Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blacklite911 t1_j6frmof wrote

Can someone explain why this is Oniony?

Seems like a standard copyright lawsuit

88

IAmTheClayman t1_j6gyczs wrote

Because it’s a pretty ridiculous lawsuit. Astley is arguing that Yung Gravy is copying his vocal patterns.

A) that’s not actually something protected by copyright, trademark, or any other law, and

B) you’d have to be completely tone deaf to think YG came anywhere close to sounding like him.

Now joking aside, it seems that YG did correctly get a license to interpolate the original song (meaning he has access to the original composition but needs to record everything from scratch, versus sampling where you just use a snippet of the original recording). The lawsuit argues that Astley’s distinct voice is a resource protected under “right to publicity”, which is something I’ve never heard of in the US so maybe it’s a UK-specific law

51

gertalives t1_j6ibus8 wrote

I see your point, but being ridiculous doesn’t make it oniony. The headline needs to capture some kind of absurdity to qualify for the sub, and this ain’t it.

13

supersecretaqua t1_j6h3jpn wrote

How good something is shouldn't really determine if the attempt was in bad faith lol.. Doesn't mean it is, but that shouldn't be relevant by itself.

There are many sides to shit like this, it doesn't have to be a scenario where you can literally overlap the waveforms and not tell the difference for it to be illegal imitation.

11

DutchNotSleeping t1_j6ijk6x wrote

Did you listen to the song? The entire start is just Rick Astleys song. Like, in the subtitles it even stated it was.

Also, there is def some rights on that, since this is the entire reason Taylor Swift decided to re-record her songs.

I hope Legal Eagle does a breakdown of this though, cause IANAL so I want to see his take

6

IAmTheClayman t1_j6iklwk wrote

Right, except YG got an interpolation license from the rights holder, which means he was legally allowed to recreate the song. Rick Astley is arguing that just his voice is a separate, protected asset, and that YG was not allowed to imitate it.

In the US at least I’ve never heard of that being a thing, and if it is a thing in UK law I would argue that YG doesn’t sound anything like Rick Astley on his song. He’s singing the same notes, but the tone and quality of his voice sounds nothing like the original

1

DutchNotSleeping t1_j6ilen9 wrote

The specific recording falls under a seperate copyright, this is 100% true in the US. And it's not about YG imitating his voice, it's about him using the actual recording of RA in the start of this clip.

Here is Legal Eagle explaining something similar with Taylor Swift https://youtu.be/M-A_RrOeoWw&t=4m36s

For some reason the timestamp isn't working properly but the important thing starts at 4m36s

4

RexManning1 t1_j6iqnus wrote

I’m not a UK lawyer, but in the US Astley may have an argument with regards to likeness.

6

blacklite911 t1_j6j4iee wrote

I think he might have a case though. It’s basically like imitating his likeness. Instead of hiring Astley to record new material, they basically either altered a voice or got a soundalike to adds extra material to the song. The argument is that song song gives you the impression that it’s Rick Astley singing the new lines. The implications could be important for the future. Because deepfake vocal technology can actually allow labels to produce new material in the sound of a singer’s voice.

It basically hinges on if the song leads the typical person to believe that Rick Astley is singing the new lines.

So I believe it’s more complicated than the initial reaction. He has a case

4