sounds nothing alike. If that is considered the same, then 99% of music is the same. You only have 12 keys in an octave.
This is scary shit...I feel for her and the producer.
I call dibs on "A"
@@xpusostomos I'm skipping B and going for C. B just sounds so drab and dreary. But, I'll trade you my E for your A!
If this is the case, every 90's rapper should be sued by every 70's soul artists.
true, but only if the song makes money. there is no need to sue if the song is a dud and it made no revenue. the ploy for sampling is to sample, knowing it is wrong, to try to get your song noticed and make enough revenue to get something out of your recording after the lawsuit. who wants to pay for permission of the usage of another's work and then make no money off of it. life is full of taking chances to make money.
Axle Grind Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Sampling isnt for greedy opportunists, its a tool for expression and reflection. They are used to add detail, contribute to the album's storyline, comedic value, etc. Take any hip-hop or rap album that employs skits to tell a story or be comedic. Sampling is beneficial for music, not for corrupt financial-based schemes. There is a huge difference between stealing a song and sampling a conversation, subway train, TV shows, etc. You needa educate yourself.
@@bluewuppo Also, they get permission. But, you're not wrong at all mate.
@@bluewuppo he obviously wasn't referring to sampling a conversation on the subway... Moot point at it's finest. Sampling a tracks melody effectively makes your track a remix which you need clearance for, yeah sometimes you'll get away with it but if the tracks blow up expect to lose most of your royalties for being dishonest as fuck...
@@bencastor9207 Dishonest? Are you kidding me? Literally any musician worth their salt knows what you're saying is brain dead.
Arguments like Todd's would be devastating for the whole blues culture.
Jazz as well, it kills the entire idea of building off of a standard without being immediately exposed to a lawsuit.
2018: "You can't own chords"
2019: "You can't own the minor scale"
2020: You can't own the chromatic scale
2021: You can't own the western music notation
2022: "you can't own a note"
2020: "You can't own rhythms"
2021: "You can't own pitches"
2022: "You can't own quarter notes"
2023: "You can't own bar lines"
2024: "You can't own the idea of computers"
2025: "You can't own the idea of music"
@@weee50 2026: "You can't own sound"
@@marchesi07 2022: "Jazz pianist fined for failure to sufficiently pay Warner's per-interval royalty for music tuned equal temperament."
Katy Perry must hire Adam Neely and sue rapper flame and Todd Decker.
Well, maybe ... if you can fill the jury with academic musicologists.
@@banjopink4409 i'm not an academic musicologist and I was able to follow the video perfectly well
@@scottrainey2375 OK. So we stuff the jury with clones of you ... just so long as there's no normies capable of being misled by snake-oil hustlers
Neely and Beato would be the dream team...
@@banjopink4409 Perfectly clear to me and I have zero knowlege of music theory. All that's needed are eyes and ears, the comparisons to earlier music was enough to blow the case out of court, and I'm certain your average 12 year old could follow that with ease.
If you struggled with that I suspect you are the one in the minority.
Nice counter argument. Sounds like her legal team failed. Maybe you should contact her legal team on the appeal and get paid!
Man, I wanted to be their counter musical expert. XD
But Adam would do it better for sure
I think it’s less the legal team and more that the jury didn’t care
Adam should be paid more than Katy Perry's legal team.
@@saraheverett95 maybe they did care but, bewildered, they felt Katy Perry's wealthy enough to give up $500k
When I first watched this I knew very little about music, but watching it again now I realise how laughably absurd Decker's claim is. Imagine trying to claim that a certain painter was the first to use red and green together, and now they legally own that colour combination
" Imagine if someone could own a word"
*gets react bros flashbacks*
Why? They weren't claiming the word.
Black people own a word.
Can buy a vowel? I don't want to own a word. I want the letter "e". Muwahaha! This lawsuit reminds me of a diaper I saw once. Even better, can I copyright the color blue?
@@LVRN-qj7kr So true.
Also Kim Kardashian’s “Kimono” Clothing line.
I feel like you're gonna become the anti-industry lawsuit guy, and I'm so for this.
