Jump to content
Fast Tracker

Radiohead sue Lana del Rey for plagiarising Creep

Recommended Posts

The general feeling in this thread is that claiming 100% is unnecessarily draconian, not that they can't protect their music or have a percentage.

 

just a negotiation though isn't it

start at 100% and accept 30% or whatever

lots of grandstanding involved with these sort of legal claims

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a negotiation though isn't it

start at 100% and accept 30% or whatever

lots of grandstanding involved with these sort of legal claims

Admittedly yeah we don't know the whole story yet. But we're given to believe they refused 40%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a band doesn't have a right to protect their music?

what the fuck is wrong with these clueless comments?

 

"and they don't need the money".   LOL are you fucking 12?

so by that logic, if Radiohead were broke, you'd be ok with this?

 

it has NOTHING to do with needing the money.

it's business.

it's not right if another artist rips off another artist.  There are consequences.

whether it's radiohead behind this or the publisher or whomever, it is imperative to protect their music.

it blows my mind how judgmental people are being about this without knowing and understanding the business and the legalities of this stuff.

 

"the beginning of the end"   lol jesus.

bunch of naive, whiny brats.

 

 

calm down fuckface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly yeah we don't know the whole story yet. But we're given to believe they refused 40%.

 

A: 100% please

B: 40% 

A: no, 80%

B: 45% 

A: no, 60%

B: 50%

A: done 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the beta band released squares there was another song by a band called 'eye monster' i think and both songs are pretty much based around the same sample, but they just happened to release around the same time. I dont think there was any court cases or anything though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A: 100% please

B: 40%

A: no, 80%

B: 45%

A: no, 60%

B: 50%

A: done

Yeah you'd think that normally, but we're led to believe it's been 100% consistently with no concessions. LDR maxed out at offering 40% before letting it go to court. I'll stress 'led to believe', not claiming her Twitter is gospel or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and by the way, here's the latest update:

 

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

 

 

 

so, yeah.

all you whiny, judgmental brats jumped the gun without knowing any details and thus commenced your knee-jerk reactions.

shocking.

well any of you admit you were wrong?  

not likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and by the way, here's the latest update:

 

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

 

 

 

so, yeah.

all you whiny, judgmental brats jumped the gun without knowing any details and thus commenced your knee-jerk reactions.

shocking.

well any of you admit you were wrong?  

not likely.

Holy shit. Who hurt you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a band doesn't have a right to protect their music?

what the fuck is wrong with these clueless comments?

 

"and they don't need the money".   LOL are you fucking 12?

so by that logic, if Radiohead were broke, you'd be ok with this?

 

it has NOTHING to do with needing the money.

it's business.

it's not right if another artist rips off another artist.  There are consequences.

whether it's radiohead behind this or the publisher or whomever, it is imperative to protect their music.

it blows my mind how judgmental people are being about this without knowing and understanding the business and the legalities of this stuff.

 

"the beginning of the end"   lol jesus.

bunch of naive, whiny brats.

 

oh god you never fail to deliver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reminded me of the NIN and Bowie one

 

Trent Reznor: There was one point when we were doing the record that I came up with this melody and I thought, "this is really good," and that I couldn't have written it myself. So I played it for Flood and he said "that's really good," and I said "that's gotta be somebody else's song." David Bowie: It's from a gin advert I did in Japan! Trent Reznor: So I played it for a couple other people and said "I think this is something off Low, this just sounds familiar...I don't know what it is." So we did it, record's out, & one day I was talking on the phone and I got Scary Monsters, which came out on Rykodisc finally. And so I put that on and it's got bonus tracks at the end. And I'm listening and this song comes on that, to my horror, it's the same...Crystal Japan.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the dumbest fucking arguments i've seen on this topic.

Nice false equivalency.

 

 

so a band doesn't have a right to protect their music?

what the fuck is wrong with these clueless comments?

 

"and they don't need the money".   LOL are you fucking 12?

so by that logic, if Radiohead were broke, you'd be ok with this?

 

it has NOTHING to do with needing the money.

it's business.

it's not right if another artist rips off another artist.  There are consequences.

whether it's radiohead behind this or the publisher or whomever, it is imperative to protect their music.

it blows my mind how judgmental people are being about this without knowing and understanding the business and the legalities of this stuff.

