I've seen some next-level copyfraud fuckery in my day, believe me, but @adamneelybass's tale of @WarnerChappell's absurd copyfraud reaches a new height of absurdity.
1/
1/
This is sleazy even by Warner Chappell standards, and they're the crooks who fraudulently claimed ownership over Happy Birthday for decades.
vimeo.com/172715640
2/
vimeo.com/172715640
2/
Buckle up for this one, as it is an onion of bizarre, bad-faith corporate behavior, with each layer peeling back to reveal another, even weirder and more terrible one.
3/
3/
It starts with a garbage lawsuit against Katy Perry for including a piece of background music in her song Dark Horse that was similar to another very generic lick in an obscure Christian rap song called "A Joyful Noise."
4/
4/
No one claimed that Katy Perry lifted the brief snatch of music from Joyful Noise. Rather, the case turned on the precedent set when Martin Gaye's heirs sued Robin Thicke over "Blurred Lines," arguing that the song had a similar vibe to Gaye's.
5/
5/
Gaye's heirs should not have won that suit. But they did. And it opened the floodgates to nuisance suits targeting the likes of Perry and her publisher, Warner-Chappell. They lost the suit and got hit for $2.8m.
This isn't even the fuckery part, by the way.
6/
This isn't even the fuckery part, by the way.
6/
Enter @adamneelybass, who created a massively successful viral video defending Warner Chappell and Katy Perry, arguing that the suit was garbage. The video was so successful he went on national media to discuss the case and was even asked to sign onto an amicus brief.
7/
7/
Enter the fuckery.
Warner Chappell has claimed copyright over Neely's video, claiming that a few seconds of music that he used was the "melody" of Katy Perry's song.
8/
Warner Chappell has claimed copyright over Neely's video, claiming that a few seconds of music that he used was the "melody" of Katy Perry's song.
8/
Further fuckery:
In the case, Warner Chappell argued that this musical phrase was NOT the melody, and was rather some incidental background sound.
9/
In the case, Warner Chappell argued that this musical phrase was NOT the melody, and was rather some incidental background sound.
9/
Fuckery extreme:
The Warner-Chappell claim was not automated. A human manually claimed this phrase of music as Warner-Chappell's, despite:
a) Them having disclaimed ownership of it in a lawsuit,
b) Losing that suit and being told by a court that it wasn't theirs.
10/
The Warner-Chappell claim was not automated. A human manually claimed this phrase of music as Warner-Chappell's, despite:
a) Them having disclaimed ownership of it in a lawsuit,
b) Losing that suit and being told by a court that it wasn't theirs.
10/
FUCKERY TO THE MAX!
But the musical phrase they claimed ownership over was from "A Joyful Noise," the song they lost TWO POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS over, having claimed that their song was not confusingly similar to it.
/11
But the musical phrase they claimed ownership over was from "A Joyful Noise," the song they lost TWO POINT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS over, having claimed that their song was not confusingly similar to it.
/11
The two musical phrases - the one from "Dark Horse" and the one from "Joyful Noise" - were so similar that Warner-Chappell's own copyright enforcers mistakenly claimed copyright over the wrong one!
2020 folks. Don't forget to tip your servers, they work hard.
/eof
2020 folks. Don't forget to tip your servers, they work hard.
/eof
