Yellowcard Band • Page 194

Personally I stopped reading right around here, give or take a few words

72. Specifically, in a published interview, Defendant Juice WRLD stated that he had a crush on a girl in fifth grade who was “really Emo.” At the time, the girl mentioned that she really enjoyed Emo pop rock, which is the precise genre of “Yellowcard’s” music. Defendant Juice WRLD stated that he went home and listened to that music.

 

So this basically says the melody in the verse is almost identical

"Ac-ci-dents out on the high-way..."
E- C - G F E C D - C
"I still see your sha-dow in my room"
E C G F E-C D D C

(that may be slightly wrong)

The note is the same but the 3rd note of Lucid dream's vocal melody is a 16th note rather than an eighth note which throws of the timing of the notes from matching exactly.

And Yellowcard is not emo I swear I will argue in court for the defense if they let me. Though one time in college my phone went off and played rough landing holly and I got called emo for that. But they were wrong!

 

Thank you

Yeaaah thats such a stretch. Like they have zero proof it was even yellowcard that he listened to and now he can never confirm or deny either way. There’s pretty much no way to know.

also like maybe he listened to the music for that girl in 5th grade but unless he kept it in his library and continued to listen it’s a pretty wild jump to say he copied something he heard as a literal child

 

I guess that throwing off is what throws me off. Idk I’m not a music scientist lmaooo but it doesn’t sound alike to me really. Definitely not enough to make the claim it was inspired by it. Idk.

I’m not a lawyer. Idk what does or doesn’t constitute the law. But what I am is a person, one who aims to be a decent one. And I know a decent person wouldn’t want to sue someone who is dead and can’t even defend themselves.

 

Did you ever notice "Over My Head" by The Fray is the same melody as "Closer" by Chainsmokers/Halsey?

It's another connection I would have never notice if I hadn't read about it. All of The Fray got writing credits though (prior to release I believe) so maybe Chainsmokers knew they were inspired by it.

The main reason I think this lawsuit is bogus is because besides there being slight differences in the melody and even when it does match up nearly perfect it's such a small part of the song overall (chorus is totally different, bridge all the other harmonies/instrumentals). It's like hey it put 7 notes in the same order yellowcard did one time. Yeah so?

I also hate this part

If you asked a 7 year old Juice WRLD if he know who produced FUCT I think he would tell you I don't know. And even today I don't know that he would. I'd say the vast majority of people who listen to music don't know who produces it much less following what else they produce.

Those kinds of connections are ones he's not here to defend which is why it's so shitty to not just drop it.

 

You can’t ask him anything because he’s dead and that’s the whole problem

 

Also no I defffff didn’t know that about the fray/chain smokers lmao
Like wow
See tho this is what I mean I’m not a musicologist or a lawyer lol so to me that stuff is not as much the important part
To me it’s about knowing that suing someone who can’t defend themselves just for money is wrong. It’s not about justice it’s about money. And thats shitty.

 

This is stupid as fuck. This just in, a lot of pop songs have repetitive, diatonic vocal melodies that cover a limited range lmao

 

The lawsuit claims the similarity in melody could only reasonably be the result of copying? Bullshit. Can we stop pretending this is some revolutionary melody that any person couldn’t independently think of? It’s a pretty generic, not even particularly inventive ordering of five notes in a major scale. Give me a break.

 

Some of us would even say music copyrights are bad ...

How Music Copyright Lawsuits Are Scaring Away New Hits

Steal This Riff: How to Fix Copyright Law in Music

AI-Produced Music Raises Copyright Questions

 

What I don't understand is how any band can cover a song at their concert, that they sold tickets for, but writing a song with a sliiightly similar melody to someone else can result in people suing the crap out of you.

Like.. the first one is literally making profit from using someone else's work, and it happens every day lol. Maybe I'm missing some behind the scenes negotiating between artists for it? Idk

 

Ask a Music Lawyer: Do I need to pay to perform cover songs at live music venues?

Can get in trouble for that too if not handled right.

 

Music law is weird. @DandonTRJ knows the ins and outs better than anyone and has some posts more in depth about the laws.

 

Jeeze, I stand corrected! I wonder if people are just more willing to look the other way on that because pretty much every artist starts off learning covers. Or I'm just sheltered from that kinda thing (also a good possibility)

Interesting that the responsibility mainly falls on venues though

 

Oh hey, I've been batsignaled. Funny timing, just taught my copyright class for UCLA last night.

So, music copyright's going through a tumultuous period right now. The Ninth Circuit (which covers California) recently changed the game on infringement cases in the Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin case, making it easier to throw out infringement suits over basic melodies and song structures. A few weeks after the decision came down, a judge in the Central District of California (where the Yellowcard lawsuit is pending) used the Led Zeppelin opinion to overturn the jury verdict against Kary Perry for Dark Horse. She reexamined the songs under the new higher standard and said "look, the 8-note ostinato you're suing over isn't that special, so I'm not gonna let you make a federal case out of it." I see this as the pendulum swinging back towards the center after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that came from the Blurred Lines decision, and I have to believe it's giving Yellowcard's attorneys some measure of pause about the ongoing strength of their case. I know I've told several of my music clients to pull the ripcord on potential infringement suits and settle their matters rather than test the waters against an emboldened defense bar.