@Pompous Psycho That's the point though. Keyword, "Unwillingly". It's not about whether anyone's a fan or not. It's about what makes sense.
We should be so lucky...
It is, in fact, the point. In the legal system, hearsay testimony is generally not accepted. One of a small list of exceptions is called 'testimony against interest'.
I don't know if that fits this legally or not, but it gets the idea across.
That's what real hackers do,, expose the falsity of the establishment. If were paying attention watching the film "The Matrix" hackers reveal the truth to the world so that people can choose to think for themselves and not be told what to believe, I think and say.
Never too late for social media to rescue us from insanity, Red Pill that shit...
@@lukasalihein, Sorry - you can't say that any more. Kylie will sue.
"Wait a sec you can't do that."
"Why not?"
I _own_ Piano.
Jokes on you
You cant tell me not to play piano because you own it...
*If I own vocal communications*
Batman's Pet Goldfish well i own the Yamaha DX7!
The verdict was overturned on appeal on the March 16, 2020.
US District Court judge Christina A Snyder said "It is undisputed in this case" that the ostinato was "not a particularly unique or rare combination."
*This just in: Bach comes back from the grave to sue Flame for sampling his violin sonata in f minor*
Breaking news: Pythagoras also comes back from the dead to sue Bach for using fifths. He is also to sue every mathematician for using the Pythagorean theorem.
@@craigsimpson1230 Not sure the jury is in on that. His music is in the public domain because he is believed to be dead for more than [insert number depending in legal framework of copyright in your country] years. In a scenario where the dead come alive again, this believe is wrong and he is currently not dead for that number of years. In the post apocalyptic zombie hellscape of returning dead people, that would be a court case to watch closely... But I think the plaintive, Zombie Bach, should be paid.
Why do I see you everywhere
Craig Simpson it was a joke
This just in: The big bang is suing everything for making sound.
You need to contact Katie Perry for her appeal and request a large commission lol
He would, if he could spell her name properly. JK.
@@stephendevore Her name is actually spelled Katy,,,
Katy not Katie! 🙄😬😑
I agree except for the Commission part- she has a good appeal with this evidence. Not that it wasn't obvious at the time that the suit was solely a result of religious bigotry on the part of the plaintiff and had little to do with the riff..
From the perspective of a PhD student, this line of argument by Decker is absurd. The few examples you provided in this video illustrate this of course, but also it's worth acknowledging that entire systems of analysis exist that consider this 3-2-1 motion to be one of the fundamental musical foundations of large swathes of the Western Canon (Schenker anyone?). Great video, as always.
oh shit u here
copyright is scary
Everybody gangsta until SMB speaks up
The argument didn't need to make sense. It just needed to 'satisfy' the jury.
@@Cautionary_Tale_Harris Which is why I hate jury duty.
This reminds me of the time I sent an essay of mine through plagiarism checking software and it came back that I strung together the same 7 words as someone else when they published their paper on a different topic… in the 80s 😂
I am a musicologist. These musicologists give a bad name to the profession. This lawsuit is ridiculous.
You ain't shit except an overweight old hag
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b You are a very stupid human being. Probably one of the juries in this stupid lawsuit. Hell, you might be related to the idiot musicologist who was called as an expert.
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you ten?
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b I'm sorry for whatever pain you've suffered that motivates you to waste all our time typing something like that. I hope you find something positive that helps you find joy in doing good.
@@user-ei9ns9hq6b eat a couple more pieces of vegan goodness and sort yourself out
I once sued a coworker because his farts sounded similar to mine
Richard Paulus do you have recorded proof of the fart sound so that you can sue successfully? /s
@@kingkv3 of course. I record all of my farts on audio. I also put them all in jars just in case my team of lawyers need to take them to a lab for testing.
Richard Paulus relatable
if it was in the USA, totally possible lawsuit.
JayFeather why are you getting so offended wtf
we are going to reach a point where even single notes are gonna be copyrighted
Great idea bro - Cx is mine!
Hell, while we're at it, let's give them Ab, Eb and Bb as well.
