Five musicians who lost fortunes in plagiarism cases
It seems that at any given moment, there is a major plagiarism case making music news. Over the years, significant musicians have been called into courtrooms to plead on their own creativity, attempting to separate their art from their inspirations or artists that came before them. While some make it out with their music still intact, others have had to pay out huge sums in reparation.
It’s a tricky topic and a huge legal grey area as lawyers attempt to understand where the line between inspiration and plagiarism lies. As the years tick on and the sheer amount of music in the world scales up by the hundreds of thousands of songs every day, surely the chances of being caught out for similarities between tracks are becoming more and more likely.
Lately, there was a trial regarding Ed Sheeran’s ‘Thinking Out Loud’ and Marvin Gaye’s ‘Let’s Get It On’, in which the modern musician took a stand against these types of cases. When he was found not liable for plagiarism, the singer said, “I am absolutely frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all,” adding, “If the jury had decided this matter the other way, we might as well say goodbye to the creative freedom of songwriters.”
While obviously plagiarism is a major issue and all artists deserve full credit for their work and talent, there is the argument that these cases and their increasing likeliness could impact artists’ ability to create freely. If inspiration begins to be available for legal cases, how would the creative world continue?
In the case of these five musicians, the law did crack down on them, leading to some mass payouts off the back of plagiarism claims.
Five musicians who lost fortunes in plagiarism cases:
George Harrison
One of the biggest plagiarism cases in music history came down hard on the Quiet Beatle. As George Harrison struck out on his own, the first single of his solo career became embroiled in controversy as he was hit with an accusation that he’d copied ‘My Sweet Lord’ from an earlier track.
The Bright Tunes Music Corporation took Harrison to court with a claim that the song was plagiarised from a track called ‘He’s So Fine’ by the 1960s girl group, The Chiffons. The legal process was lengthy due to the confusing nature of these types of cases, but in the end, it was deemed that the Beatle had in fact copied the song, but only subconsciously. They decided that without realising, the track must have crept into his songwriting from some corner of his mind.
So while ‘My Sweet Lord’ might have made history as the first number one hit for any of the Beatles in solo work, it also cost Harrison $587,000 as he was ordered to pay the girl group in 1981.
The Verve
The year was 1997. Britpop was on its last legs when The Verve stepped up to the plate with a new smash hit, ‘Bitter Sweet Symphony’. The track is a timeless classic, written into British musical history and beloved by many a director as it soundtracks iconic film moments like the final scene of Cruel Intentions.
However, the song was also wrapped up in a plagiarism claim that meant the band lost out on a small fortune. Rather than being launched by the artists themselves, this one is a case of record labels and managers playing dirty as The Rolling Stones’ team claimed The Verve had ripped the idea from ‘The Last Time’.
In terms of cases, this one is pretty solid. The strings used on the track come from an album of orchestral arrangements of The Stones’ songs, so there is definitely truth to the issue. However, the band has obtained permission to use it from the Stones’ label, Decca, but not their former manager. In the crossfires of red tape, business conversations and dotted lines, The Verve were sued $1.7 million in royalties, and Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were added as credited songwriters.
It was an issue that stretched on for years as the bands tried to figure the mess out. In 2019, as an act of goodwill, Jagger and Keith returned the rights to the band in a move that Richard Ashcroft called “life-affirming”.
The Beach Boys
Sometimes, talking about your inspirations can really land you in trouble. That’s what happened when The Beach Boys’ Brian Wilson spoke out on the whole plagiarism versus inspiration date, ending in a painfully ironic case.
When weighing in on the topic in 2015, he mentioned his own track ‘Surfin’ U.S.A’ and the inspiration behind it. “I just took ‘Sweet Little Sixteen’ and rewrote it into something of our own,” he said, citing Chuck Berry as a major influence.
Berry’s team, however, took the comment and ran with it all the way to the bank. Rather than agreeing with Wilson’s argument that all music is in some way inspired or influenced by others, they threatened the musician with a lawsuit. While they settled the issue outside of court, Wilson still signed over the writing credit and publishing royalties to Berry.
The Beatles
Wilson isn’t the first one to have been cashed out by Berry’s estate. John Lennon was also a target as similarities between ‘Come Together’ and ‘You Can’t Catch Me’ were picked up.
They were actually spotted first by Paul McCartney. The other Beatle originally suggested that they slow the tempo of the song to differentiate between the tracks, but even after that move, Berry’s producer, Morris Levy, still came after them.
However, as the Beatles were still the most famous artists in the world, their settlement was a unique one. Rather than having to pay up or offer writing credits to Berry, instead his publishing company Big Seven, demanded that Lennon cover more of their songs. That’s how much a Beatles endorsement was worth, as they knew a cover would bring in more money and notability than any lump sum lawsuit ever would.
The Flaming Lips
Cat Stevens and The Flaming Lips are two artists that you’d never put in a sentence together. But in 2002, they were thrust together by a lawsuit against the band’s song ‘Fight Test’. It was claimed to have been ripped from Stevens’ song, ‘Father and Son’.
Their leader, Wayne Coyne, knew he was toeing a line. “I know ‘Father and Son’ and I knew there would be a little bit of comparison,” he told Rolling Stones. ‘Fight Test’ is not necessarily a reference to the ideas of ‘Father and Son’ but definitely a reference to the cadence, the melody, and the chord progression. I think it’s such a great arrangement of chords and melody.”
Cat Stevens, or Yusuf, won the case to get 75% of the royalties for the track. While these incidents could easily get frosty or aggressive between artists, Coyne remained loving and respectfully regretful towards it. “I want to go on record for the first time and say that I really apologize for the whole thing,” he said in 2005. “I really love Cat Stevens. I truly respect him as a great singer-songwriter.”
