Copyright and Music - Great Artists Steal

Copyright and Music – Do Great Artists Steal?

Posted on 21. Sep, 2009 by refe in INNOVATION

Last year guitar virtuoso Joe Satriani filed a lawsuit against Coldplay alleging that ‘Viva La Vida’ contained “substantial, original portions” of a track he put out in 2004 called ‘If I Could Fly.’

Coldplay responded by saying that if the two songs were similar it was purely coincidental. Dozens of video mashups, music theory analyses, and editorials followed. The two songs were revealed to be quite similar indeed – virtually the same melody and chord progression, though in different keys, and with different arrangements and song structure.

The world will likely never know if Chris Martin and Co. did consciously rip off Satriani’s work. The two parties settle out of court last week, and as part of the terms Coldplay will have no obligation to admit wrongdoing.

Members of Coldplay have talked about their philosophy on ‘borrowing’ from other artists’ work in the past, however. “We’re definitely good, but I don’t think you can say we’re that original,” Christ Martin admitted in an interview with Rolling Stone. “I regard us as being incredibly good plagiarists.” In another article guitarist Johnny Buckland notes that the song ‘Fix You’ is a close copy of Elbow’s ‘Grace Under Pressure.’ “We’ve never so directly stolen off anyone before,” he said. “We’ve never paid for our plagiarism.”

For some, that kind of honesty probably comes as a bit of a shock. Especially when the band in question is so high-profile. Shocking that they did it in the first place, and even more shocking that they talked about it. Doesn’t artistic integrity forbid that kind of blatant plagiarism?

Art vs. Law

I was curious to find out what other musicians thought about the practice of using pieces of other peoples’ songs, so I posed the question to a few people on Twitter. Most of the participants in my unscientific survey said that they often borrow a chord progression or groove, but that they rarely, or never lift a melody or lyric. Everyone seemed to agree that subconscious copying was nearly unavoidable.

During the course of the discussion one individual said that while she considered any intentional copying to be unacceptable, she had no problem borrowing from works in the public domain. This turned out to be a common philosophy.

This was a very telling statement! It reveals that artists’ reasons for not copying other artists is not primarily a matter of artistic integrity, but rather a matter of legal integrity. Think about that for a moment – we have no problem absorbing pieces of other people’s creative works into our own, as long as no law prohibits it.

Two possible conclusions could be drawn from this:

Most artists lack integrity, because the only thing preventing them from stealing is the law.
Building on the works that have come before is a natural part of artistic expression, but the law is artificially restrictive.

So which is it? Is ‘plagarism’ wrong because it goes against the principles of artistic expression, or is it wrong because the law has made it wrong? To put it another way: if copyright law was removed would it still be wrong to copy?

History of Plagiarism

History may have some insight into this philosophical dilemma (as it often does, oddly enough…) First, let’s go way back to the Homeric epics The Iliad and The Odyssey. Who wrote those tales? Homer, obviously. Yet, most modern scholars believe that Homer was not a literal individual, but rather the sum of centuries of oral tradition that produced these two great works. In other words, two of the world’s most beloved pieces of literature were created through a process of iterative plagiarism that lasted hundreds of years.

Pablo Picasso – a decent authority on art – is also famously quoted as saying, “Good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Poet T.S. Elliot later altered the phrase a bit for his own purposes, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

The practice of one artist ‘borrowing’ from another is clearly not new. It also appears that at least a few notable creative figures were ok with it.

Creating in the Void

When I was younger and just beginning to devote time to writing music seriously, I used to think that in order to write something original I had to sequester myself in my room until the song I was working on was finished. I refused to listen to music, watch movies, read books – I was determined to create a sterile environment in which my masterpiece could remain pure.

And you know what? Every song I wrote still managed to sound just like Pedro the Lion – my favorite band at the time. You can’t escape outside influences. And why would you want to? When did sterility ever produce anything?

Every artist borrows both consciously and subconsciously from the artists that came before them. We take what someone else created and we add, subtract and manipulate it until it is transformed into something greater than the sum of its parts. That’s not a bad thing. It’s essential to the progress of artistic expression!

Transformative Works

Which brings us back to T.S. Elliot. When the poet Elliot quoted Picasso it was in the context of a review he was writing about playwright Philip Massinger. Massinger apparently had the tendency to borrow a bit too freely from one of his contemporaries – William Shakespeare. Here’s what Elliot wrote:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion.

The key to the legitimate reuse of creative works is not in what you take or how much, but in the end result. The end justifies the means, in this case. The law calls this end result a ‘transformative work.’

If you can take something that someone else has created and through your own creativity make it better, or give it new meaning, or a new kind of beauty or value, then what reason could there possibly be not to do it? Fear of a smeared reputation? Fear of legal action? If what you create is truly transformative that shouldn’t be an issue.