Then I lay claim to the highest C. If your glissando were to ever land on that key,
PAY UP BITCH.
Revolution!
We will ? On youtube you can copyright nothing XD !
Update: the win for Flame has been overturned. Only the Supreme Court at this point can keep the case alive (so a win for Perry).
Katy should sue Todd Decker for not doing his research and she should bring up these songs
agreed
You cannot sue a witness.
I'm not a fan of her and don't even listen to her music but such unfair outrageous lawsuits need to be clamped down on
@@neurofiedyamato8763 Agreed
Her legal team completely fucking failed her. Like, what was she even paying them for?!
“Imagine if someone could own a word”
Kim Kardashian: hold my Kimono
What about The react brothers?
Didn't Paris Hilton attempt to copyright "that's hot"? Pretty sure she was denied that the same reason this should've thrown out of court.
Well, there are several examples: Some sports announcers have a phrase that no one else can use and blacks have the "N" word. There are others, so you don't have to imagine.
LOL
Bitch
next up: musician sued for using a kick drum on the first beat and a snare drum on the second.
And now it's been overturned! That's a win for music, if you ask me.
So by this logic... they better sue Santa and Moses too lmao
Or sue the guy who is suing Katy Perry for copying Moses and Santa
I love how this implies Santa & Moses wrote those songs, it’s just so funny to imagine Santa going “hmmm that song Moses made sounds great...”
And Godzilla...
And Bach
@mike sixx
Get the fuck out of here you shit faced troll getting paid by Russians.
no music or art exists in a vacuum. Everything creative must have some elements from previous works. I bet all of my riffs have many disjointed parents.
Better be prepared for your trial dude. Todd may sue you
@@holymackarel10 it's alright. I'm safe. I haven't made any money from music
So, where did the 1st of things come from?
@@IfYouKnowYouKnow. *x files theme*
The point is to pay people. When you don't pay the people who "inspire" you, shit like this happens
adam, the raw power of you saying "let's take a walk" to todd decker burnt off all my eyebrows
BIG DICK ENERGY
I am so glad you exist Adam, thank you for everything you do.
i bet, when the jury was selected, anyone with a musical background was rejected by plaintiff's council
Which is ironic, because if one is entitled to a trial by a jury OF THEIR PEERS, be it a criminal or civil trial, then the jury should have been ENTIRELY COMPOSED OF PEOPLE WHO HAD AN UNDERSTANDING OF MUSICAL COMPOSITION.
Robert Kennedy sound logic but in practice I think by peers they meant average civillians.
I’m pretty sure they rejected anyone with a brain
Spot on with that comment!
Jurors that are informed on the subject are often weeded out. If a learned juror gets through selection, they could introduce defacto expert testimony neither side gets to examine as well as introduce facts not entered into evidence.
I'm gonna copyright A 440hz and sue everyone.
That's ok, I'm usually out of tune.
Sorry, we only play A 432 Hz with pythagorean tuning nowadays.
Then the 432hz people would finally have an actual purpose for using the right frequencies.
4/4 dibs!
I call dibs on the perfect fifth, you can't use it or anything approximating it or I sue
I hope Katy's camp can appeal this ruling--and I'm not even a fan of hers. This is wrong.
@Akilleus Did you even watch the video?
@@jesse3912 probably not
@Akilleus, hey there you IGNORANT TROLL, you don't know what you are talking about. There is virtually nothing about these two songs that is alike other than that stupid descending minor line which is in MILLIONS of compositions all the way to the beginning of time. Its not original in the slightest. Nothing in pop music and especially nothing in rap is remotely original. Rap "music" is notorious for stealing as rap "artists" are the most musically ignorant people on the planet... next to you of course.
@Akilleus Someone didn't watch the video
Honestly, this sounds TOO MUCH like all those other cases I hear about people specifically damaging a really famous person to get money or get more fame.
As soon as I heard it, I immediately went to "Moments in Love". Maybe Art of Noise has a case against Flame?
