How Three Artists Resolved A Copyright Conflict With Ease

How Three Artists Resolved A Copyright Conflict With Ease

Recently, a rising Grammy-winning artist’s hit single made the news rounds as it was found to be derivative of a prior work. While this copyright conflict case ended amicably, it doesn’t always play out this way.

During the writing process for Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me,” the song’s similarities with Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne’s 1989 hit “I Won’t Back Down,” allegedly went completely unnoticed by Smith and all songwriters involved. Petty and Lynne’s classic was ubiquitous around the time it was released – which has led many to question whether everyone involved in putting together “Stay With Me” was really unaware of the 1989 classic.

Despite Smith’s knowledge (or lack thereof) regarding Petty’s discography, the similarities between the two songs were quickly noticed and the issue was resolved last year. With Smith hitting the headlines recently for his success at the Grammys and Petty for his wonderfully relaxed response to “Stay With Me”‘s similarities to his own hit, it seems like now is a great time to take a look at this facet of entertainment law.

Proving music plagiarism: The basics

Here are the basics of music plagiarism: The plaintiff – in this case Petty and Lynne – notice similarities between a song authored by the individual or group on another more recently released piece. The burden is then placed on the plaintiff, or “Petty/Lynne,” to prove that the allegedly derivative composition is both significantly similar to the plaintiff’s own song due to copying.

In reality, its pretty hard not to indirectly copy a previously composed work. There are only so many chords, notes and melodies used in songwriting NOT to be derivative of previous works. With that said, experts eventually came to an agreement that Smith’s song was notably similar to Petty/Lynne’s in that not only in one portion of “Stay With Me,” but almost the entirety of the track seemed to be imitative of “I Won’t Back Down.” The “looping” (as it’s called) of the vocal progression included in both songs, is the reason why experts have concluded that Smith’s work is, in fact, derivative of Petty and Lynne’s.

The challenging part is that even if the plaintiff can show both of the above to be true, how can it subsequently be proven that the author of the second song, or Smith in this case, had heard the original work. Generally, the course of action is to prove that the Smith party had access to the plaintiff’s work. Access meaning that the Petty/Lynne party’s composition was widely distributed via broadcast, sales or sheet music. You can assume that “I Won’t Back Down” is a fairly accessible song due to its commercial success.

The tricky thing is that in the age of the internet, access is fairly easy to prove. For example, if Petty and Lynne were just a couple of guys who had posted this song to 10 fans on Bandcamp a few years ago, could you still say that Smith had access to it? When an artist is unknown enough to make access an iffy subject, courts have still sided with the plaintiff as long as the similarities are “substantial and striking” enough to prove copying rather than mere coincidence.

The relative ease of Smith’s agreement with Petty and Lynne

Now, let’s take a look at how the case between Petty/Lynne and Smith turned out. Last year, Petty and Lynne’s publishers contacted Smith’s, and explained that the British singer’s song sounded very similar to “I Won’t Back Down.” From there, the exchange went fairly civil and though it occurred in October, the details were released only recently.

Although they did assert that the similar progressions in the songs’ choruses were just coincidence, Smith’s team recognized the commonalities between the two singles and agreed to give Petty/Lynne credit.

Ultimately, it was decided that Petty and Lynne would receive 12.5 percent songwriting credit each for “Stay With Me.” ASCAP has updated the credits for Smith’s first song – originally listed as James Napier, William Phillips and Smith – to include Petty and Lynne.

The Smith vs. Petty/Lynne resolution was remarkably amicable in relation to other recent cases of music plagiarism.

For example, the similarities between Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” and Robin Thicke’s recent smash hit, “Blurred Lines”, led to a lawsuit between Gaye’s family, Thicke and his team. Recently, Gaye’s family reached a settlement with Sony/ATV, but the conflict between Thicke and the plaintiffs remains ongoing. It’s rare that artists in Smith’s shoes simply agree to fork over royalties due to undeniable similarities.

As previously stated, these cases are fairly common in that songs are often derivative of previous works due to the personal nature of composing them and the limited combination of sounds available. Petty himself has even been accused of borrowing lyrics from The Replacements. The difference between ongoing cases such as Thicke’s and resolved conflicts like Smith’s is the way that the parties involved choose to approach the situation.

Smith’s party still hasn’t acknowledged access to Petty and Lynne’s song. They’ve repeatedly insist that no one involved in writing “Stay With Me” had ever even heard “I Won’t Back Down.” However, they still acknowledged the substantial and striking similarities between the two songs and came to an agreement with Petty and Lynne – a rare example of an easily resolved music plagiarism case.