Led Zeppelin now in court over Stairway

ido1957

9K Gold Member
Led Zeppelin appear in court over Stairway to Heaven dispute - BBC News

Jury selection (yawn) this may take a while to settle....

Members of the rock band Led Zeppelin have appeared in court after being accused of borrowing from another song for their 1971 hit Stairway To Heaven.
Singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page appeared at the LA court ahead of the start of the trial on Tuesday.
The lawsuit claims that the song's opening chords were taken from Taurus, a 1967 track by the band Spirit.
Plant, 67, and Page, 72, did not speak to each other or their lawyers in the courtroom, according to reports.
A judge ruled in April that there was potential for a jury to find a "substantial" similarity between the two recordings and approved the case.
The copyright infringement action is being taken on behalf of late guitarist Randy Wolfe, also known as Randy California, who played on the same bill as Led Zeppelin in the 1960s.
Lawyers for Wolfe say Page and Plant wrote Stairway To Heaven after hearing their client play Taurus, and that he should be given a writing credit.
Page and Plant say they wrote the song in a remote cottage in Wales and were not influenced by Wolfe's chord progression.
Lawyers for Led Zeppelin say the chord progression cited in the civil lawsuit is so common that it did not deserve copyright protection.
Bloomberg Businessweek said that the Stairway To Heaven had earned $562m (£334m) as of 2008.


From Rolling Stone

As the trial known on the docket as "Michael Skidmore vs. Led Zeppelin et al" kicked off its first day in Los Angeles federal court Tuesday, the proceedings commenced with a unique blend of awe-inspiring superstar charisma and snore-inducing legalese.

SIDEBAR
Led Ze Does It Matter If Led Zeppelin Stole “Stairway to Heaven”? »
The civil case, which hinges on an alleged copyright infringement by Led Zeppelin due to the potential similarity between their classic-rock all-timer "Stairway to Heaven" and the composition "Taurus" by Sixties cult psych-rockers Spirit, features some surprising parallels and paradoxes. Both legal teams feature graying ponytailed Brits of varying celebrity: On the plaintiff side, there's Michael Skidmore, a former musician and music writer who's the executor of deceased "Taurus" songwriter and Spirit member Randy "California" Wolfe. Facing Skidmore directly across the table is non other than Zep icons Jimmy Page and a bearded Robert Plant, both decidedly regal in their finely tailored suits and coiffed, pulled-back locks.

Indeed, from a sartorial comparison alone, this legal fight resembles a battle between modern-day Wildings and the Westeros High Court. The plaintiffs' side is all combovers and buzzcuts; the rough-and-tumble crew of controversial bar-brawling Philly lawyer Francis Malofiy, who exudes a decided resemblance to Sean Penn's character in Hurlyburly.

Entering the court with a briefcase made to resemble a Fender tweed-covered amp, Malofiy has the cover of Houses of the Holy ostentatiously glowing from his laptop and cracks his knuckles all through the day's primary concern: jury selection. He's a stark contrast to the patrician countenance of Zeppelin lawyer Peter Anderson and the seemingly bespoke suiting of his legal team. Indeed, as Malofiy fidgets, Page and Plant exude an almost zen calm, staring straight ahead without chatting or visibly reacting through the process; only towards the end before the lunch break does Page allow a wry smile to crack the facade.

The presiding judge, Gregory Klausner, oversees the proceedings with a gruff, military-evoking countenance - giving strict instructions as to how he feels lawyers should behave and having the bailiff toss out three spectators whose ringing iPhones violate his "all cellphones off" dictum.

SIDEBAR
10, Landmark, Copyright, Cases, Led Zep, Led Zeppelin, Trial, Rolling Stone, De La Soul, 2 Live Crew, The Beach Boys Songs on Trial: 10 Landmark Music Copyright Cases »
Klausner's no-nonsense demeanor and lack of pop-culture savvy, however, doesn't indicate a particular direction as to where this case may be going. "We're not going to do anything spontaneous up here," he icily instructs both parties' counsel, and amusingly refers to the famed defendants as "the Led Zeppelin."

The jury selection, meanwhile, seems to break down by age and hair profiling: the dude with the shoulder length Prince Valiant bowl, surfer tan and Hawaiian shirt was a for sure no-go, as was the special effects expert who proclaimed without prompting from the jury box, "I'm very much a fan - my love for these guys [gesturing to Page and Plant] is very strong."

