Claim for 2.3 Million? What New Licensing Laws Could Mean for Musicians
By Shelly Evans
Music licensing - in the interest of creating fairness doesn’t allow the licensing of basic short phrases - and it would make sense for the same to apply to short, melodic ditties.
After all, the same three and four-note chords are used over and over again in some of the most popular songs. Even now, I’m sure you can think of at least a dozen songs across genres that actually use the exact same melody. For example, “The Alphabet Song”, “Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star” and ‘Baa, Baa, Black Sheep” all have the same melodies. Of course, the way we’re accustomed to approaching these melodic similarities usually is to ignore them. Most songs you can think of even now that all sound the same (Even in just a few melodies) go without contest because there is really no way to claim original ownership of anything so rudimentary.
This concept, however - was challenged when Dark Horse singer Katy Perry was sued by lesser-known Christian musician Flame who claimed her song ripped off the four-note melody from his song for her chorus. While, if you really listen, there are a lot of similarities, but the ditty is not exactly identical. There is absolutely no contest that if Perry was inspired by the ditty she should have contacted Flame in regards to a sampling credit - but this case threatens the already shaky ground that music licensing laws stand on in that it was won on the grounds that those four notes - in that order and rhythm exclusively belonged to Flame. This is unprecedented and dangerous for many reasons, but stands to benefit some.
The one benefit that rises to the surface is that individual artists without labels, or contracts with labels will be more easily able to sue for damages when outright theft of musical concepts takes place (should their copyrights be filed appropriately), and no longer will their cases be immediately dismissed because of their social currency, or lacking legal support.
Unfortunately though, in cases of mistaken identity, this very same rule could come to hurt other artists genuinely inspired to write and incidentally using similar chords to other songs. It could become a murky power play. Smaller artists could - under this rule - if practicing foul play - sue larger musicians for massive sums for melodies that they can’t prove original ownership of - and win.
We’re interested in protecting your music licenses, and in hearing your opinion. We’d love to hear from you. If you’re interested in learning how we can help you protect the music you make, give us a call for a complimentary 15-minute consultation.
Have an opinion on the Flame V. Perry dispute? Do you have an opinion on the state of music licensing at the moment? Drop us a line below. We’ll be delighted you joined the conversation.