What's even more important: Stealing stuff from others and recombining it into even better works of art is an essential part of music history. The classical composers all quoted each other and used each others material without shame, and this has always been a great inspiration for beautiful works of art. That's how culture works-nobody starts from scratch, we all build on what has been there before. It is a tragedy that modern copyright stifles progress in this way.
exactly!!! no one, i repeat, NO ONE, is completely original or self-sustaining when it comes to art. that's literally against the very foundation of what culture means. i am beyond bewildered why some people (and in positions of power at that, oh geez) don't get this.
@@davidmorris8319 It's because we live in a hyper-individualistic culture that makes people believe that artists and businessmen are superhumans whose accomplishments owe nothing to society.
That's how programming works-nobody starts from scratch, we all build on what has been there before.
The most popular genre on the planet currently, Hip Hop, is based off of people using other peoples records and rapping over them😂 music isnt supposed to be owned. If someone blatantly STEALS your song as in multiple things are the same such as lyrics, rhythm and a harmonic line then yes that person infringed on your copy right but even in hip hop dudes use each others lines very frequently
And then there's autoplagiarism. That's where you know it has gone too far.
If I ever become a musician and get sued, I'm using you as my expert witness.
My civil procedure professor is an expert witness and makes SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY, if he gets into this realm he could make a lot of money especially if he is testifying for defendants with huge pockets.
Why didn't Katy Perry get Adam Neely as an expert witness?
You'd had to be innocent though
What if that's the one time that he decides it was plagiarized 🤔🤔🤔
@@ignacioandresv3170 Evidently not as this law suit has just shown us.
Decker should be ashamed. He's part of the problem, not the solution.
He's got his head so far up his arse he won't see the problem
Sillimant lmaooooooooo
Expert Witnesses get paid a bundle to go testify. No doubt that he got a significant portion of the awarded winnings, or even a flat fee + a percentage
No, the problem is the combination of antagonistic system in which basically, experts merely compare dick lengths with decision making by a bunch of clueless hacks. End result: the expert whose wiener shrivels the least under crossexamination by a complete layperson is found to be the more impressive by a bunch of equally clueless hacks who admire his mojo. Which, in the end, has more to do with how much testosterone he injected in the court room restroom and how much viagra he threw in than with any facts of the case.
@@ohauss well said
Singers and songwriters can make some "joyful noise" now that a federal appeals court has now confirmed that Perry didn't infringe on Flame's copyright. All three judges unanimously agreed that "The portion of the ‘Joyful Noise’ ostinato that overlaps with the ‘Dark Horse’ ostinato consists of a manifestly conventional arrangement of musical building blocks ... Allowing a copyright over this material would essentially amount to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself."
This sensible ruling protects the right of all artists to freely make use of basic musical building blocks that are rightfully in the public domain, just like individual words or common idioms in the English language. Good job explaining this case!
"It's a dangerous precedent to say that someone can own such a specific piece of our shared musical language." Well said Adam!!
And yet, how many slogans and company names are trademarked?
Imagine Newton : I discovered gravity so don't use it OR pay me every time you use it
tbh i d prefer if he didnt invent it
Guess I'll fly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jabir Fatah no you dont
Jabir Fatah xD why do I feel like I’m the only one who new what you said was a joke?.
@@evillolipop2704 Dont worry I've already posted this crap to r/wooosh
“It seems he has forgotten that phrase even when he wrote the book on the song” OH THE SHADE THE SHAAAAADDEEE
Well, "Men at Work" were sued over the flute riff in "Down Under" by the owners of the copyright to "Kookaburra sits in the old gum tree"
"imagine if somebody owned a word"
Example: "react"
The shade @ the finebros
There is a joint ownership of the word "superhero" by DC and Marvel.
Ok i have one for you. Apple.
deepweeb dive that’s much different than the word “react.” Droid is just a shortened version of the word “android,” and it is often associated with the Star Wars films.
Kylie Jenner trying to the word Kylie
Brb, off to copyright 12 bar blues.
Fine, but the II V I is all $MINE$
*Robert Johnson wants to know your location*
Hate to break it to y’all but I officially own the key of A.
Oof, is this a bad time to mention that the octave belongs to me?
