Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > OT:you shook me civil suit
OT:you shook me civil suit
Login  |  Register
Page: 1

groyster1
2652 posts
Aug 17, 2014
10:58 AM
when willie Dixon sued led zep for copyright violation he won an enourmous amount of $$$....there have been many rock versions of blues song...probably all of Robert johnsons 29 songs has been done by rock bands....I never heard of other civil suits....is it because the other blues songs were in public domain?
WinslowYerxa
692 posts
Aug 17, 2014
11:03 AM
Anything copyrighted after 1922 is not in the public domain in the US. And copyrights need not be registered to be valid, though the law on this point has changed over the years.

Decisions to sue for damages are up to the copyright owners. Willie Dixon was active in protecting his rights. Heirs of other blues musicians have not always been clear about their rights, or even about who owns them.
===========
Winslow
SPAH connects the world of harmonica
Deepen your playing at the Harmonica Collective

Last Edited by WinslowYerxa on Aug 17, 2014 11:04 AM
nacoran
7945 posts
Aug 17, 2014
12:22 PM
There are some YouTube videos about Zeppelins copyright infringement. It seems almost all their songs were stolen. In poetry, TS Eliot is quoted as saying, 'Good poets borrow, great poets steal.'

But then again, he might have been appropriating Picasso who is credited with having said, 'Good artists borrow, great artists steal.' Or did he steal it?

"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. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest." TS Eliot.

http://nancyprager.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/good-poets-borrow-great-poets-steal/

----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)

First Post- May 8, 2009
5F6H
1826 posts
Aug 17, 2014
12:28 PM
Was the suit regarding "You Shook Me" specifically? It is credited to Dixon/Jewel Music on the album (Led Zeppelin). Dixon should therefore have received royalties (dunno about J B Lenoir & Earl Hooker though). I understood the main Dixon/Led Zep case regarded "Whole lotta love" (and its similarity with Dixon's "You Need Love") which was originally credited to the Led Zep members, thus no royalties would have gone to Dixon, without intervention.

Typically you pay a fee on publishing an album, for using someone else's song, then they get their share of royalties.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness

Last Edited by 5F6H on Aug 17, 2014 12:31 PM
Honkin On Bobo
1238 posts
Aug 17, 2014
2:10 PM
My understanding is that initially, no song credits were given to Dixon for any Zep songs. They have been accused of ripping off more than one from the blues, usually with lyrics slightly modified and of course a different arrangment. But when laid side-by-side to the blues originals it becomes obvious (there are several youtubes documenting this).

It took the lawsuit for song credit and royalties to the original writers to take place.

What's really too bad is that Zep proved later on they could write good rock material of their own, but instead of just covering and therfore crediting the bluesmen on their early albums (as the Beatles amd Stones did), they tweaked and then claimed them for their own.

I go back and forth on how much intent there was. i heard interviews from Plant and Page that made it seem credible that it was just "being influenced" gone off the rails, or that it in some cases it was only a tiny bit of a song. But I seem to remember listening to the alleged rip-offs side by side and I thought "nah they had to know, this was intentional"

I'm not a Zep hater, in fact I like the band, but it is what it is.

Edited to add: posted this before reading nacoran's take, I've repeated some of what he already pointed out, sorry nate.

Last Edited by Honkin On Bobo on Aug 17, 2014 2:14 PM
5F6H
1827 posts
Aug 17, 2014
2:20 PM
@Honking on Bobo - Look at a copy of the Led Zep album notes, most covers were correctly credited with writer and publisher (e.g. You Shook Me & I Can't Quit You). "Whole lotta love" appears to be an exception, albeit a notable one, rather than the rule.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness
Honkin On Bobo
1240 posts
Aug 17, 2014
2:33 PM
5F6H,

Sadly, I don't have my vinyl anymore, but if that's the case, then I stand corrected. Thanks.

It's funny but that would give some context and might explain my recollecton of the interviews, in the sense that the reason they didn't credit Dixon is that they didn't think they lifted enough for it to be simply a cover? I dunno, in any case if whole lotta love was an exception, then one could certainly feel better about them as stand up guys and not rip off artists.
nacoran
7946 posts
Aug 17, 2014
3:17 PM
Honkin, that's the nature of the forum. You never quite see anything in real time. You covered it in much more detail though. :)

A lot less bluesy, but Metallica is noted for their pretty open plagiarism, which in my books makes their whole napster suit look pretty hypocritical.

