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

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.

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.

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.

“Be a Clown” and “Make ‘em Laugh.”

Discuss.

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.