Sorry man, I did that last week, should've been faster
Isn’t it a felony to lie under oath
Technically its his opinion
JayDolphin He didn’t really lie, just gave his “expert opinion” on the song. Or at least he didn’t necessarily lie. Also the other lawyers should have objected when he talked about how the tone “sounded” the same, because he was not in any way a sound engineer, and should not have been qualified to opine on whether or not the tone/waveform/whatever you call it was similar enough to be stolen.
@@cd2320
That's true. LPT for Katy Perry. Hire better lawyers.
JayDolphin yeah but,, i don’t think what he did qualifies as perjury. also i think perjury takes intent to lie so if he’s just wrong or giving a dumbed down version then that’s probably not enough to make a case out of, and definitely not enough to convict or anything
Honestly the prosecution or the defendant lawyer can pay a professional legally to make their opinion help your case.
Igor Stravinsky: "Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal " these cases are potentially corporate destruction of musical creativity
Just In: Katy Perry sued by the zoo for copyright infringement by using animals sounds in Roar!
Bruh 😂
The opening sounds very similar to _Brave_ by Sara Bareilles...she just laughed it off and moved on, no lawsuit or whatever against Perry or anyone else involved in making _Roar._
@@an_impasse That's because Brave was hugely successful while Joyful Noise was not.
It could happen, even I got a copyright claim on one of my videos for a seagull noise playing in the background in a video game. Copyrighted by freaking ambient nature sounds in a game. The person trying to claim one of my unlisted videos had done an album of nature noises, so it sounded like it belonged to them.
The real problem is that cases like this should NOT be going to regular court and being heard by regular folk. Just as there are specialty courts like military court, juvenile court, international court, and business court, there needs to be a music court created where these types of cases can be heard by people in the industry with the proper experience and expertise to render sensible and just verdicts.
no, there does not need to be a special court for everything, but the word "peer" needs to be taken as actual peers of the people in court instead of some randomly chosen people from the area near the court
This case should have never gone to court or anywhere.
@queenbeethatme100 Explained in the video
queenbeethatme100 So just to clear this up...you believe that Katy Perry is guilty?
@queenbeethatme100 You said, "Peers would never be people from any industry due to ethical and professional bias." But if the "peers" who are randomly chosen members of the general public have such a poor understanding of music theory that they don't know the notes on the musical scale, cannot read sheet music or cannot define basic terms like harmony, rhythm, melody, ostinato, etc. , then there is a problem with their competence to hear a technical case that revolves around the comparative analysis of the structure of two songs to determine their similarity. It's entirely reasonable to ask that a "jury of peers" has enough understanding of basic music theory to be able to comprehend and competently analyze and critique what the lawyers and expert witnesses are saying. There are millions of such people in the United States who studied music in high school band or play an instrument as a hobby to be able to competently hear such a case without invoking the ethical and professional issues that would be associated with professional musicians signed to a record label. So at the very least, prospective jurors should be given a short quiz to determine their understanding of music theory and those who fail should be filtered out.
I think we should make sure Todd Decker sees this video!
I think he already knows.. $$$
I bet he's crying into his hundred dollar bills
He's too busy cashing checks for youtube.
Daniel Albers I did copy it into a comment on a post he made on his Washington University page so he’ll see it!!
interview him
One photography teacher told me, even if you think it was your idea, for sure unconsciously you heard or saw or had a contact with that (what ever is that) during your life, but you don't know when or even remember, inspiration comes from everywhere.
yes exactly, and that's good and important because you can't just come up with totally new ideas, you just alterate and reiterate on the stuff that came before. and just by coincidence, some things will turn out very similar, that doesn't mean you stole something just because the inspiration might be obvious in some places.
I could’ve seen you playing the wrong song for hours
"Listen to this piece. I know it is the 367th time I've said it, but this is Katy Perry's Dark Horse, 🎶🎶....... Actually that's the sound of SpongeBob rubbing two pickles together."
The music industry is being destroyed by a musicologist.
Katy Perry is destroying music by copying other artists. Don't get it twisted.