Next to the presence of authentic rock legends Page and Plant, the most intriguing part about the first day are the high-profile witnesses expected to appear throughout the trial, which Judge Klausner allotted a 10-hour limit and estimated would last three to four days. In his statement to the court, Malofiy indicated that Spirit members Mark Andes and Jay Ferguson (both present in the galley), Linda Mensch (wife of famed manager Peter Mensch), renowned rock impresario/music biz legend Lou Adler and Guitar World editor Brad Tolinski, the latter a Led Zeppelin expert who wrote 2013's Light and Shade: Conversations with Jimmy Page, would all appear or testify in court.

The defense, meanwhile, had a far shorter witness list - the one boldfaced name being none other than Zep bassist and co-founder John Paul Jones. In addition to Page and Plant, there may be no more expert eyewitness than Jones — dismissed as a defendant in pre-trial hearings — who might be able to persuade an impartial jury that the songwriting credits (and royalty disbursement) remain the same.

Read more: Led Zeppelin Appear in Court for Colorful Start of 'Stairway' Trial | Rolling Stone
 
If Zeppelin loses, maybe Styx can sue Judas priest for ripping off Suite Madame Blue with Beyond the Realms of Death.

Or George Thorogood can sue himself for every song he has written after the first one.
 
Michael Skidmore, a former musician and music writer who's the executor of deceased "Taurus" songwriter and Spirit member Randy "California" Wolfe.

So the actual writer of "Taurus" never filed any lawsuit in all the years he was alive until 1997....and now the "executor" smells a ca$h cow, and he's the one who will get the money.

Yeah...a real legit, justifiable lawsuit. :rolleyes:

There was a guy on the internet who showed as many similarities with other chord progressions...yet none of them are filing lawsuits.

The melodies have little to no resemblance.

The blues players should now all sue each other, and also every rock song that's ever been written since...
 
the vampires are after page's money, like page said himself, you can't copyright a chord progression, and I agree with this 100%.
 
Yeah Zeppelin did this crap all the time, they probably ripped it from Taurus, even though you can't copyright chords (arpeggios maybe though? mehhh)

Just look at this page and do a search for Zeppelin and watch how many times their names pop up. It's freaking hilarious.

Music Plagiarism
 
I often wonder about all those 50's rock and roll songs and the 12 bar blues songs that are exactly the same with different lyrics, who's suing who.

Alan.
 
I don't understand why people would cheer for Led Zep in this. This is like the billionth time they've been accused of stealing ideas, because they did. If this was Justin Bieber being accused of stealing music yall would crucify him. But it's okay for Led Zep, why exactly? Because they're a legendary rock band....that stole from everyone?

I like Led Zeps music, and I personally don't care if they stole riffs. Means nothing to me. They clearly did more with their stolen material than the originators did. But damn, this is just a battle of lawyers and LZ can out-lawyer these people because they got rich off of stealing riffs!
 
I don't understand why people would cheer for Led Zep in this. This is like the billionth time they've been accused of stealing ideas, because they did. If this was Justin Bieber being accused of stealing music yall would crucify him. But it's okay for Led Zep, why exactly? Because they're a legendary rock band....that stole from everyone?

I like Led Zeps music, and I personally don't care if they stole riffs. Means nothing to me. They clearly did more with their stolen material than the originators did. But damn, this is just a battle of lawyers and LZ can out-lawyer these people because they got rich off of stealing riffs!

I think its the principle of it. Music evolves, you build on your influences, pick up riffs and incorperate them into your playing - this is natural normal behaviour - I'm sure there's little Kirk Hammet licks in my natural adlibbing that I don't even realise anymore and they are lifted straight off The Black Album.

Mike McCready has said on numerous occasions that he's just copied a load of his lead work straight from Ace F.

No one has accused Justin Bieber of anything yet, but it happened to Robin Thicke a couple of years ago which was also bollocks.

Most popular music is comprised of 3 major chords, 3 minor chords and a 7 note scale - there really aren't that many ways to skin that particular cat... and its been getting skinned pretty much continuously since the 1950s.

I think Led Zep get it, 'cos along with Elvis and the Stones, they were among the first big groups to be influenced by 30s - 50s black blues players, they all mined that shit to death. Led Zep had another case about lifting the riff for Whole Lotta Love from somewhere. I don't know why it sticks more with Led Zep than Elvis or the Stones, they've clearly done a similar amount of riff-recycling. Probably 'cos they were accused before with the Whole Lotta Love riff and it puts them under scrutiny so people go looking for it then.

