Radiohead Sues Lana for Copyright Infringement on "Get Free"

[KillForLove 13,361]

I think this all plays into a very sad, recent trend of older musicians filing frivolous lawsuits against younger, current musicians. It's been happening so much recently and I think it's really discouraging to see how desperate and vicious older acts are when the opportunity to monetize. Current artists grow up listening to these songs and it's only natural that some of that would come out in certain melodies that sound similar. Thom Yorke is extremely financially secure, in no way does he need (nor deserve) 100%. I think it's such a dangerous artistic prescient to be setting restricting artistic expression.

[Kurac na Biciklu 2,359]

пшђжћчлкхгфдсѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕцдбвјн,.-

[Beautiful Loser 49,583]

What I’m not happy about is that some of the comments by Lana stans on instagram or Twitter are... pretty childish.

I think that some Lana fans are pretty immature too for going to their IG page and spam their comments section...

 

Creep sounds similar to Get Free until the line "I'm a weirdo", and that's it. Maybe they think they deserve more % since that melody is sung twice in Lana's song? And that Lana's song goes kind of silent again at the second verse (just like Creep). And that they both end silently (but Lana's end is soooo much more heavenly ♥).

I dunno, I'm just trying to see it from their perspective and hearing whatever similarities they might hear.

[HunterSThompson 4,646]

Okay so as some of you know, I'm studying to be a lawyer and this is what I know:

 

1. Chord progressions are not protected under the law because they are generally universal products and easy to copy -- it's like if Hershey or Toblerone said that they were the only manufacturers allowed to make chocolate. Radiohead can't sue based on chord progressions. Musical theorists have a saying that "everything is a remix." It's impossible to make a song that has no echo of a past song.
2. The legal standard for copyright infringement is "substantial similarity" which is a relatively hard test to prove. Radiohead's attorneys need to prove that the songs are substantially similar in order to win, if they are going for copyright infringement, which is a lot harder than just proving that the songs are "similar." "Substantial" is the key word.
3. Wasn't Radiohead sued by The Hollies for this song? And they lost? If so, this gives them very unsteady legal ground to stand on.

I'll update as I think of more.

 

Update: also, intent doesn't matter much in the context of copyright infringement; whether Lana/Nowels etc. intended (meant) to copy Creep is irrelevant. If the court finds that she did, in fact, copy the song then it won't matter if it was a mistake or not.

[reputation 6,321]

Okay so as some of you know, I'm studying to be a lawyer and this is what I know:

 

1. Chord progressions are not protected under the law because they are generally universal products and easy to copy -- it's like if Hershey or Toblerone said that they were the only manufacturers allowed to make chocolate. Radiohead can't sue based on chord progressions. Musical theorists have a saying that "everything is a remix." It's impossible to make a song that has no echo of a past song.
2. The legal standard for copyright infringement is "substantial similarity" which is a relatively hard test to prove. Radiohead's attorneys need to prove that the songs are substantially similar in order to win, if they are going for copyright infringement, which is a lot harder than just proving that the songs are "similar." "Substantial" is the key word.
3. Wasn't Radiohead sued by The Hollies for this song? And they lost? If so, this gives them very unsteady legal grounds.

I'll update as I think of more.

tweet it

[cashcomesquick 5,381]

Okay so as some of you know, I'm studying to be a lawyer and this is what I know:

 

• Chord progressions are not protected under the law because they are generally universal products and easy to copy -- it's like if Hershey or Toblerone said that they were the only manufacturers allowed to make chocolate. Radiohead can't sue based on chord progressions. Musical theorists have a saying that "everything is a remix." It's impossible to make a song that has no echo of a past song.
• The legal standard for copyright infringement is "substantial similarity" which is a relatively hard test to prove. Radiohead's attorneys need to prove that the songs are substantially similar in order to win, if they are going for copyright infringement, which is a lot harder than just proving that the songs are "similar." "Substantial" is the key word.
• Wasn't Radiohead sued by The Hollies for this song? And they lost? If so, this gives them very unsteady legal ground to stand on.

I'll update as I think of more.

 

Case closed. Skinny talent won.