Love is the answer I love your answer : )
I'm guessing you guys didn't finish watching this video
LoveIsTheAnswer but she’s not. This would be the equivalent of a painter trying to sue another painter because they both paint trees, Or they both used red or something. It’s ridiculous. You can’t own the building blocks of music. You don’t want to live in a world like that.
@@originalbukatv Do you not understand or watch the fucking video?
This guy should have been Katy Perry’s lawyer
Asher Barnsdale he actually ended up being hired by media to represent those rights, and then got sued by the Katy Perry representatives
@@nicholasrevill6610 lmao what, for real?
@@keralis12 yup, he did another video 2 months later explaining everything
@@nicholasrevill6610 What? Can you provide a link to that video/source please? Are you sure you aren't talking about the false copyright claim from Warner/Chappell? Because a copyright strike on RUclips and a lawsuit are completely different things
@@GoldenMaverick3 ruclips.net/video/KM6X2MEl7R8/видео.html
Adam, what a great video! Thanks for putting this together. I'll share it with my classes.
I'm a little disappointed that the whole video was not just him going "wait, that wasn't kary perry, this is katy perry.." over and over again
over and over again? You can't use that it's been copyrighted to Nelly & Tim Mcgraw.
@@UKRAku damn!! My comment just got demonetized
I don't know what the FUCK you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touch a brother's heart.
That was rather annoying to me lol
Pronte sorry but the word demon**ised is copyrighted by you know who
Music producer tries to copywrite something in the minor scale.
The entire history of heavy metal would like a word with you...
thfreakinacage true
@@357BlahEn actually just copyright D tuning and you'd profit from every metal song in history.
Imagine them tryna copyright chords like the diminished minkr 5th.
Synthwave would be done.
Cabolt44 Opeth is safe!
Copywrite the word "death".
This analysis is excellent - but it's getting to be a total joke the whole subject of copyright law - this isn't an area for clueless jurors.
Yes its too bad that this system is being suckered by bullshit sales pitch litigation.
Hans Grueber yaaaaa
Most countries don't allow a jury to decide on speciality cases like this one, maybe the USA should follow. ;)
Stop now I just copy righted the idea that people can post comments and get scores for those comments on youtube
Reminds me of the jury selected for the Scopes Trial back in 1925. Some of the people chosen to serve that jury didn't even know what Darwin's Theory of Evolution even was. Which leads to my ultimate question. How can a jury even pass a judgement on something if they know almost nothing about it?
Nice video!! Interesting that this totally spurious lawsuit should have been overturned, Katy got lucky, or a competent judge 2nd time around.
Maybe Colin Hay (of Men at Work) should seek another trial. I'm referring to one of the most embarrassing episodes in Australia's legal history.
In June 2009, 28 years after the release of the recording of Men at Works song Down Under, Larrikin Music sued Men
at Work for copyright infringement, alleging that part of the flute riff of "Down Under" was copied from "Kookaburra"
(a children's nursery rhyme known to all and widely thought to be in the public domain).
The flute riff included a musical 4-bar quote which had no doubt been initially played off the cuff at a live gig sometime
but had come to be incorporated into the song as an essential element of "Australian-ness", and recorded with it in as is.
The art of musical quoting other pieces of music dates back centuries and is widely practiced in jazz (and sometimes even rock)
so I'm really not sure how it even came to be in court - imagine if a publisher of a pop song from the 40s tried to sue
Dexter Gordon for doing one of his innumerable quotes. It would have been - quite rightly - laughed out of court.
However the Men at Work defense team, instead of stating;
"Yes it's a musical quote, and correct, not much point if no-one recognises it is there?!" they for whatever reason tried to
argue that is wasn't intentional, or it wasn't that song, or was already in the public domain (a fairly valid argument as
well as it happens). Anyway they lost something that should never have even got to court, Larrikin music is now much
despised and has since changed their name, Greg Ham (the flute player) died not long after, and the legal system in Australia
is now widely recognised as the farce it is, not least because the High Court of Australia declined to hear the appeal (and missed
a golden opportunity to be seen as doing something constructive).
