Court Rules Plant, Page Must Face "Stairway to Heaven" Jury Trial/ Decision*

None of my musical "analogies" are directly relevant to this case, but it's fun to post them for additional context. Here is another one (I posted it by mistake on another thread so it fell stillborn there).

Listen to this Bryan Adams song, One Night Love Affair:



(It's the studio recording despite the uploader's title). Does it remind you of another song? Once again it's at most an influence, not copying, but still fun to plumb rock DNA this way. Any ideas?

 

I'm drawing a blank, maybe because I know the Bryan Adams song. I'd be great in a jury as I don't hear the similarity in a lot of stuff!

 

I can't understand why the judge isn't allowing the sound recordings to be introduced as evidence. Yes, I understand that it was the sheet music that received that "for hire" copyright...but wasn't having access a key component of the judge permitting the case to proceed?

In which case, isn't it the access to the sound recording? Which, by the way, probably has a copyright notice printed right on the record label.

The judge has made his ruling so that's the way it will proceed but it still doesn't make any sense to me. Am I missing the point of the ruling?

 

The copyright is for what's on the sheet music they handed in when they registered "Taurus," not the song as it appears on the album, so unless Zeppelin infringed on the sheet music, they don't owe royalties. Also, the judge's denial order says that the only admissible argument for access is a "chain of events" argument based on associations between the two bands when they played the same concerts, and Led Zeppelin's admitted familiarity with "Fresh Garbage."

 

Thanks. Though I still don't understand. It appears it doesn't matter at all that Page had the Spirit record in his collection.

I'm just drawing a blank on the logic! But I do understand that plaintiff and defendant have to operate based on rules set by the judge.

 

Of course every ruling made by the judge that plaintiff can't admit a certain kind of evidence is something they can appeal if they don't like the jury verdict.

 

I was confused by that myself; when the judge is discussing direct evidence of access, he doesn't mention that bit from Page's declaration. I'm not sure if the plaintiffs can bring it up in court or not.

I do get the impression that the plaintiffs' lawyers didn't really do their homework here. Those quotes from Page about his affection for Spirit's music were rejected as hearsay, but an audio recording of at least one of those interviews reportedly still exists; if they'd gotten that recording and a statement from the interviewer, they might have been able to squeeze the quotes in anyhow.

 

And my point (thought?) on "access" is that it has nothing to do with the sheet music. Page wouldn't have peered eagerly at the sheet music clutched in his hands and raced for his guitar. Interest in Taurus would have been from hearing it live or from the record. As so far it can't be proven that Spirit performed it live. If Page honed in on it, it might be because of hearing Fresh Garbage and then acquiring the record and discovering Taurus. At least that would be my wild guess in terms of chain of access.

I am quite confident the sheet music doesn't have anything to do with anything!

 

Well, I'm sure they won't argue that Zeppelin was studying the sheet music. They'll presumably argue that Zeppelin must have heard the song live (it seems at least as plausible that Page heard it on the LP, but that's not admissible). It's just that Spirit's performances of "Taurus" include what's in the sheet music.

 

Another one:
LED ZEPPELIN Could Settle 'Stairway To Heaven' Copyright Infringement Lawsuit For $1 »

 

What with this stuff and the "falsification of rock n' roll history" claim, I think Malofiy is aiming his arguments at the press more than the courts.

 

I hear some influence of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of Leaving On A Jet Plane. Just a little. Once again, an influence to my mind, not a copying.

 

The only part of this latest article that I thought was interesting was it seemed to point directly to the Guitar World interview as being admissible.
Otherwise it's stuff that has been in all the other reports.

 

I'd be surprised if P&P agreed to this, but it's their choice. I don't necessarily agree that a lawsuit would be damaging either, even if they lose.

 

Ah! I'll listen again.

 

Which they might seeing as some of the exclusions are unreasonable, IMO.

 

The sound recording is a different copyright and not the violation in question here. (It would be if this were a sample)

My understanding is that once the sheet music is seen and this riff is shown to be a part of it, then that sound recording could be used as a representation of that sheet music.

 

Who made that determination? The judge? Or is that the way the plaintiff filed the suit? (In which case, seems like a big mistake?)

 

A sound recording copyright would be at issue if the recording was used. It was not. The song was used. Two separate copyrights and ownerships.

 

Dueling threads here. Got to keep on our toes!

 

Someone should combine them. Or close one. They aren't covering separate topics any longer

 

Confusing things further, at that time in the US there were no federal copyrights in sound recordings, only in compositions (though common law in each state could protect sound recordings as copyrighted works - just with different rules).

And at present the copyright for a composition can be based on depositing a recording rather than sheet music with the copyright office. But it is still only the words and notes on the recording that are copyrighted, not the actual recording, if it is a composition.

All of my compositions (over 100) have been copyrighted based on deposit of recordings, but I haven't copyrighted any sound recordings - as thst is typically done with final released versions, and I have never had any of those :-(

 

I'm curious as to how international copyright law plays into all of this as well. Obviously there is some sort of worldwide protection when you copyright a song in one country, otherwise I could just say I wrote Stairway To Heaven (or some other UK written song if STH isn't the best example for some reason) and copyright it myself in the US because the original copyright was filed in the UK.

I bring this up because I find that UK ruling regarding "Whiter Shade of Pale" to be significant here since we're talking about a piece of music on a recording other than the words and melody being protected.

I really thought that was a horrible decision at the time, BTW. I know that organ solo is iconic. I know I can't picture the song without it. I also know one easily could (and probably has) recorded covers of it without the solo and we haven't changed the song by doing so. I don't understand how an iconic recorded solo becomes part of the song. Especially since what makes them iconic really is only the passage of time. No one would consider the solo to Whiter Shade to be part of the song if it hadn't become such a long-lasting classic hit. If that's the case, then Elliot Randall deserves a songwriting credit for "Reelin' In The Years". And Don Felder for "One of The Nights". And Joe Walsh for his contributions to the dual-guitar solo in "Hotel California". And on and on and on.

So can a UK ruling such as that have any bearing on a US case such as this one? Does it matter that "Stairway to Heaven" was (presumably) filed for UK copyright?

 

They probably filed for US protection for Stairway too as you need to file in the US to get certain types of infringement damages awarded by US courts.

But the Stairway copyright is not even relevant to this case, it's the Taurus one

 

Probably not much other than lawyers typically throw everything at the wall hoping something will stick to try and get cases dismissed early.

They are probably trying to claim that California's estate has no standing to bring the suit since, as a "songwriter for hire" he doesn't actually own the copyright or some such.