Let it go lawsuit

You assume everyone knows what you're talking about?

i just listened to the Volar song and also think this guy may never have to work again....the chorus chords and phrasing are almost identical....Disney can afford this one....

Mister Matt said: "Hearing his song, I don't think the similarities are enough for a lawsuit against Disney. Not to mention, he'd still have to prove they were even familiar with his song at all. Suing Idina Menzel and Demi Lovato make zero sense, especially since the actual composer and lyricist don't seem to be named in the lawsuit. This is a play for money and publicity."

Not necessarily, Sam Smith had to pay Tom Petty and he claimed to not know the song.

He is getting a settlement.

Not necessarily, Sam Smith had to pay Tom Petty and he claimed to not know the song.

Sam Smith claimed it was a coincidence while immediately agreeing to a settlement giving Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne co-writing credits and a cut of the royalties. Settling is not the same as "had to pay", which sounds like a court judgment. It sounds like Sam immediately knew it would be a losing battle against a bigger machine. This new case is a VERY different suit. The money, power and notoriety are all behind Disney, not Jaime Ciero. Disney could simply pay him off to stop the publicity OR they could tie this up legally until he could no longer afford to continue the suit. Sam Smith saying a Tom Petty/Jeff Lynne songs is "coincidental" is not at all the same thing to saying Anderson & Lopez knowingly plagiarized a Spanish-language song from a Chilean pop singer. Perhaps Anderson & Lopez are wrapped up in the Disney language of the defendant, but the inclusion of Mendel and Lovato make me think this guy assumes he'll get a big settlement.

It reminds me of Repp vs. Lloyd Webber. There's a good summary of it here that goes into more detail about proving knowledge of the previous work as well as how much of the material needs to be proven identical. I agree that the two measures of Volar and Let It Go are curiously similar, but I'm not convinced it's enough to prove plagiarism. The rest of the composition is not immediately similar enough and would require technical composition expert analysis.

But how striking is it really to have a 4-note sequence in one song resembled a 6-note sequence in another song, with none of the rest of it overlapping musically, and none of it at all overlapping lyrically (not even in translation)? Isn't it like saying that two songs with the words "to the store" and no other overlap mean that one plagiarised the other? Or more cynically, 'our song uses the letters "th" next to each other several times, and so does theirs'? Can such a short run of similar notes with no other notes and no words being similar really be the basis of a finding of plagiarism? If so, it's a bit shocking. Especially since with only 12 notes to choose from and millions of songs out there, a few overlapping notes seems pretty much inevitable.

I love reading these threads when members like MM and Adam give such detailed knowledge about a subject I know nothing---thank you guys for your info.[seriously].

Well, this is interesting.

There is generally a three-year statute of limitations on copyright violation claims, and it has been more than three years since the film was released. Unless he was hiding under a rock, I don't know how he could claim he didn't have knowledge of the song for more than a year.

Music copyright cases are hecka interesting though, and can involve music mapping (pretty cool graphic designs) for the jury to try to see similarities and not just hear them.

Personally, I don't hear enough similarities, and just writing out a bit didn't see enough on paper either. But I'm not a music expert, so who knows. It is quite possible that Disney would calculate the costs of a trial and music experts, and then settle for that amount simply because it is more efficient. (For that reason, don't be too shocked when you hear things settle out of court: many cases do settle simply because--even if the defense has a really, REALLY strong case--it is costly to go to trial, so they may settle an action just to try to save some of that cost, without admitting liability).

I think AdamPeterson44 is right - I can't imagine this lawsuit leading to anything for the plaintiff. The chord progression used at the top of the choruses for both songs (which he is obviously suing over) is extremely common. The "I–V–vi–IV progression" can be found in hundreds of popular songs written over the last hundred years - songs from "Auld Lange Syne" to "Don't Stop Believing" to "Hello" by Adele. The melody of Ciero's song has similarities to Let It Go for the first two bars, but hardly enough material to imply plagiarism - I'd be shocked if Ciero got a penny from anyone.

I guess I have been hiding under a rock by how is Demi Lovato involved? When did she sing the song? Like enough for her to get mention in this? I always thought it was Menzel's song.

Updated On: 11/24/17 at 10:12 PM