 

"the beginning of the end"   lol jesus.

bunch of naive, whiny brats.

 

 

Whatever second video you posted it doesn't play due to privacy settings.

 

Also- seems obvious given that you're "new" here that you're just here to start shit or are an alias.

 

 

good retort.

 

 

oh and of course i know about The Hollies.

people keep bringing that up in these discussions as if it's relevant.

it isn't.

 

 

oh and by the way, here's the latest update:

 

https://pitchfork.com/news/radiohead-havent-sued-lana-del-rey-publishers-say/?mbid=social_facebook

 

 

 

so, yeah.

all you whiny, judgmental brats jumped the gun without knowing any details and thus commenced your knee-jerk reactions.

shocking.

well any of you admit you were wrong?  

not likely.

thinkingface.thumb.gif.2e3b61c350c1c5bd5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a band doesn't have a right to protect their music?

what the fuck is wrong with these clueless comments?

 

"and they don't need the money". LOL are you fucking 12?

so by that logic, if Radiohead were broke, you'd be ok with this?

 

it has NOTHING to do with needing the money.

it's business.

it's not right if another artist rips off another artist. There are consequences.

whether it's radiohead behind this or the publisher or whomever, it is imperative to protect their music.

it blows my mind how judgmental people are being about this without knowing and understanding the business and the legalities of this stuff.

 

"the beginning of the end" lol jesus.

bunch of naive, whiny brats.

inject this straight through my veins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a band doesn't have a right to protect their music?

what the fuck is wrong with these clueless comments?

 

"and they don't need the money".   LOL are you fucking 12?

so by that logic, if Radiohead were broke, you'd be ok with this?

 

it has NOTHING to do with needing the money.

it's business.

it's not right if another artist rips off another artist.  There are consequences.

whether it's radiohead behind this or the publisher or whomever, it is imperative to protect their music.

it blows my mind how judgmental people are being about this without knowing and understanding the business and the legalities of this stuff.

 

"the beginning of the end"   lol jesus.

bunch of naive, whiny brats.

 

But you're here talking about it as if you know better than everyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this one?

 

 

 

That's an outright sample btw, not even an imitation or interpolation of another artist like so many of their songs are. And it was never credited.

 

Talk about principle.

 

Now, one can always make excuses. "It was just a lesser known Radiohead song!" "Miles died a decade before Amnesiac era, and he was almost as rich as Radiohead anyway, or maybe much more, so who cares!"

 

However, if we apply those standards in the Lana case, Radiohead are also much richer than Lana (Thom alone has a net worth almost four times hers) and her song is also lesser known than the song it allegedly copied. Get Free is just an album track, not some single or video that she was heavily promoting. She wasn't even playing it live. It wasn't generating much money to the artist in and of itself, just like Kinetic wasn't. Hell, even her actual singles from this album charted way below Creep.

 

So the Radiohead/Miles unauthorized sample is really a much bigger deal- given how blatant it is in comparison to the more subjective matter of Get Free, which one can argue was or wasn't knowingly influenced by Creep. I would love to see Radiohead taken to court by the Miles Davis estate if they continue this shit.

 

And btw, the reason we can't post proper embeds of Radiohead songs in their entirety is that Radiohead have evolved into the greediest band around when it comes to "protecting" their copyrights. They've been acting like Metallica used to, back in the early Napster days (funny enough, Metallica are the chill ones now). So good luck in locating their non-singles on Youtube.

 

I subscribe to a paid streaming service myself (and it's not even Spotify) and I believe in buying music whenever I can, but Radiohead used to trust their fans and believe in some concept of creative commons. I regret the fact I trusted Radiohead as a band worth giving money to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whether they have requested a court to hear the case or not, one set of relentless lawyers negotiating against another set of relentless lawyers is in effect a lawsuit. where they are now in the percentage agreement is irrelevant. if they don't come to a settlement agreement there will probably be a court case as LDR said. she just maybe didn't use the exact right words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good retort.

 

 

oh and of course i know about The Hollies.

people keep bringing that up in these discussions as if it's relevant.

it isn't.

 

well it is in the sense that it was a similar situation

 

fuckface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...