For stupid music court cases it takes some beating - despite thousands of instances of musical "quoting" by instrumentalists I
cannot think of another that has ended up in court.
Oh and the amount awarded; 5% of royalties from 2002. Millions. Take-away? Greed pays - sue.
Dude this is both expert musical analysis and an excellent moral stance. Good on you, and please send this video directly to that guy.
Moral stances are subjective.
accusations of witchcraft and paganism is so like, 800 years ago, smh
I'm a Pagan
An Bi same lol
Pagan's still exist, although it's pretty much all in a newer form so it tends to get called neopaganism, but anyway him even daring to complain about that of all things should have been all the more reason to at the very least raise eyebrows. This is just some fundamentalist wacko that's totally intolerant of anything that is even superficially different from his beliefs and the fact that this shit can fly in a court room presumably out of the ignorance of the masses is a testament to the failure of our current court system on issues like this. How are you suppose to trust a jury "of your peers" (read: random ass people from the same geographical location at best) and a judge studied in law to rule on issues both are totally ignorant to? At that point it becomes a battle of persuasive use of words they can't understand, rather than a battle of facts.
@@historicalaccuracy15 I really don't see why all of this came about and in court under no circumstance should religion, race, gender, sexual orientation affect the final results. That's discrimination. Very well said in your comment too 👏👏👏
More like 400 years ago. Medieval people did not believe witchcraft was real, and would have accused you of vile heresy and blasphemy if you tried to make that claim.
Once again: Adam Neely and Rick Beato should be mandatory expert witnesses in all court cases related to copyright infringement in music.
@Rata 4U I'm sorry but I don't see how any of that relates to this video? And patent laws are not the same thing as copyright laws.
@Rata 4U He got you there.
Could not agree more.
*tips fedora*
Hear, hear! 👍
Music copyright lawsuits should be mandated to have juries of Music Theory experts
Imagine copyrighting your own DNA so you can sue all of your offspring for living if you wanted to 🤔
Sergio lazaro mejía 99% of our DNA is common to all of us, so if you did that you could copyright everyone for living!!! 🤔
BEWARE THE REPO MAN.
Technically, you are the one that's copying yourself, so that won't work.
If someone else started using your DNA without permission however... that would be a cool sci-fi flick.
I copyrighted your comment.
*I'll see you in court.*
Careful, don't give them ideas.
"I hope you got paid well, because you kinda sold us all out"
Boom.
More like hope u got paid well cuz your toast lol
Ya done now
wundrweapon Boom.
Next up on lawsuits: someone is going to copyright the I-IV-V progression.
*Journey has entered the chat*
I'm waiting for someone to get sued because they played a blast beat
DIBS!
I just copyrighted C major
@@DjAmaratziOfficial nooonono see i invented it in middle school music class!
The biggest problem has always been, that lawmakers do not understand the nuances of the art industry. And though the assumption is that they will argue their case in a way that explains the nuances, we clearly end up with cases that set precedent in a really unfortunate way. A jury of your peers, we’re no one on the jury is expected to understand music theory.
I'd like to copyright the key of C and 128 BPM.
I 'beat' you to that back in '96
Lucky you! That was the last piece we had! Did you bring your own bag or would you like to get one for 20c?
Okay but I get Em
sorry you can't... I already copyrighted the chromatic scale...
Joke is on you, I play viola so i am never in tune, I can just claim I was playing in D-Flat 🤣
Love how adam got copyright striked by Warner for this video lmao
It's almost as if Warner had their own BS copyright policies used against them
How is that funny? Tyrannical people and their actions are a joke?
@@tarunchand3159 next will be star spangled banner, i suppose.
Wolflordy fr “what kind of corporate, capitalist hellscape would that usher in”?
@@louismasar6147 He means ironic
Very accurately argued, these music court cases need to be thrown out
These court cases have nothing to do with music - each side just buys an expert who will testify to whatever the argument on their side is. The rest is theatre. The plaintiff (I don't know who he is) was only concerned with a dollar payout, he doesn't care what the ramifications of what he has done.
