Radiohead Sues Lana for Copyright Infringement on "Get Free"

[Standing Ovation 272]

I wonder what The Hollies think of this whole mess??

[HunterSThompson 4,644]

https://twitter.com/zaccolao/status/950089350532030464

 

RETWEET ME GUYS <3

tweet it

 

tweet it

 

https://twitter.com/zaccolao/status/950089350532030464

[white gold 4,240]

I highly doubt the court will give radiohead 100% and Lana is aware of this. She wouldn't tweet about this if she wasn't sure she would have a favorable outcome. I think she tweeted that to be petty so that EVERYONE is aware when Radiohead doesn't get 100%. She is very upset--clearly

[DLT 7,480]

Either way, this is not a good look for Radiohead. I never thought Radiohead was this petty and money hungry, so it's more disapointing than anything. So Radiohead fans can come for her, but that doesn't take away the fact that Get Free is a very personal song to many Lana fans, just like Creep probably is for some Radiohead fans. I just hope she doesn't get too much hate for this.

I’m a huge fan of both myself. Lana and Radiohead are my favorite artists. This is just sad and so fucking petty. Egotism at its best! I agree and hope she doesn’t get a huge backlash. She honestly doesn’t deserve it. Die hard fans in each camp will have their views but hopefully some will be smart enough to see how frivolous and ridiculous this is on Thom/Radiohead’s part. Fuck em honestly! Lana’s endures and she will continue too. Nice try though!

[Adrift 4,776]

i agree, she is going to win.

 

long analysis below.

 

 

no one song owns 100% of the rights to its chord progression. as far as the creep progression goes, it's far from groundbreaking, it's just a natural voice leading progression on the guitar. anyone arrogant enough to think they invented a chord progression knows nothing about writing music. as far as melody goes, they're only similar in the way that they both sing notes in the scale. 

 

the creep progression is G - B - C - Cm

get free (i should mention, only in its verses and prechoruses) is Bb - D - Eb - Ebm (once it gets to the chorus it's Bb - Gm - Bb - Gm - Bb - C - Bb - C)

 

so they're not even in the same key, they just use the same harmonic progression. but again, who would be arrogant enough to think they own 100% of the rights to that progression? the use of secondary chords can be traced back to the fucking baroque period. 

 

as far as copyright infringement goes, even if it is decided that lana was inspired by creep for the song, the purpose and character of the work is transformative. they are her own lyrics, a very natural melody over those chords if it is decided that it's similar to creep, and completely different instrumentation. even getting 40% of the publishing for get free would be incredibly generous of lana to do, because legally, there's no reason that the songs share any striking similarities compositionally that either party could argue that they "own". lana does not sample creep, she barely even interpolates it. 

 

and even on top of all of this, there's NO logical reason to ask for 100% of the publishing rights on Get Free because they don't fucking own 100% of Creep. After they were sued by the Hollies and lost, Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood were given (and still have to this day) writing credits on Creep. they split the royalties.

 

this is just ridiculous to me, and i'm pretty sure radiohead is going to lose this case, bigtime.

anyone is free to tweet any of these points too 

[Yosemite 23,566]

https://twitter.com/zaccolao/status/950089350532030464

 

RETWEET ME GUYS <3

 

 

https://twitter.com/zaccolao/status/950089350532030464

already did

[Degenerate 950]

but using similar chords and progression is not plagiarism 

 

 

it violates copyright law if it's considered to be unique enough. Yes G C Em D would not constitute an infringement, but something they consider to be a unique product of that artist would

 

 

But it's only the pre-chorus lmao the rest of the song is completely different and way more diverse than Creep

 

 

there's only so many chord progressions and repetition is naturally bound to happen - it's happened many times in the past and will obviously continue to in the future. similar chord progression in 2 songs does not plagiarism make, especially when both songs in question are fundamentally different in every other way. this is simply the result of Thom Yorke being the self-important wanker he's always been, but then again that's hardly news. and that's excluding the fact that Radiohead aren't exactly innocent in the "borrowing heavily from other artists" department, like someone already pointed out they did it with The Hollies for Creep & The Beatles' Sexy Sadie for Karma Police.

 

It really depends on compositional elements there is a certain amount of similar elements a song can have without being classed as a copyright infringement or plagiarism it's down to the court to prove the likeness of these elements. For example Blurred Lines and Got To Give It Up had 15 compositional elements that were deemed similar so they got absolutely destroyed in court, but I am sure Lana will get away fine in this case.

 

This is an interesting article for reference:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2017/apr/13/has-pop-finally-run-out-of-tunes-ed-sheeran-plagiarism 

[Yosemite 23,566]

Thom Yorke after suing over a song his band was already sued for:

 

[cashcomesquick 5,379]

If Lana copied the exact chord progressions, Radiohead would have every right to sue her.

 

In this case, the claims are only based on both songs being somehow similar. This circumstance makes the case even sadder considering that artists are trying to limit other artists in their artistic freedom.

 

Also, the fact that she even tried to offer up to 40% speaks for her not wanting to fight over music.

 

Can’t wait to see her win and expose these money hungry, untalented asses.

[expandableclitoris 9,087]

i knew this was coming when you guys said it was very similar to CREEP

but i thought radiohead would agree to have like 10% of the song and just shut the fuck up

this whole situation is very stupid

[white gold 4,240]

Radiohead got sued bc Creep was a major moneymaker. Blurred Lines and Uptown Funk were also sued for copyright because they were major moneymakers. 

 

As much as I love Get Free, it's not a moneymaker and it's not even worth suing over. This is beyond petty. Even if they get 100%, they will probably lose money on legal fees, honestly. This is petty and doesn't make any fucking sense. 

[Yosemite 23,566]

Original tracklist from Lust for Money leaked 

 

[Flowerbomb 65,555]

i knew this was coming when you guys said it was very similar to CREEP

but i thought radiohead would agree to have like 10% of the song and just shut the fuck up

this whole situation is very stupid

They're old. They want the $$$ so they can get into fancy retirement homes.

[Shades 1,693]

Is a song like Get Free, what with having 0 radio play and not even being a "Lana single" (i.e. exponentially less promotion and buzz than normal singles have) even worth suing? Lmao. Bored old men.

[Beautiful Loser 45,956]

https://twitter.com/zaccolao/status/950089350532030464

 

RETWEET ME GUYS <3

I love you for this

[reputation 6,314]

nobody told me the title was all fucking wrong. fixed

[cashcomesquick 5,379]

I’m wondering how they justify wanting 100%? Wouldn’t that mean it was their intellectual property?

[UltraHeroin 8,801]

At least their thirst for lana's coins gave us a new thing to talk about..things were dry on here

[AKASAKA SAWAYAMA 7,835]

LANA OUTSOLD

[cashcomesquick 5,379]

This will affect her writing and we’ll get a song her shading the music industry on the next album. Bookmark this