Radiohead Sues Lana for Copyright Infringement on "Get Free"

[CatchTheBreeze 1,681]

And in the end most of y'all would cheer for Lana if she sued an artist.

 

Not if she'd sue someone for copying a melody she hasn't written herself in the first place. It's just a dumbass move by Radiohead/their label. And how much money can they possibly make here? GF ist 1/16 of the album, it's not a single, has no video (the YT video isn't uploaded by Lana but by a normal user so the royalties of that streams won't go in her pocket anyway), won't be played on the radio or live (sadly), has a lot less streams than most other songs on LFL. We're not talking about some million $'s here I'd say (but I don't know ofc). And a part of this will go to Hazlewood/Hammond anyway...

 

It's a lose-lose situation as someone wrote here earlier on. I hate it since two of my friends already mailed me the "news" already - and they normally won't send me anything Lana related...

[graham4anything 2,859]

​@@CatchTheBreeze and others-

 

​I might be wrong, but the scanning system know a song is the artist, so both for chart purposes

​and for royalties, I do believe the artist is given the credit even if they did not post it.

(Look at all the rap/pop videos that have a dance in it that goes viral and thousands of people post their version- and the artist charts

​higher from that (Willow Smith for one, Ayo & Teo, etc.)

​If the artist didn't get credit, most of those would have been taken down from the start.

​(Now the rules are different pre-1972 music, which was the group  The Turtles law suit that has been going on for a while, and keeps

being appealed).

 

​to reiterate- the major problem here is that if one cedes 40% to RH, (a number some here say is reasonable and Lana thought reasonable) then the actual writers of Air that I breathe will want their cut

​and that is a big chunk of change.

 

​@@slang (I think)  was correct- that no one at her company or lawyers were able to listen and hear and do something prior to the album

​(which as Lana said, Get Free was an early song done (as it was a dark song according to her), is someone who should be ashamed of themselves for not doing their job they are paid to do.  (that is my opinion). Any artist on any recording company, and any author of any book

​have people who do this.

 

​The only thing allowed to copy freely is something in the public domain (and there is even an on-going lawsuit about "Happy Birthday"

​and the restuarants over the years that had the staff sing a variation of that to get around paying the small royalty fee they were

suppose to pay. (And why Disney keeps renewing Mickey Mouse and fighting any attempt to let that slide into the public domain.)

 

[DEMONDELREY 2,676]

Does anyone know which jurisdiction is applying to this case? I know it's a matter of Private International Law and choice but I was just wondering if anyone is aware.

 

If we are looking at this from a UK perspective, Creep is absolutely eligible for protection. Work doesn't necessarily have to be "original" in the way that we understand it. The test established in both statutory and common law considers skill, labour and judgment. 

 

So, Radioqueef have a case. Now, within the UK jurisdiction, Courts tend to look at two aspects in order to determine if an infringement has occurred: similarities and how much is actually copied.

 

1) Looking at similarities is straightforward. If the similarities are significant enough to infer that copying has occurred, they will go onto the next step. Get Free does appear to have some similarities, we all acknowledge this to an extent. What most get confused about is the quantity question.

 

2) In terms of quantity, the Court will consider if copying has occurred in relation to a whole or substantial part of the original work. In regards to "substantial part"​, quantity isn't as important as quality (this can get confusing). Lana could copy as much as she wants as long as it is not an important part of the "original work". Important is determined by recognisability and etc (think of this as an iconic part of a song, like the riff from Black Sabbath's Iron Man).

 

I do believe Radiosdjkfshdfk have a strong case. I'm just not sure about the remedy. It will be very difficult for Lana's team to prove Get Free was created independently. But anyway, once again, I have only studied Law from a UK and European perspective. So if anyone has studied Intellectual Property Law in the US feel free to add to this so we can compare tests - I think US Law will most likely apply here. 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: this is a juvenile description, if anyone wants more detail I can go into it but I prefer Human Rights Law so I kinda don't care much for Intellectual Property 

[HunterSThompson 4,646]

Does anyone know which jurisdiction is applying to this case? I know it's a matter of Private International Law and choice but I was just wondering if anyone is aware.

 

If we are looking at this from a UK perspective, Creep is absolutely eligible for protection. Work doesn't necessarily have to be "original" in the way that we understand it. The test established in both statutory and common law considers skill, labour and judgment. 

 

So, Radioqueef have a case. Now, within the UK jurisdiction, Courts tend to look at two aspects in order to determine if an infringement has occurred: similarities and how much is actually copied.

 

1) Looking at similarities is straightforward. If the similarities are significant enough to infer that copying has occurred, they will go onto the next step. Get Free does appear to have some similarities, we all acknowledge this to an extent. What most get confused about is the quantity question.