Edit: and on a Zeppelin note, I guess I big gaps in my Zepp knowledge. I know the required stuff, but maybe the last time I heard 'When the Levee Breaks' was before I got into harp or something. It came on the radio the other day and I was like, 'really? really? I never noticed that before? I iz fail.' :)

Also discovered there is an all female cover band out there called Zeparella. It's hard to replace Plant's voice, but the rest of it they get pretty well.

----------
Nate
Facebook
Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)

First Post- May 8, 2009

Last Edited by nacoran on Aug 17, 2014 3:20 PM
WinslowYerxa
695 posts
Aug 17, 2014
3:42 PM
The copies with proper credit given are probably post-lawsuit, reflecting the outcome.

Zep didn't just steal from blues musicians. Dazed and Confused is taken and reworked from songwriter Jake Holmes, and the early versions, played by the Yardbirds just before Jimmy Page split to form Zeppelin, even reflect Holmes' vocal style. Holmes later took legal action. you can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazed_and_Confused_%28song%29

===========
Winslow
SPAH connects the world of harmonica
Deepen your playing at the Harmonica Collective

Last Edited by WinslowYerxa on Aug 17, 2014 3:50 PM
Frank101
17 posts
Aug 17, 2014
5:06 PM
as to Robert Johnson:

"Back to the Crossroads: The Roots of Robert Johnson" - Yazoo CD-2070
slackwater
77 posts
Aug 17, 2014
6:06 PM
It would seem that Mr. Dixon himself was a man with an astute understanding of copyright. According to Buddy Guy, Magic Sam first mentioned Willy Dixon to him and the conversation went,
" 'Who's Willy Dixon?'
'Bass player. Songwriter. Or at least a guy who knows how to put his name on a song, whether he wrote it or someone else did. Worked for Leonard for Years.'"
- from When I Left Home, My Story by Buddy Guy and David Ritz,2012.
Also from the same book on the subject of Buddy Guy's first recording with Willy Dixon;
"...When we got through, Willy said,' Sounds good Buddy. That's gonna be a good copyright.'
'Copyright,' I said 'What's a copyright?'
' You don't gotta worry about that none,' Willy answered.' That's just paperwork. I take care of all the paperwork for you.'
' Thanks, man,' I said, figuring Willy was doing me a favour. "

Last Edited by slackwater on Aug 17, 2014 6:26 PM
5F6H
1828 posts
Aug 18, 2014
1:55 AM
@Winslow "The copies with proper credit given are probably post-lawsuit, reflecting the outcome."

That does not appear to be the case. There's a distinction here that seems to be being missed. You can cover other people's material if proper credit is given. "Whole lotta love" wasn't credited to Dixon as LZ thought (or, at the time, half knowingly took a gamble) that they hadn't merely lifted the song. Many of Dixon's songs are typically remembered by more popular versions recorded by other artists.

@ Slackwater - Royalties as they affected Dixon & Chess, were payable to the songwriter & publisher, a penny in the dollar, a piece...less if, say, a savvy DJ got himself named as co-writer and took a cut of the writer's credit, in return for assured air play ;-). Unless the performer was credited as writer, or publisher, then copyright wouldn't automatically affect them.
----------
www.myspace.com/markburness

Last Edited by 5F6H on Aug 18, 2014 1:57 AM
WinslowYerxa
697 posts
Aug 18, 2014
2:42 AM
It appears that You Shook Me may not be the song that Willie Dixon sued over. According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Dixon#Copyright_battles

It was Bring it One Home and You Need Love.
===========
Winslow
SPAH connects the world of harmonica
Deepen your playing at the Harmonica Collective
Rhartt1234
140 posts
Aug 18, 2014
3:36 AM
Yes, it wasn't "You Shook Me" that Dixon sued over. As someone stated earlier they gave him a proper writer's credit. It was actually "Whole Lotta Love" that drew the lawsuit. The lyrics are straight from Muddy Water's "You Need Love".
slackwater
78 posts
Aug 18, 2014
4:10 AM
Yes 5F6H, the implication in the quotes I offered is that Mr. Dixon credited himself as writer on songs which he had not written.


Post a Message



(8192 Characters Left)


Modern Blues Harmonica supports

§The Jazz Foundation of America

and

§The Innocence Project

 

 

 

ADAM GUSSOW is an official endorser for HOHNER HARMONICAS