The bottom line is that art is collaborative. The artists who embrace this fact and treat it as a powerful resource create great art.

What do you think? Do you agree or am I way off base? Looking forward to your comments. Those who don’t probably end up sounding a whole lot like their favorite band anyway.

Share it if you like it:

Tags: art, coldplay, copyright, creativity, joe satriani, music

14 Responses to “Copyright and Music – Do Great Artists Steal?”

Mockingbird

21. Sep, 2009

Links that may be of interest:
Creative copying by G. F. Handel.

Creative copying by Robert Burns

Creative copying by William Shakespeare

In Praise of Creative Freedom 1

In Praise of Creative Freedom 2

The Shoemaker and the Men of ‘98

In Praise of Creative Freedom 3

In Praise of Creative Freedom 4
Rick

21. Sep, 2009

As a visual artist, I learned a long time ago that my best work springs from visual inspiration and often other works of art trigger directions of thought I might never have considered.

Perhaps something from my early years as a budding artist will help give this some perspective:

When I first began to draw seriously, well-meaning adults almost always asked me the same question when looking at my drawings: “Did you copy this from something or was it out of your head?” The implication was that out of my head = good; something I looked at = bad.

This had the effect of stunting my progress in those early years. Not until later did I discover that the old masters (painters) started out copying works of their predecessors to learn the craft.

Recently, I deliberately encouraged my sister to ignore those well-meaning friends as she began a late-in-life artistic blossoming, because I did not want to see her struggle to overcome the nonsense.

Why wouldn’t music follow the same path as the visual arts? Growing in the craft so that at some point one becomes confident enough that all that is borrowed is the inspiration or the triggering of alternative thinking?
Jay Fienberg

21. Sep, 2009

Good article. As much as artists have to recognize the legal constraints of their times, I think that the artistic and legal definitions of copying are based on totally different motives.

Copying is at the root of artistic practice. People learn to make art by copying. And, traditionally, it was pretty common that one of the important artistic rights of passage was in attaining the skill to flawlessly copy one’s teacher.

Prior to recordings and photos and film (and, even more so, prior to writing), copying was *the* fundamental way that artistic traditions were passed along, spread and shared.

In our current time, the legal definition of copying is tied to outrageous opportunity for profit through copyrighted works. Besides any artistic pride or moral rights that may be abused through plagiarism, there’s an essentially business / financial interest in “ownership” of creative works, as if they were some form of physical property.
- refe
  
  22. Sep, 2009
  
  I agree – copyright law is designed to ensure that money can be made from the creation of art. That in itself isn’t a bad thing, obviously. The problem is that in many cases the protection of profits can actually prevent artistic expression.
Martie Malaker

21. Sep, 2009

I’ve given this subject a lot of thought, and I understand that unconscious copying happens, probably a lot more often than many people realize. Of course we’re influenced by our favorite artists, and that is going to come out in the music. I have a harder time accepting copied melodies, because they’re more recognizable than other song elements. I know my favorite songs, so to say I didn’t realize I copied one would be total BS. But I concede that it could happen. And it’s always possible that a songwriter doesn’t even listen to the artist in question, in which case the similarities are truly coincidental.

I think that my problem with intentional copying is when an artist claims it as their own, without giving due credit to the original source of “inspiration.” If you’re going to a “transformative” piece, you should acknowledge that that is what it is and who it came from. If you’re going to borrow Mozart, go ahead…but give him credit for his work. If Joe Satriani is a personal hero, don’t steal his stuff and then deny ever listening to him. That, to me, is lacking integrity.

Legally, you must list the original author of a piece if you are filing a copywright on a “transformative” work. In my opinion, crediting the original source is the only way to maintain artistic integrity if you’re intentionally copying. Otherwise, it’s stealing to me. Even if you can get around the legality.

This was a good article…very thought-provoking. I agree with most of what you’re saying, but don’t you agree that an artist should be credited if his/her work is recycled?
- refe
  
  22. Sep, 2009
  
  I agree that if you are taking something directly from another source credit should be given, even if it is slightly modified.
  
  However, the question of whether credit needs to be given (legally speaking) for transformative use of copyrighted material remains to be answered.
  
  There’s a high-profile case right now related to those famous Obama ‘Hope’ posters. The guy who made those posters is being sued because the Obama portrait is actually a significantly altered copy of a photograph taken by someone else.
  
  In that case I believe credit is exactly what’s at issue – I don’t believe there will be much question as to whether the piece is ‘transformative.’
  
  I think that whether or not credit should be given is as much a matter of conscience as it is a matter of law. A significantly altered melody or chord progression may be all but unrecognizable as a copy of the original. Should credit be given? If so, what would that look like?
  
  “So-and-so’s melody was to some degree the inspiration for the second half of the third line of the chorus underneath the main vocal melody.”
  