I think what I'm saying is there's nothing wrong with borrowing licks and being influenced by something or even using a progression and re-interpretting it. If you wrote a hit punk song by smashing G, Em, C, D through a cranked plexi, you wouldn't expect the estate of Ben E King to be coming after you.

Obviously, if you're going to sample a song or actually do a cover version, then you need to credit the original artist. Maybe this case needs to define what a cover version actually is. Cos at the moment the law is wide open for money grabbing lawyers representing the estate of dead artist from the 70s that no one has heard of to go scouring popular music archives searching for a case.
 
I think Led Zep get it, 'cos along with Elvis and the Stones, they were among the first big groups to be influenced by 30s - 50s black blues players, they all mined that shit to death. Led Zep had another case about lifting the riff for Whole Lotta Love from somewhere. I don't know why it sticks more with Led Zep than Elvis or the Stones, they've clearly done a similar amount of riff-recycling. Probably 'cos they were accused before with the Whole Lotta Love riff and it puts them under scrutiny so people go looking for it then.

Yeah.. There's a long tradition, especially in folk and blues, of retelling stories, quoting songs etc. It's part of the sound, and had been for decades before Zeppelin came along. Their pretense was "We're an electric blues band," so they did what blues guys do, or tried to.

Really not too different from the hordes of people who swarm into these boards asking how to get their guitar to sound like Synyster Gates or make their voice sound like Ed Sheehran. Theft in music is turtles all the way down.
 
I don't understand why people would cheer for Led Zep in this. This is like the billionth time they've been accused of stealing ideas, because they did. If this was Justin Bieber being accused of stealing music yall would crucify him. But it's okay for Led Zep, why exactly? Because they're a legendary rock band....that stole from everyone?

I like Led Zeps music, and I personally don't care if they stole riffs. Means nothing to me. They clearly did more with their stolen material than the originators did. But damn, this is just a battle of lawyers and LZ can out-lawyer these people because they got rich off of stealing riffs!

It's not so much about cheering someone for out-and-out stealing...it's about making fun of someone looking for a cash cow after all these years.
Like I said earlier...why didn't the actual composer of "Taurus" ever file a copyright infringement law suit againt LZ in all the years STH was playing on every radio, over and over...?

Like Page said in the article...you can't copyright a fucking chord progression. if that was possible, then there would be like 20 legal Pop/Rock songs...and everything else would be considered "stolen".

As has been pointed out...Blues is by its nature a derivative process, and Rock follows in that vein.
Sure, there was the Willie Dixon tune that was a lot more than a stolen chord progression, they took whole lyrics...and LZ paid the price...(Small Faces also did it with the same Dixon Tune, and never got sued ('cuz LZ made money, Small Faces didn't)...
...but listen to the entire song "Taurus"...it's shit...there's nothing to it...whereas STH (albeit, played to death and almost annoying these days) was/is considered one of the true Rock masterpieces.
If the author of "Taurus" and the band Spirit had it in them, then THEY would have written the so-called masterpiece STH, and not LZ.
Instead..."Taurus" is a fucking boring YAWN of a song that goes nowhere.

Listen to this...except for the three chords and the descending base line that pop in a couple of times...the song has nothing to do with STH.
Those kinds of chords and descending base line thing has been used by others...it's no different that a Rock song based on E-A-B chords.

 
I don't buy the "you can't copyright a chord progression" defense. Maybe in a court of law that stupid line of thinking will hold up, but in the real world we know better, don't we? Some things are just untouchable now. Take an A minor, C, D, F. Play those chords. What does it sound like? House of the Rising motherfucking Sun. It's just chords, right? Yeah, they're just chords, that sound like House of the Rising Sun. If you write a song using those chords in that sequence, they're just chords, you will sound like House of the Rising Sun. Someone can say "that sounds just like House of the Rising Sun". That's what chord progressions do. You don't have to be Jimmy Page or a music major to know that.

I don't know the motives of these Taurus people. I don't care. If they feel that LZ ripped them off, prove it and go get em. I bet if any one of you wrote a song worth stealing, and someone stole it, you'd go after them. I would. If I heard one of my crappy songs on a commercial without my permission, I'd lawyer up like OJ Simpson.
 
So the actual writer of "Taurus" never filed any lawsuit in all the years he was alive until 1997....and now the "executor" smells a ca$h cow, and he's the one who will get the money.
...
IIRC this was the same as in the suit over Men At Work's 'Down Under. Lady that wrote the borrowed bit didn't mind. But the Suits' did.
 
Back
Top