As for why bands can cover songs but not create new songs using old-but-still-protected melodies, that's just how the system shakes out. Congress was super concerned about publishers holding monopolies on songs back in the day, so they created a compulsory licensing mechanism under the Copyright Act that ensures anyone can record a cover song for a set price (something Prince groused about his entire career). They can then play that song live at any venue that has a blanket license from whatever performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or GMR) has the relevant underlying musical composition in its repertoire. There's no similar streamlined mechanism that allows you to lift someone else's material to create a substantially different song (although there was a creative attempt a few years ago over Blind Melon's "No Rain"). That's called creating a "derivative work," and pretty much the only way to get away with it absent negotiating a license with the copyright holder is to rely on a fair use defense. Those are tricky as hell, and you basically need to have created a transformative work (like when 2 Live Crew parodied Roy Orbison) in order to get away with it. There was a recent decision out of the Southern District of California over a Star Trek/Dr. Seuss mashup that gave the greenlight to a more expansive interpretation of what can be considered transformative fair use, but the Ninth Circuit's currently giving it some serious side-eye, and I'm not sure it's going to survive appeal. That's half the fun of copyright law -- you never know what the fuck it's going to look like from week to week.

 

"Moreover, and not coincidentally, “Fall Out Boy’s” album From Under the Cork Tree and “Yellowcard’s” album Lights and Sounds have the same producer, Neal Avron. Since it is very common for a fan of works produced for an artist by a specific producer to listen to other works by that same producer, it is likely that Defendant Juice WRLD’s appreciation for the album From Under the Cork Tree led to exposure to “Yellowcard’s” album Lights and Sounds and the Original Work “Holly Wood Died.”"

Fun fact - I've NEVER listened to From Under the Cork Tree. These points are hilarious and such a reach.

 

Again, don't know if it's been covered elsewhere in the thread (and apologies if so), but the necessity of these arguments has been amplified by the recent Ninth Circuit decisions highlighted in my earlier comment. Prior courts used to hold that if you're just sufficiently popular and have your stuff available for streaming online, there's a reasonable probability the defendant had access to your work. That's what the case against Katy Perry was built on (mainly Joyful Noise's streaming numbers on YouTube, IIRC). Courts are now jettisoning that standard, so the plaintiffs need to twist and contort and find every conceivable theory for how their work ended up in the defendant's hands for copying purposes. Even if it's a massive stretch, they want to preserve the argument for reliance purposes.

 

Just need his 5th grade girlfriend to come out and say she hated the band.

 

Not sure if you've listened to the Yellowcard song or the JuiceWRLD song or know much about this case, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on if you think Yellowcard has a legitimate case.

 

Love both bands and both albums and had no idea they had the same producer until right this second. Lol

 

such a dumb argument. I liked FUTCT and haven’t heard any Yellowcard other than the song Ocean Avenue. Fall Out Boy play arenas! Yellowcard was completely avoidable for me, and Juice WRLD was a few years younger than me.

 

Yellowcard were huge at the time.

 

Neal did a great job helping these bands define their sound.

 

I said it earlier in this thread, but you have to keep in mind that copyright and trademark law puts the responsibility for protecting your property on you. So if something else enters your property's "airspace," you have to go after it or you risk losing ownership altogether and having the copyright transition into the public domain. It's why NCAA universities make high schools change their logo or Disney sues a small family party business. It's not financially lucrative or PR-friendly for them to do this, but they are required to do everything they can to maintain sole ownership of their intellectual property.

As for this specifics of this lawsuit, I think some aspects of the case are plausible (the same producer, purchased a license for one song but not the other) and other aspects are ridiculous (the logical leap from Juice WRLD saying he liked emo music and Fall Out Boy to he definitely heard Yellowcard).

Regardless, it's near enough to Yellowcard's "airspace" that - had they not taken legal action - they could have risked opening themselves up to other songs being used without license. Say another artist rips a part of Ocean Avenue and Yellowcard sues them, that artist could then make the case in court that Juice WRLD sampled Yellowcard and they took no action, which would be a huge foothold for their legal argument if the judge were to agree.

 

so...according to wikipedia, wouldn't this statement from the legal document be incorrect? Holly Wood Died was not a single from L&S. L&S and Rough Landing were the two singles. Bam. Case closed. Check please.

49. “Yellowcard” has had multiple hit singles, including “Way Away,” “Ocean Avenue,” “Only One,” “Lights and Sounds,” “For You, and Your Denial,” and “Holly Wood Died.”

edit: @DandonTRJ Does this matter? In a case where they're being pedantic, I'd think it would.