  I’m making light of it a little bit, but my point is that there are many, many different degrees of ‘copying’ – from entire works to little pieces, textures, feelings or grooves. I think each needs to be treated within the context of the new work.
Janet Hansen

22. Sep, 2009

Martie makes really good points about the whole integrity issue. It appears that “big” artists are like “big” business. They just don’t care what people think…and more importantly, think they are so big, they can get away with it.
Big shot lawyers have always proved them right!

Art should be full of integrity…but if it’s the bottom line someone is after…integrity goes out the window.

I for one will never view Coldplay the same way again.
Janet Hansen
Scout66.com
- refe
  
  22. Sep, 2009
  
  I think the point I was trying to make with the article was that there are different ways to approach the question of integrity. Is it primarily legal concerns that determine whether or not we borrow from or build off of another artist’s work, or does it have more to do with a sort of ‘code of artists’ for lack of a better term?
  
  Because if it’s a legal concern that is artificially limiting artists’ ability to create art, I think the law should be changed rather than our behaviors.
  
  I do agree that if money is the motive you can almost guarantee that the integrity of the act is questionable. But if the aim is truly to create a work of art or music that is different, better or transformed I think that should be approached differently.
  
  Obviously, the law doesn’t concern itself much with motives. That’s why the creation of a ‘transformative work’ is considered fair use under current copyright law. It’s about the resulting piece of art.
  
  A blatant copy is a blatant copy – but a new work that has resulted from the transformation of a work that came before is something that should be celebrated.
Saker jag tyckte var intressanta den 2009-09-23 | Qui bono

23. Sep, 2009

[...] en mashup med vilken konst/foto eller likn site som helst creative deconstruction – Copyright and Music – Do Great Artists Steal? 2009-09-21 – intressant artikel om musikers långa historia av att [...]
Erik

24. Sep, 2009

I was listening to some old tunes I liked back in high school the other day. I was amazed that I could pick out some parts of these songs that were also very clearly similar to my playing & some of the recorded songs where i contributed to the writing process. It’s not that I ripped those parts off. It’s that they just seeped into my subconscious to the point where I didn’t even notice it at the time. I couldn’t say if the average music fan would notice, but I heard it right away. Then i thought, “Oops” lol
Suzanne Lainson

25. Sep, 2009

As a non-fiction writer, I study other writers both for style and for information. If I quote, or even paraphrase, what someone else has done. I will give credit and cite the original. In my mind, that is good scholarship and allows others to go back and read the source if they want to dig deeper.

If I wrote fiction, I would either be blatant enough about copying someone else’s work that people would know I was using it as a point of reference, or I would intentionally try to avoid duplicating someone else’s work so I wouldn’t be accused of plagiarism. That being said, there are only so many storylines to go around. A lot of novels, TV shows, etc., are pretty formulaic, so a lot of writing is similar to what has already been done. Unless you are actually duplicating dialogue and character description, I think doing similar stories is okay. “Girl meets boy. They have troubles. They get back together.”

As far as music is concerned, yes a lot of work out there is similar to a lot of other work out there. In some cases the artists are trying to do something similar and in other cases they are so influenced by other music that what comes out is similar. I don’t think songwriters should intentionally write the same song, but it does happen. Should the copiers be penalized if someone realizes the songs are similar? Maybe the original songwriters should be able to share in whatever royalties result from the copies.

Getting back to being a writer. If I write something, I want credit for it. I don’t want someone to lift my words and claim to have written it themselves. I’ve given people permission to reproduce my writing, but I ask that it not be modified and that my name be on it.

These days, when it is hard to get paid for one’s music, writing, etc., you’d at least like to get some recognition for it.

So I’m not sure I want everything to end up in court, but if someone notices that what he/she created was then copied by someone else and no credit was given, I think it is reasonable for the first person to point out to the public the similarities.
Suzanne Lainson

26. Sep, 2009

My last comment isn’t up yet, but I presume it will be, and I wanted to add a thought.

I mentioned that as a writer, I always cite sources of quotes and ideas. I was thinking that at some point we can probably have the technology to mark songs to show where certain parts have come from. Then I realized we already do — mashups. People are lifting stuff all the time, putting it together in new forms, and proudly citing where they got the original material. So I think we are heading that way anyway, and as long as the original creators are also cited, it’s probably acceptable for most.
Justin Boland

18. Oct, 2009

I’ve always been struck by the fact that Creed could build a career off stolen Zeppelin riffs, yet Biz Markie got his career ended for sampling some R&B.

I’m always telling producers to make friends with musicians and get into the obscure but critical legal sweet spot of “Interpolations” — definitely the future of hip hop unless the publishing climate loosens up in the US.
anon

04. Feb, 2010

the irony of copyright infringement is there is no legal currency to repay a judgement thanks to the federal reserve, when ciminals make the laws the innocent become the criminals