​

In 2011, the parody rock band known as The Axis of Awesome released a single titled "4 Chords". On its surface, it seems to be a simple medley of 46 different songs. However, all of these songs have one thing in common: they all feature the same four chord progression of I – V – vi – IV. The tempo may change, but as far as the technical aspects of the song go, they are all the same in terms of their chords. While the band meant for this to be a parody song, it begs the question: what are the rules when it comes to musical plagiarism? At what point does a song or lyric go from simple homage to undeniable theft? How do courts settle these kinds of cases, and what impact does it have on the music industry as a whole? As these six case studies prove, navigating the specifics of musical plagiarism is complicated and ambiguous, but it is important to recognize the fine line between producing your own work and copying someone else's. 

​

DJ Earworm – United States of Pop

​

With 894,000 subscribers on YouTube, Jordan Roseman (more commonly known as DJ Earworm) is certainly a popular figure in the face of music. Much of his popularity stemmed from a series known as United States of Pop. Every year, DJ Earworm creates a mashup of Billboard’s top 25 songs and releases a music video in December. His first installment in the series, "Blame it on the Pop", was released in 2009 and quickly went viral, eventually surpassing 51 million views on YouTube. While none of the future songs would ever receive as many views, people eagerly anticipated his yearly release. Word of his success eventually reached names such as Pink and Queen, and DJ Earworm had the chance to work with them on their own mashup projects (Alexander 2019). What used to be a simple hobby for him would soon turn into a fleshed out career path. The United States of Pop series would eventually culminate into his most recent hit, "Decade of Pop", featuring 100 popular songs spanning the years of 2010-2019.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Fortunately for Roseman, he has not faced any legal repercussions for his work. This may be due to the mashup relying heavily on samples from other artists, or the fact that many people, including celebrities and famous musicians, respect his incredible talent. Although the mashup as a genre has faded in popularity since his debut, Roseman says that he will continue to do what he loves. As he stated in a 2019 interview with TIME Magazine, “I’ve gone through some peaks and valleys, but there’s something to be said for persistence and for not quitting even though the pendulum swings. I know mashups were at a cultural peak right around the turn of the last decade. I know they’re not as buzzworthy now. But I think they’re a form that’s here to stay and will be relevant” (Alexander 2019).

​

Tom Petty vs. Sam Smith

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Unfortunately, not all cases are this cut and dry; just ask Tom Petty and Sam Smith. When Petty’s publisher noticed a similar melody between Smith’s 2014 hit “Stay With Me” and Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down”, he contacted Smith’s production team. Although Sam claimed that he had never heard that song before, people such as lawyer Kurt Dahl had their doubts, mentioning in a 2017 article that even his 4 year old niece had heard it before. Despite this, though, the dispute never turned hostile. When asked about his reaction to the situation, Tom Petty said this: “Let me say I have never had any hard feelings toward Sam. All my years of songwriting have shown me these things can happen. Most times you catch it before it gets out the studio door, but in this case it got by. Sam’s people were very understanding of our predicament and we easily came to an agreement” (Dahl 2017). He goes on to say that he had never intended to launch a lawsuit, and that the press has blown the whole situation out of proportion. Smith ended up giving Petty and his co-writer writing credit for “Stay With Me, as well as 12.5% of the royalties.

​

Dahl also mentions the standards by which musical infringement is judged in court. In the event a case does come to court (most cases are settled privately), the plaintiff must prove that A) the defendant has heard the original song before writing their own and B) the average person can listen to both songs and note that one has copied from the other. While the specifics of copyright law are complicated and often vague, the calm response from Petty suggests that he did not view this as an intentional violation of that law.

​

Beastie Boys – Paul’s Boutique

​

In 2012, TufAmerica sued Beastie Boys on the grounds that they had used illicit copyrighted material from the group Trouble Funk in their Paul’s Boutique album. They claimed that the producers of the album, the Dust Brothers, had used samples of Trouble Funk’s ‘Say What’ without permission and covered it up in production of the song ‘Shadrach’. Upon performing an audio analysis of the song, TufAmerica was able to successfully isolate a sample and argued that a casual listener would not be able to tell that said sample was used in the first place (Gardner 2012). Matters were further complicated by the death of Adam Yauch (MCA and founder of Beastie Boys) a day after the band was sued. In addition, since Paul’s Boutique had been created over 20 years ago, courts had to decide whether the statute of limitations had passed.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

Ultimately, U.S. district judge Alison Nathan ruled in favor of the Beastie Boys. She claimed that TufAmerica lacked standing to appear in court because they had not obtained an exclusive license to the copyrighted material (Gardner 2015). They would need the approval of all three members of Trouble Funk in order to be granted right to sue. Unfortunately for them, TufAmerica had only gained the approval of two members, and thus did not have standing to appear before a court. The Beastie Boys had won, but what about albums with a greater number of samples than Paul’s Boutique? That’s where Since I Left You comes in.

