Scandal in Oz: Was 'Over the Rainbow' Plagiarized?

[macbeth]

Posted: 3/9/24 at 12:28pm

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/the-wizard-of-oz-over-the-rainbow-plagiarized-1235843128/

Mostly circumstantial evidence, but seems plausible that he heard the tune. 

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 3/9/24 at 12:44pm

It's possible and maybe even likely since back then things like songs/jokes/bits in vaudeville and early film were stolen and recycled pretty often. Even though Who's on First is associated with Abbott and Costello it's murky if it was even theirs.

But if you like stolen melodies right to the point of the legalities...boy do we have some Andrew Lloyd Webber jams for you.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 3/9/24 at 2:20pm

I can hear the similarities, but I would say there are some key differences as well and I'm surprised those quoted in the article didn't discuss the differences in any great detail. I don't think it's fair to call it deliberate plagiarism. There's no way to know if Harold Arlen ever heard or played this piece in his lifetime.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/9/24 at 8:49pm

Either he hadn't hear the piece and it's a wild coincidence - which do actually happen sometimes, who among us hasn't experienced one? - or he reflected the theme (which begins well into the piece), whether he realized it or not.  The similarity is blatant.

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 10:30am

The Hollywood Reporter has given itself over to rather sensationalized reporting lately, along with Variety to a lesser degree which is disappointing for those interested in the field.  Aside from that, this is a pretty weak argument based upon a partially identical note progression.  Oddly, the piece by Lund sounds like a deliberate variation of the Arlen melody.  Could this be a veiled reference to that hallowed king of movie composers, John Williams and his many "borrowings" from the classical greats?

[Kad]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 10:38am

henrikegerman said: "Either he hadn't hear the piece and it's a wild coincidence - which do actually happen sometimes, who among us hasn't experienced one?- or hereflectedthe theme (which begins well into the piece), whether he realized it or not. The similarity is blatant."

Yeah this is my takeaway. The similarity is obvious but absent any kind of definitive proof Arlen was familiar with Lund’s piece and/or knowingly used it as a starting point for his song that’s kind of all there is to this story. 
 

Regardless, I think it would be inarguable, even if Arlen were familiar with Lund’s piece, that “Rainbow”  is a sufficiently unique work to beat any charge of plagiarism. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 12:46pm

Arlen's song stands on its own as a masterwork even if it had been a mindful and credited (or generally if tacitly accepted) adaptation/interpolation of Lund's theme, not an uncommon practice in pop song writing, e.g., I'm Always Chasing Rainbows from Chopin's Fantasie-Impromptu. 

A question I have though on these kinds of suits.  Leaving aside all other issues, were a court/jury to find that a work is not a deliberate steal but bloomed instead from the composer's own subconscious where a previously heard melody resides, a melody the composer has no conscious memory of previously hearing (or it cannot be proven that there was such a conscious memory), shouldn't the plaintiff composer still be entitled to some of the defendant composer's work's earnings?
 

Updated On: 3/10/24 at 12:46 PM

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 1:10pm

“Be a Clown” and “Make ‘em Laugh.”

Discuss. 

[fashionguru_23]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 2:38pm

Jerry Herman wrote in his memoir, "Showtune", that after "Hello Dolly" came out, a lawsuit was brought against him and others about the title song, and that is was plagiarized. I can't remember who it was who said it (Jule Styne, maybe?) that you don't have a hit on hands until such a case comes forward. 

Herman also noted that, like Michael Feinstein, all composers work with the same number of notes.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 3/10/24 at 6:18pm

henrikegerman said: "A question I have thoughon these kinds of suits. Leaving aside all other issues,werea court/jury to findthat a work is not a deliberate steal but bloomed insteadfrom the composer's own subconscious where a previously heard melody resides, a melody the composer has noconscious memory of previously hearing (or it cannot be proven that there was such a conscious memory),shouldn't the plaintiff composer still be entitledto some of the defendant composer'swork's earnings?"

It seems the confusion here arises from the conflation of two concepts, plagiarism and copyright. Plagiarism generally refers to a professional standard. It is not thought of as actionable in the legal sense. It might get you fired, kicked out of an organization, subjected to some sanction under a contract, or perhaps tarred and feathered. When an author (in this case a composer) sues another author/composer, it is for copyright violation. To win such a suit, one must jump through all of the hurdles that are found in the copyright law. However, a copyright does not last forever, and once it sunsets under the law, anyone is free to use the material which is said to be in the public domain. There is no sunsetting of plagiarism. If you discover a long-lost additional Goldberg variation and submit it as your own work in connection with your doctorate degree in music, you will go home without a piece of parchment. But you don't have to worry about Bach's ghost suing you. Finally, and relatedly, attribution is a complete defense to plagiarism, but it is of no help in copyright.