Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven Trial 2 (“Bring it On Home”)

[patrickgm60]

Following a “Celebration Day” in 2016, LZ is now facing a second trial in the Taurus/STH copyright infringement case. (“How Many More Times?”) The jury in the first trial found for defendants (LZ among them). Plaintiff, having been dealt a “Heartbreaker,” then appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, citing errors by the trial court (i.e. the law was “Trampled Under Foot.”). The jury had determined that the two songs were not substantially similar under the “extrinsic test.”)

So, what were the errors that occurred in the first trial? For starters, the trial court decided that, because the copyright protection comes from the Copyright Act of 1909, the written deposit copy of the songs would govern, and a sound recording of the songs would not be admissible evidence. The court also ruled that playing the recordings for the jury, for any purpose, would be too prejudicial, as the jury was likely feeling a “Whole Lotta Love” for witnesses Jimmy Page and Robert Plant. The Court of Appeals agreed, as to the deposit copy being the object of protection, but concluded it was an error to bar the jury from hearing the two songs’ recordings, which will require the recordings to be out “In the Light.”

Also, the jury was instructed that common musical elements, such as “descending chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes” were not protected by copyright. The Court of Appeals held that the jury should have also been instructed that the selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements are protectable.

To make matters even more complicated, the trial court, “Wearing and Tearing” on the jury’s attention, allowed a guitarist retained by plaintiff, to play the two songs on his guitar. The songs were then recorded and only the bass notes of the two recordings were played for the jury, who were left “Dazed and Confused” when it came time to deliberate.

In the new trial, the court will likely allow a variety of experts to “Ramble On” and allow recordings of both works to be played for the jury, who may be instructed to apply both the extrinsic (objective) test, as well as the subjective intrinsic test, which asks “whether the ordinary, reasonable person would find the total concept and feel of the works to be substantially similar.” Jimmy Page and Robert Plant (“Friends”) are expected to testify again (“Two Ones are Won”?)

Or, LZ may be sick of “Going to California”, preferring to do “Somethin’ Else” and offer to settle the case, in fear that the next jury may find that “The Song Remains the Same.” Oftentimes, “That’s the Way” litigation goes.

“Thank You” for indulging some silliness from a lawyer who likes "the Zep."

[C-ville Brent]

I appreciate your update. Who's going to sue who over the G-C-D progression?

[Brucebubs]

Jimmy thinks he's so fine but my sweet lord might prove him wrong.

[Inyo]

Excessive litigation. Jurisprudence is being trampled under foot.

Penalty for the loser in the trial: They get the gallows pole...

[Ozzy the dog]

Lawyers win again. It's all about the cash - mere greed.

Whilst the similarities in the two intros are present, it is only a variation over a base line progression. There are thousands of songs out there that would be guilty of this.

When Ian Anderson was questioned about Hotel California sounding like Tull's 'We used to know', he said it's difficult to find a chord sequence that hasn't been used and that he didn't see it as plagiarism. He said (jokingly) it was more like a tribute - rather like the tribute Rolex he was wearing.

Perhaps Zep should sue David Crane and Marta Kauffman for calling their hit TV show 'Friends' after a Zep song.

There are millions of 'tunes' out there, all based around 12 little notes - what are the chances?

[Brucebubs]

Originally Posted by Ozzy the dog

Lawyers win again. It's all about the cash - mere greed.

There's a lawyer who's sure
all that glitters is gold

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

There's a lawyer who's sure
all that glitters is gold

......

[Muddslide]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

There's a lawyer who's sure
all that glitters is gold

Today, sir, you win the Internet. Well played.

[frankmcr]

Well, maybe.

Personally, the times musicians get sued for this kind of thing . . . I've heard of this one, and the "My Sweet Lord" case back in 1971. If there's some huge wave of similar lawsuits going on I guess I missed it.

[Pura Vida]

I love to get the Led out! In the past there's been an obvious "Communication Breakdown," but this time, they'll need to confess it's "Nobody's Fault But Mine."

Some perspective on their history of "borrowing" songs from other artists:
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...p-offs-223419/

[Johnny K]

Great Thread. Thank You.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Well, maybe.

Personally, the times musicians get sued for this kind of thing . . . I've heard of this one, and the "My Sweet Lord" case back in 1971. If there's some huge wave of similar lawsuits going on I guess I missed it.

I would not say a "huge wave" but there have been some substantial judgements. The Men At Work "Down Under" judgement ( which I personally feel is a travesty) for example, although it was thankfully reduced to 5 % from the 60% the plaintiffs asked for, it will still be a significant amount of cash given it was a number 1 hit in several countries