 

2) In terms of quantity, the Court will consider if copying has occurred in relation to a whole or substantial part of the original work. In regards to "substantial part"​, quantity isn't as important as quality (this can get confusing). Lana could copy as much as she wants as long as it is not an important part of the "original work". Important is determined by recognisability and etc (think of this as an iconic part of a song, like the riff from Black Sabbath's Iron Man).

 

I do believe Radiosdjkfshdfk have a strong case. I'm just not sure about the remedy. It will be very difficult for Lana's team to prove Get Free was created independently. But anyway, once again, I have only studied Law from a UK and European perspective. So if anyone has studied Intellectual Property Law in the US feel free to add to this so we can compare tests - I think US Law will most likely apply here. 

 

 

 

Disclaimer: this is a juvenile description, if anyone wants more detail I can go into it but I prefer Human Rights Law so I kinda don't care much for Intellectual Property 

From what I know, foreign jurisdictions can't force their copyright laws on another foreign territory, but artists do have international copyrights through the Berne convention. Also, Get Free was produced and created in the U.S. so I believe U.S. law controls this case. I'm not entirely sure though, only a practiced attorney or legal scholar would know. Copyright laws are super tricky and always changing

[DEMONDELREY 2,676]

From what I know, foreign jurisdictions can't force their copyright laws on another foreign territory, but artists do have international copyrights through the Berne convention. Also, Get Free was produced and created in the U.S. so I believe U.S. law controls this case. I'm not entirely sure though, only a practiced attorney or legal scholar would know. Copyright laws are super tricky and always changing

 

 

I know there are multiple International Conventions to consider, but there is no such thing as an international copyright. The Berne Convention tries to create harmony in terms of granted rights, but protection against unauthorised use does depend on National Law. Anyway, I agree! Law tends to be outdated and does not consider globalisation/new media.

[daytonadeath 3,596]

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

  Radiohead Haven’t Sued Lana Del Rey, Publishers Say

“No lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’”

Mess  

[BeautifulAnywhere 5,413]

At this rate, she might have to dig up Malibu from the recycle bin & her recording sessions to use as evidence.

[Peachycream 3,647]

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

  Radiohead Haven’t Sued Lana Del Rey, Publishers Say

“No lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’”Mess [/size] [/size]

Now they’re tying to make her look like a lying fool? Lana needs to take her theraflu and get them boxing gloves on.

[DeadAgainst 1,515]

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

  Radiohead Haven’t Sued Lana Del Rey, Publishers Say

“No lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’”

 

Mess  

 

Radiohead pulling the Fake News defense in the wake of bad press, I take it

[Off To The Races 2010 demo pls 19,335]

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

  Radiohead Haven’t Sued Lana Del Rey, Publishers Say

“No lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’”

 

Mess  

Ugh, this makes me so pissed, I hope these bitches have their due because everytime it gets more annoying

 

[Beauty King 1,683]

Creep is administrated by two different publishers: EMI and Warner-Chappell. If it's not Warner-Chappell who's behind this, it's EMI.

[Doll Harlow 12,366]

They are really going to call her a liar now? Classy

[mid july 1,752]

am i the only one who thinks all this gf drama is kinda depressing? it's just really sad and even tho gf is getting exposure (positive+negative) i still wish it wouldn't have happened because to me it kinda fucks with the song 

[CatchTheBreeze 1,681]

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

  Radiohead Haven’t Sued Lana Del Rey, Publishers Say

“No lawsuit has been issued and Radiohead have not said they ‘will only accept 100%’ of the publishing of ‘Get Free.’”

 

Mess  

 

Haha so they say Lana made it up? Kinda funny (not really). But maybe it was a move to boost sales for both artists

[Tragic Rabbit 3,355]

By this time, Lana has already put a spell on them

 

 

I'm just kidding guys.. don't kill me! For those who don't get the reference, Radiohead literally has a song called 'Burn The Witch'.

[Peachycream 3,647]

They’re backtracking because of all the backlash they received once she tweeted about it. They probaby didn’t expect lana to expose them for being greedy and not settling for what was offered. That’s the only reasoning i can think of and that makes me more sad for Lana because they really thought they could take advantage.

[CatchTheBreeze 1,681]

 

I'm just kidding guys.. don't kill me! For those who don't get the reference, Radiohead literally has a song called 'Burn The Witch'

 

I actually like the Radiohead song a lot - their best in a long time imho.

[Yosemite 23,785]

 

I'm just kidding guys.. don't kill me! For those who don't get the reference, Radiohead literally has a song called 'Burn The Witch'

 

The only thing I didn't like was that you had to listen to it. Poor ears 

[cashcomesquick 5,381]

There’s no way that she would lie about these details considering they have been having negotiations since last year. It would harm her

[kik 1,564]

In reality they want 50%, but they are asking the highest percentage, it's negotiation. She wants that track to remain hers (it's her baby), so she won't give them 50%. Maybe the court thing is what Lana anticipate is gonna happen next, but in reality they just didn't give her an answer yet.

 

"We want 100%" is different than "We will only accept 100%" when you are negotiate.