​

The Avalanches – Since I Left You

​

         In their debut album Since I Left You, The Avalanches featured over 3,500 samples from music, radio, television, and the like. It belongs to a subgenre of music known as plunderphonics, which refers to making music by taking existing audio recordings and altering them in some way to make an entirely new composition. The existance of this genre as a whole brings up many questions about what is considered thievery and what is not. Matt LeMay, a contributor for Pitchfork, had this to say in his album review: “What really makes this album brilliant is not as much the volume or quality of the samples used as the way that they’re employed. The Avalanches have managed to build a totally unique context for all these sounds, while still allowing each to retain its own distinct flavor. As a result, Since I Left You sounds like nothing else” (1999). Indeed, many fans have been waiting for the band to release something similar, but the nature of the album is such that it cannot be replicated in exactly the same way, even in live performances. While the band had to do a hefty amount of backtracking to figure out where exactly many samples came from, Amar Ediriwira (2019) from The Vinyl Factory argues that the labor of the process is what makes this album so great.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

         The genre of plunderphonics brings forth a whole new set of questions that should be considered when talking about musical plagiarism. Is there something to be said about stolen art that is repurposed into a distinct sound? Does the fine line between theft and homage disappear once a greater number of samples is employed? Paul’s Boutique and Since I Left You, while they are two exemplars in their own right, do not represent the plunderphonics genre as a whole. So what is it about these albums in particular that makes them stand out? For the fans, it seems to be the careful deliberation and craft it takes to create a brand new experience from borrowed material. Rather than viewing the album as a sum of all its individual parts or samples, the fans see it as an artistic phenomenon that transcends their understanding of how it came to be.

​

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams’ Blurred Lines is no stranger to controversy. After being flagged as a rape anthem by feminists for its questionable lyrics, many others have boycotted the song or even banned it in places such as college campuses. However, this was not the end of trouble for Thicke and Williams, as they would later be sued by the Marvin Gaye estate for plagiarizing Gaye’s Got to Give it Up. While Gaye’s lawyers argued that certain elements had been copied altogether, Williams and Thicke’s lawyers claimed that they had simply copied a musical style. The court would eventually rule in Gaye’s favor, forcing Thicke and Williams to pay over $5.3 million for copyright infringement. This ruling upset judge Jacqueline Nguyen, who claimed in her dissent that the feel of the songs were different and that this would have a devastating impact on musicians and composers in the future. (Beaumont-Thomas 2018). Indeed, this case served as a grim reminder for songwriters everywhere who just want to compose their own work without fear of plagiarism. Not only has the case fueled a spike in musical copyright cases altogether, but record labels have also become increasingly strict during the production process.

​

The Blurred Lines case is unique in that it is the first case where imitating a musical style or genre comes into question. As Ben Sisario of The New York Times puts it, many artists in the music business rely on inspiration from those who came before them in order to create their own style. This was even the case for Robin Thicke himself, who had gone on record in interviews to say that he was inspired by Got to Give it Up, only to deny it in the courtroom (2018). Sorry, boys: looks like the lines aren't as blurred as you thought.

​

Queen and David Bowie vs. Vanilla Ice

​

Vanilla Ice is most commonly known for his song Ice Ice Baby that was released in 1990. Unfortunately, he made the mistake of copying the exact base line from Queen and David Bowie’s Under Pressure. While the case never actually made it to court, it is one of the most well-known cases of musical plagiarism, partially for Vanilla Ice’s response. When asked about the issue in an interview, he insisted that the two basslines were different because he had added an additional beat.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

He later came out to say that this was a joke, but Queen and David Bowie didn’t think it was funny. In the end, Vanilla Ice had to pay an undisclosed amount of money to them, as well as give them songwriting credit for Ice Ice Baby (Conlon 2011). While this is an obvious case of deliberate plagiarism, this case is noteworthy for another reason as well. Jordan Runtagh from Rolling Stone explains that the Vanilla Ice case caused people to question the disciplinary measures of similar cases, and some argued that copyright laws do not do enough to protect the creative interest of artists. He continues by saying this: “Though he paid the price, some argue that isn’t enough to make up for the potential creativity lost by Queen and David Bowie, who are now linked to him through a collaboration they had no choice in joining” (2016). It is because of this stolen property that Vanilla Ice was able to become an overnight sensation. However, as he would soon figure out for himself, the consequences of that fame would come back to bite him.

​

The six examples mentioned above represent only a small portion of musical plagiarism cases. However, they all demonstrate an important idea: musical plagiarism is not always blatant. Whether you are repurposing the work of others into something new like Paul's Boutique, or attempting to pay homage to a musical style like Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, it takes a certain level of craft to emulate your idols without stealing their thunder. This is not to say that songwriters should always play it safe and never use someone else's work; The Axis of Awesome's "4 Chords demonstrates that there are only so many notes one can play. However, it is important to understand the potential limits of interpretation in order to fully grow and develop as a songwriter.

​