Every year there is at least one big case of plagiarism that everyone talks about. This time it arrived fast. Radiohead sued Lana del Rey, arguing that the song "Get Free" (2017) by this artist replicates the iconic "Creep" (1992).
Radiohead sued * Lana del Rey for her song "Get Free" (2017) alleging that plagiarized the melody of "Creep" (1992).
(* Lana del Rey says they sued her, Warner / Chapell released a statement denying this, they can compare the two songs here)
These discussions of similarity always have conflicting positions.
The plaintiff sees everything the same,
those who defend themselves claim originality.
The discourse is always the same and equally the two sides can be right.
It's simple: if you do your own work, you develop it with your own creativity and come up with a solution that reflects it is an original work. With that, it should be enough. With that we could defend ourselves.
Different thing is to take someone else's work and publish it as such; or build on this work (build little) and take it all as your own.
What I want to highlight here is that in these cases each of the parties has an "accurate" perspective. Radiohead can see that "Get Free" is similar to "Creep" and Lana del Rey says he wrote it without being inspired by that song.
What do we have left then?
To argue that it was a subject of "unconscious inspiration" like George Harrisón round. The Chiffons?
The title of a work is its name. It's no more. In principle, the work is protected by copyright; But his title, alone and abandoned, failed.
A good title is descriptive.
A good title hooks.
A bad title may, by loose, make the work lose sense or do it justice.
There are hundreds of songs with the same name (eg "Oh Love"). We have all composed (intentionally or unintentionally) a song with a title that someone else had already used.
But is there plagiarism? Can you claim me for baptizing another song under the title "My Love"?
No. If ideas are not protected, the title is almost an idea. What is important is the body of the work. Its development. Where does the author take that title, or why did it end there?
There are notorious cases of great titles. That alone could be considered sufficient originality or works to be protected individually (and in conjunction with the work). All the novels of Gabriel García Márquez are part of the list of great titles. But it would be a long and disputed fight.
I think to be for a matter of harnessing that plagiarism reputation of others.
If you have to put a title, it is fine if it has meat, if it is original; But if in the end you are going to give the world another "Our love", then, What else?
5 titles that take it out of the stadium:
Love in the Time of Cholera (Gabriel García Márquez)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Charlie Kaufman et. Al.)
Lemon Tiramisu (Joaquín Sabina)
The love of the fireflies (Alejandro Ricaño)
Your house on the corner of time (The Ear of Van Gogh)
Shakira and Carlos Vives were sued for plagiarism by Liviam Escallón for allegedly plagiarizing their song "Yo Te Quiero Tanto" when composing "La Bicicleta".
"Do not confuse bravery with temerity." Antonio Escohotado warns in "It's never the same"By Andrés Calamaro; And would not be for less.
Once again it is shown that praiseworthy is not to sue but to win the demands. This week the Cuban Liviam Escallón sued for plagiarism to Shakira and Carlos Vives for allegedly plagiarizing part of the melodic line and the chorus of his song "I love you so much"(1997) when composing"The bike"(2016).