[mid july 1,752]

I think that some Lana fans are pretty immature too for going to their IG page and spam their comments section...

not just lana fans tho... 

[Beautiful Loser 49,583]

not just lana fans tho... 

Sadly, not only Lana fans. :/

[Adrift 4,813]

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.

[Creyk 11,726]

Okay so as some of you know, I'm studying to be a lawyer and this is what I know:

 

1. Chord progressions are not protected under the law because they are generally universal products and easy to copy -- it's like if Hershey or Toblerone said that they were the only manufacturers allowed to make chocolate. Radiohead can't sue based on chord progressions. Musical theorists have a saying that "everything is a remix." It's impossible to make a song that has no echo of a past song.
2. The legal standard for copyright infringement is "substantial similarity" which is a relatively hard test to prove. Radiohead's attorneys need to prove that the songs are substantially similar in order to win, if they are going for copyright infringement, which is a lot harder than just proving that the songs are "similar." "Substantial" is the key word.
3. Wasn't Radiohead sued by The Hollies for this song? And they lost? If so, this gives them very unsteady legal ground to stand on.

I'll update as I think of more.

 

Update: also, intent doesn't matter much in the context of copyright infringement; whether Lana/Nowels etc. intended (meant) to copy Creep is irrelevant. If the court finds that she did, in fact, copy the song then it won't matter if it was a mistake or not.

tweet it

[hornymoon 5,771]

Okay so as some of you know, I'm studying to be a lawyer and this is what I know:

 

1. Chord progressions are not protected under the law because they are generally universal products and easy to copy -- it's like if Hershey or Toblerone said that they were the only manufacturers allowed to make chocolate. Radiohead can't sue based on chord progressions. Musical theorists have a saying that "everything is a remix." It's impossible to make a song that has no echo of a past song.
2. The legal standard for copyright infringement is "substantial similarity" which is a relatively hard test to prove. Radiohead's attorneys need to prove that the songs are substantially similar in order to win, if they are going for copyright infringement, which is a lot harder than just proving that the songs are "similar." "Substantial" is the key word.
3. Wasn't Radiohead sued by The Hollies for this song? And they lost? If so, this gives them very unsteady legal ground to stand on.

I'll update as I think of more.

 

Update: also, intent doesn't matter much in the context of copyright infringement; whether Lana/Nowels etc. intended (meant) to copy Creep is irrelevant. If the court finds that she did, in fact, copy the song then it won't matter if it was a mistake or not.

we love a smart gay

[LanaCharts 1,980]

Skinny always wins

[Yosemite 23,788]

Little witches, join me at midnight London Time // 7pm EST 

Get a paper, write 'Creep' on it. With a red marker.

Get your cauldron with hot water. Put rosemary & thyme and some ruined peaches and then put the paper that has 'Creep' on it.

Then chant the chorus of Get Free while you stream it on Spotify.

 

Oh, and only black outfits are allowed.

 

[Beautiful Loser 49,583]

Reminded me of this great video on how similar pop songs can be:

[pawn shop blues 2,347]

Damn, men are always trying to steal Lana's happiness from her. 

I mean, it's kind of true, the similarities melody-wise have been talked about since Get Free first came out, but it's just the verses. The pre-chorus and chorus from both songs are very different, not to mention the overall message of the two songs are completely different. Creep's about feeling like an outsider and wanting to die, Get Free's obviously about trying to get out of the darkness and embrace life. 

And 100% of the publishing is ridiculous, especially since they can't claim her lyrics. It's a horrible move for Radiohead and looks really hypocritical on their part since they are always going on about being anti-corporation/anti-greed, etc. 

Good for Lana for fighting back and not accepting this bullshit. I bet she's already prepping her Adidas tracksuit for the date. 

[kik 1,564]

Wouldn't it be fun if she'd sing Get Free tonight in Denver? I know she logically won't, but... 

[Doll Harlow 12,369]

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.

[white gold 4,242]

me showing up to court that day

[Trash Magic 28,452]

Wouldn't it be fun if she'd sing Get Free tonight in Denver? I know she logically won't, but... 

 

ugh she's gonna perform with attitude

[Flowerbomb 65,595]

Can't wait to see Lana pull an Elle Woods and get herself out of this mess.