Ultimately this is what the american 'sue everything' mentality has led to. If you changed payment so that lawyers only got paid 100/hour then most of these cases would vanish overnight because they are just parasites.
@@insertclevernamehere2506 Musicians are profit making machines that I wouldn't even qualify as humans, for the most part. Some exec is coercing them into suing, this is a profit-making scheme, I bet that lawsuits are built into their fucking budgets.
I love this explanation video because when I first heard of this story I thought the same thing
@TheBrabon1 Ha, nonsense, if you want to start that crap we can sue the entire Blues genre for 'ripping off' music, every time someone uses a I-IV-V progression!
@TheBrabon1 You are another little anonymous chappie, grow a pair and I might discuss it with you, I like to know with whom I am speaking.
i've been looking for that art of noise sample for ages.... thank you
Katy won the appeal! Case overturned! I hope this video was used as official evidence
@andyr roopram if that is true the system works :)
@andyr roopram ah ok then I did not get it thanks for clarifying it for me :)
@andyr roopram Can you post a link to Katy perry suing Christine Lepera? This case is actually interesting. I want to know how it turns out!
@andyr roopram huh, this article did not specify that Katy Perry is suing Christine Lepera?
She will still lose Flame is taking it back to court this time with an expert that surfaced after he won.
Someone needs to use that Bach ostinato exactly in a composition and see what happens. Make it prominent and see if Flame sues them. Then say in court that they stole it from JS Bach. lmao. considering Bach is public domain.
30 seconds in and this man has just said more music terminology then I even knew existed
Peobably exact thoughts of the jurors in the court case, and they were probably listening to the prosecutors musicologist for much longer
Welcome to the musical side of youtube
You'll understand if you did musical theory
@@tonytonychopper999 Even without that I understood enough to shake my head over the ruling. But there was probably no one like Adam showing laymen why it was so absurd to sue in the first place...
@@tonytonychopper999 I tried to get into music theory but they didnt put it in my schedual even though I requested it. I had to skip lunch everyday to go to the class. And then I just stopped showing because I was tured of showing up during half the class and not eating lunch. My school screwed me over
When you mentioned Art of Noise it finally clicked for me why it felt like your synth was so familiar.
It's one of the most famous Fairlight presets, ARR1.
Ok so let me get this straight:
Ice ice baby and under pressure aren’t the same because of a ting
But Dark horse and joyful noise are the same because of something I’ve never even heard of?
God I hate our courts.
Makes sense.
It's not a ting, it's a ch-ch
Well, this is America. If you've got enough cash, and/or bitch enough, you can basically get by with anything.
Well Queen and the artist who made Ice Ice Baby (forgot his name) were actually signed to the same label aka Universal Music Group. (I understand queen was signed to multiple labels but at the time of under pressure they were signed with UMG). Because of this, the guy who made ice ice baby was able to get permission from the higher ups (not the actual producer/artist) to use the melody. That's usually the case with many artists who are signed under one record label. But if they were to use the melody from queen if they were signed with say Warner Music Group, then they would be sued off their asses
Haha I was listening to 80’s songs the other day and under pressure came on I started singing ice ice baby. Also when Sledgehammer came on by Peter Gabriel I thought it was another song. But maybe it’s cool because they’re ripping off British Songs so as long as it’s not American they’re safe?
Edit: Found it it’s Jermaine Dupre ft. Nas and Monica - I’ve got to have it
"Imagine a big corporate entity being able to own a word"
Fine Bros: copyrights the word "react"
Wasn't it a trademark though? Pretty sure you can't copyright single words.
You can copyright phrases. Firms do it all the time.
They call em 'slogans'
apparently you can own two words in the czech republic: www.google.com/search?q=upec+treba+zed
@@ryanfoltz1276 But those words & slogans are only copyright within specific and very limited fields. A slogan for a brand of kitchen cleaner, for example, could be used to advertise a car, without fear of infringement.
"You're fired."
Shit, Perry's legal team really screwed the pooch on this.
This should've been an easy dismissal.
My favorite channel at the moment! You're so good, thank you!